HC Deb 05 February 1931 vol 247 cc2241-55

I beg to move, in page 17, line 19, at the end, to insert the words: (3) As respects any expenditure defrayed for the purposes mentioned in this section before the date of the commencement of this Act out of moneys provided by Parliament and paid into the smallholdings account before that date, this section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the seventeenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty. The House will remember that with the concurrence of the Committee upstairs and of the House here, a special case was made to allow us to have a, Vote which would enable us to provide for allotment holders, to get along with work which it was agreed must be done within a certain time owing to the weather. It was agreed that when this Bill came into the House, words should be inserted in it for the regularising of that action, and these are the words which require to be inserted. It is no additional cost, but merely brings the expenditure in respect of these allotments into line with the general provisions of the Bill.

Viscount WOLMER

I do not wish to oppose this Amendment at all, but simply to get some information from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. It is a rather unusual Sub-section. It amounts to this, that the right hon. Gentleman has spent certain sums of money without the necessary Parliamentary authority. He had the authority of the Estimates, but not the authority of this Bill. We quite sympathise with the desire of the Minister to get on with the work, and I do not wish to criticise unduly what he has done, but I think he owes it to the House just to tell us what he has done in this respect, approximately what sums he has spent, and exactly what the actions are that the Sub-section is intended to cover. I think it would be courteous on his part if he would let the House know what it is that he is asking us to validate and approximately how much money has been spent by him in this respect.


I should like to re-enforce the request of the Noble Lord for further information, and I think the House should take notice of what is being done here. We had a considerable discussion on this very extraordinary attitude taken up by the Government when they asked for this expenditure to be sanctioned by a Vote without any Bill being before Parliament to authorise the expenditure. After adopting that very unusual course, which they admitted was unusual, after adopting the remarkable course of getting expenditure sanctioned by a Vote in Committee without any Bill before Parliament, they then introduced a Bill and got it through Committee before they had any part of that Bill authorising that particular expenditure. It seems to me a very sad reflection that in these days of financial stringency the Government of this country should be so careless in regard to expenditure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If hon. Members opposite will listen, I was saying that having resorted to what they themselves said was a most unusual expedient, which ought not to be adopted except in emergency, an expedient which they then said would require to be sanctioned in a Bill which they would introduce, they then forget all about the thing, and overlook it, and bring before Parliament and pass through Committee a Bill which leaves out the authority which they require, and they have to put it in on the Report stage. I have no more to say about it than that, but I hope that those people in the country who are interested, as they ought to be, in these financial matters at the present time, will notice this as another case of the extraordinary carelessness in all matters of expenditure and Parliamentary control over expenditure on the part of the present Government.

Captain BOURNE

I do not wish to oppose this new Sub-section, but I desire to protest against it, because I fear that it may be made into a precedent. I wish to protest against the action taken by the Government in incurring expenditure by a Supplementary Estimate without first having brought in a Bill authorising it and without having got the sanction of an Act of Parliament for that expenditure. It is a thoroughly bad constitutional practice. Our usual practice is that when a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament the Government will obtain the money from the House of Commons, but so long as there is an uncertainty as to whether the Bill ever will reach the Statute Book, no financial commitments should be undertaken in regard to it. In this case there was, I admit, an emergency, and we are prepared, because of the emergency, to pass it over on this occasion, but unless a protest is made, I feel certain that future Governments will merely drag this in as a precedent for departing further and further from our constitutional procedure.


I do not object to the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) raising a protest against this exception to our normal procedure, though I cannot accept by any means all that he said in regard to it. It was well understood. It was not due to any carelessness or sloppiness on the part of the Government that the grant was required, and raised, with the full consent of all parties, before Christmas. It was due to the weather and the time of year, and unless we had been able to get authority to get started with the work, we should have run the risk of a great deal of delay. It was not because I was careless, but because of the weather, and if the hon. Member had been here, he must have known it quite well.


Was it the weather that prevented the right hon. Gentleman from putting this Clause in the Bill before it went to the Committee?


The Clause was in the Bill all right, and the Committee very kindly—and I express my thanks to all parties—facilitated its passage before it would normally have been reached in order to enable us to get that Vote. It was there all right, but the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I wonder if the Minister has looked at the picture which is in the gallery where the public come in. There he will see Cromwell, in the name of the King, demanding money from Parliament—[Interruption.]


You mean Wolsey.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

We have a modern instance here—the Minister of Agriculture, at the head of his officials, demanding money from Parliament. In the instance depicted in the picture, the Speaker refused to give way to the command of the King until the question of giving money had been discussed and passed. The present case is a modern illustration of the power of the bureaucracy. Here is Parliament apparently helpless, and we want to make a stand against the modern bureaucracy. What is the position of the Minister if we do not pass this? I should imagine that if some common informer took proceedings, he might even get the right hon. Gentleman's head chopped off. While we are dealing with this in a lighter vein than it deserves, Parliament and the country should realise how much power is getting into the hands of the bureaucracy of this country. Before the War it would have been impossible for Ministers to begin spending money until the Bill authorising it had been passed by Parliament. Now they spend many thousands of pounds voted to them, and trust to slipping through a Sub-section of this kind. I protest against it, although this may be a small matter, this procedure under a Socialist Government can easily grow. I think there is great danger in it, and perhaps on some future occasion we shall look back to the warning given now. If anybody wishes to oppose this proposal, I shall be very glad to join in doing so.


I rise for a moment to reply to the request that was put to me by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), which I in advertently overlooked at the time. I must submit myself to the chastisement of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), with which I have no time to deal now. As I have not had notice of the Noble Lord's question, I am afraid I have not got the precise details for which he asked, but I will arrange to collect them so as to be able to make a statement on the Third Reading.


I do not feel inclined to let the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) get away with the extraordinary speech he has just made as lightly as the Minister has done. The parallel he used was extraordinarily badly chosen, because while I will not discuss for the moment what happened to Cardinal Wolsey when he demanded the money, the sad thing about Sir Thomas More who, on behalf of the Commons—he was then Speaker of the House—refused the money, was that later on, although not for that reason, he lost his head. That is not an encouraging thing for those who seek to guard the public purse in this House. I can only imagine that the hon. and gallant Member when he goes through St. Stephen's Chapel and looks at that particular picture sees the red cloak, and sees so red that he can see nothing else. With regard to the point at issue, the fact is that the Minister, with the hearty assent of all parties in the Committee, did what we are often told we cannot do in this House. It is often said that the machinery of the House is too slow. That criticism is ill-founded. The question needs to be asked, "Do you think it should be easier to make new laws?" The answer would be, "Yes,' when I am going to make them, and 'No' when the other man is proposing to make them." In this case it was perfectly easy to create a precedent and make the machine run easily, and I am very glad that the Minister has proved that the machine could run easily and do what is a very valuable thing for many men who will be using the land when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.


Until the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) I had been rather worried as to the position of the Minister under this new Sub-section, because some of my learned Friends around me had been assuring me that in the event of this Act failing to pass, or our failing to pass this particular new Sub-section, the right hon. Gentleman would be liable to impeachment. The Bill is a long way from becoming law, although it is quite likely that this particular Sub-section may pass. We cannot say it will pass, but there is every likelihood of it, though the Minister has been rather rough in his treatment of the House of Commons and of the Committee upstairs, and there are always dangers ahead of a Minister who behaves in that way. I rise, however, merely for the purpose of adding my protest against ante-dating in this particular case. If there could have been a small Bill dealing with this question, and this question only, the House would have passed it quickly, but that could not be—or rather it was not so, for it could have been so—and, therefore, we have got into this dangerous position.

Another point in connection with this particular Sub-section is that all the blame for this has been put upon the Minister by my hon. and non-learned Friend behind me and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford City (Captain Bourne). That is not right or just, and the whole blame should be put on the Chancellor of the Exchequer who ought to be here to answer these questions. Over and over again the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed this kind of thing to creep into our legislation, and, in common fairness, the right hon. Gentleman should be here to justify this course.

Amendment agreed to.


I beg to move, in page 17, line 19, at the end, to insert the words: (3) This section shall remain in force until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, and no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines. The Clause we are discussing gives power to the Minister to make grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, ferti- lisers and equipment for unemployed persons. This proposal has been justified on the ground of the urgency of the needs of the unemployed. I think there is a general desire on all sides not to place any obstacles in the way of the unemployed obtaining allotment facilities. This Amendment would limit these proposals to March, 1932, and I think it is right that they should be so limited, because then, if it is found necessary, the grants could be extended by including these provisions in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which is provided for by the words "no longer unless Parliament otherwise determines." The Government of 1932 could consider the then state of unemployment, and the need for keeping alive these special facilities. Although it is quite right to provide that the unemployed should have the benefit of these allotment facilities under these emergency powers, I think this is a matter which should come under the supervision of Parliament in two years time. At the expiration of that period, if the Government should feel that there is a case for extending these provisions, they could do so by bringing the matter before Parliament by means of the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.


I am certain that on fuller consideration the right hon. Gentleman will see that this Amendment is unduly restrictive and entirely unnecessary, and that it serves no useful purpose. By Clause 16, the Minister, in accordance with regulations to be approved by the Treasury, may make loans or grants, not to individuals, but to local authorities or to societies, to enable them to assist unemployed persons, only for so long as they are unemployed, with fertilisers, seeds and so on. I can scarcely conceive of a more useful Clause, but, while it is true that the right hon. Gentleman does not challenge the purpose of the Clause, he asks that the period of its operation should be limited to the 31st March, 1932, and that thereafter the Government of the day, if they should desire to continue it, should be compelled to do so through the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The present Government do not take that view. We are asking Parliament to give to the Minister power to do what Ministers should have had power to do long ago—to assist unem- ployed men to make the fullest possible use of unemployed land in this country. This is only a very small fragment of that work, and we believe that it should not be restricted in any way. We, therefore, resist the Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY

The speech of the Under-Secretary for Scotland confirms me in my opinion that the Government have entirely made up their minds that the present unemployment, which has more than doubled during the 20 months that they have been in office, must be regarded as a permanent feature of our public life. We on this side of the House do not take that view, knowing that we shall be in office in the autumn of this year, when we shall put forward measures to deal with unemployment, and shall hope and trust that this exceptional Measure will be unnecessary—that it will not be permanently necessary to pour out money in this way to deal with 2,500,000 of unemployed, but that the unemployment figures will be decreasing, and that, possibly after one year or two years, this provision can be usefully dropped out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Under-Secretary did not say so, but apparently he visualises permanent unemployment to this extent, and he says that therefore we must have a permanent Measure to deal with 2,500,000 or 2,750,000 unemployed. Our view is that, if the Government would do something, or leave it to us to do something, this expenditure of public money, whether from the taxes or from the rates, would be unnecessary, and that, after this provision had been put once in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, we should be able to drop it, because there would not be the unemployment that now exists.


Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his promise that, if this provision be placed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, his friends in another place will pass it?


I want to call attention to a very curious statement of the Under-Secretary for Scotland. He said these are powers that he ought to have had long ago, when unemployment was normal. Was it then the normal function of the State to spend the taxpayers' money in providing seeds and manures for all who required them? This extraordinary provision is justified only by the present emergency of unemployment, and the fact that they are bringing this forward as a permanent provision shows what is their outlook as to the future of unemployment in the eventuality of their continuing long in office. In the normal state of things, if this Amendment were accepted, the provision would not have to be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act for more than one year in order to see the last of the present Government, and that would be ample provision for the exceptional unemployment which the country is getting accustomed to as part of what they have to pay for having a Socialist Government in office. We admit the emergency. It is so desperate that even the taxpayer may be called upon to provide seeds and manures so that the unemployed may have something to go on with. But that is not the normal state of affairs. It is not how we expect things to be in the future. If there ever was justification for an exceptional provision being continued only as long as it is required in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill it is this, and I can see no reason why the Government resist it.


I feel some difficulty as to the line of action I shall take if this Amendment proceeds to a Division. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite seldom allow their brains to work very hard in order to concentrate on a serious issue, but I should like to compliment the Minister on the attention he has given, up to a point, to the very serious issues which have been raised in this Amendment. I should like to make some suggestion of a compromise. It is obvious that the very serious unemployment problem is at the back of the Bill. The Minister would not have introduced it had he not been confronted with the very serious issue of unemployment, and the Government can bring forward no other Measure to reduce it than this. I give him my entire sympathy with the way he has conducted a very small Measure for the benefit of the unemployed. But I cannot believe that he is realising that the present state of unemployment is going to continue throughout the regime of the Government. This is an expensive Measure which is going to take money from the taxpayers. If he thinks one year is too short a time to try it, he can, at all events, put some limit to the time the taxpayers have to contribute to what is going to be a most expensive scheme for them.

After all, hon. Members opposite are spending taxpayers' money—[Interruption.] The Labour party, and I say it with the greatest possible respect, do not care two hoots. The right hon. Gentleman sitting at the Ministry of Agriculture is entitled to the support of the Liberal party. They sit here every day in larger numbers, and they support him in voting hundreds of thousands of pounds of the taxpayers' money to which they have contributed very little. I ask the Minister at this juncture to say to the House of Commons, "I am prepared to give my scheme a trial for so many years." If the right hon. Gentleman does not like it, he need not smile in that superior way.


I was smiling at the suggestion of the hon. Member that I had so many years' service.


Let me disillusion the right hon. Gentleman. I regard his tenure of office as by no means certain. At all events, I think he has one chance in this Bill, and he can put his mark upon the agricultural history of the last few days for a definite period. I am trying to be as complimentary to him as I can, and I suggest that a fair compromise in the House of Commons would be a limit of time to prove whether his scheme is right or wrong.


I regret that the Minister cannot accept the Amendment, and if he continues his present attitude and it is put to the vote, I am afraid that I shall have to vote against him. I want to make it clear why I shall do so. There are two principles involved here. There is one principle of giving necessary assistance to the men who require it for this purpose, that is to say, seeds. I do not think that there is an individual in the House who objects to that principle being applied. What we object to most strongly is the making of permanent legislation for the purpose. The principle we ought to adopt is to retain for Parliament the right of exercising control over the money. The Minister said that there would be a safeguard in control by the Treasury. I object to that quite as much as I object to the other matter. After all, control by the Treasury does not mean control by Parliament. Parliament should not delegate to any financial Department or Departments control which it should itself retain. Consequently, I shall vote on the ground of retaining control and continuing the existing responsibility for legislation of this description.


If the provision of seeds and other necessaries had reference to smallholdings and not to allotments, I should not be in agreement with my right hon. Friend. In my view, and I wish to state it quite clearly, the provision for allotments should be narrowly restricted both in amount and time, especially with regard to the unemployed. To an unemployed man, as to anybody else, an allotment less than an acre can only be a toy. It would be no solution of his unemployment. Therefore, to give unlimited scope for expenditure on toys, when what is necessary for the unemployed is the provision of something which, if they do well, will give them a livelihood, will be a waste of time. There might be something to be said for a very temporary expenditure, although I think it would be very little, but it would not be relevant to discuss it now. I think it is unwise to spend money on allotments which are less than an acre in extent.

I am satisfied that expenditure for unemployed persons on allotments should be most strictly limited in time. For that

reason, I support the Amendment. It is no mere fantasy to suggest that an allotment is a toy. There is practically no example of any man being able to make a livelihood out of an allotment. The real problem is the problem of the permanently unemployed man. The report of the Industrial Transference Board shows that 200,000 unemployed miners can never find work again at their own trade. They will not find a livelihood on allotments. I maintain that any money beyond a certain limit spent on allotments reduces the amount that might be spent in settling men on holdings of a size that would give them a livelihood. Therefore, at a time of financial stringency, it is necessary to fix a limit of time in regard to the money that is to be spent in putting men on to what is merely a toy, instead of spending the money in giving them a size of holding where, if they are hard working, they will find a livelihood in place of the livelihood from which they are excluded by trade conditions. I hope the House will regard expenditure on allotments as merely an experiment, and I think my right hon. Friend is very wise in the kind of restriction that he has proposed in his Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 227.

Division No. 131.] AYES. [10.48 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cranborne, Viscount Haslam, Henry C.
Albery, Irving James Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Alien, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro) Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hudson, Capf. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Athoil, Duchess of Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hurd, Percy A.
Atkinson, C. Dalkeith, Earl of Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Kindersley, Major G. M.
Balniel, Lord Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) Knox, Sir Alfred
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Dixey, A. C. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Beaumont, M. W. Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Edmondson, Major A. J. Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Erekine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.) Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Bird, Ernest Roy Everard, W. Lindsay Long, Major Hon. Eric
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Ferguson, Sir John Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Boyce, Leslie Fison, F. G. Clavering Margesson, Captain H. D.
Brass, Captain Sir William Ford, Sir P. J. Marjoribanks, Edward
Briscoe, Richard George Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Buchan, John Ganzoni, Sir John Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Butler, R. A. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Muirhead, A. J.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Gower, Sir Robert Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Campbell, E. T. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. O'Connor, T. J.
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) Gunston, Captain D. W. O'Neill, Sir H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Peake, Captain Osbert
Clydesdale, Marquess of Hammersley, S. S. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Hanbury, C. Peto. Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Colville, Major D. J. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pownall, Sir Assheton
Courtauid, Major J. S. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Ramsbotham, H.
Remer, John R. Smithers, Waldron Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Rentoul, Sir Gcrvais S. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Somerville, D. G. (willesden, East) Warrender, Sir Victor
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Southby, Commander A, R. J. Wells, Sydney R.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut,-Colonel E. A. Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Salmon, Major I. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Womersley, W. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Thomson, Sir F.
Savery, S. S. Tinne, J. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Todd, Capt. A. J. Sir George Penny and Major the
Skelton, A. N. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement. Marquess of Titchfield.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Maxton, James
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Groves, Thomas E. Melville, Sir James
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Grundy, Thomas W. Messer, Fred
Ammon, Charles George Hall, F. [York, W.R., Normanton) Middleton, G.
Angell, Sir Norman Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mills, J. E.
Arnott, John Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Milner, Major J.
Aske, Sir Robert Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Morley, Ralph
Ayles, Walter Harbord, A. Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hardie, George D. Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Mort, D. L.
Barnes, Alfred John Hastings, Dr. Somerville Muggeridge, H. T.
Barr, James Haycock, A. W. Murnin, Hugh
Batey, Joseph Hayday, Arthur Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Hayes, John Harvey Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N)
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Herriotts, J. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Benson, G. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Birkett, W. Norman Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Palin, John Henry
Blindell, James Hoffman, P. C. Paling, Wilfrid
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Hopkin, Daniel Palmer, E. T.
Bowen, J. W. Hore-Sellsha, Leslie Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Perry, S. F.
Brockway, A. Fenner Hunter, Dr. Joseph Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Bromley, J. Isaacs, George Pethick-Lawrence, F. w.
Brooke, W. John, William (Rhondda, West) Phillips, Dr. Marion
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Johnston, Thomas Pole, Major D. G.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint) Potts, John S.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Pybus, Percy John
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Buchanan, G. Kelly, W. T. Rathbone, Eleanor
Burgess, F. G. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Raynes, W. R.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Kirkwood, D. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Caine, Derwent Hall- Lathan, G. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cameron, A. G. Law, Albert (Bolton) Ritson, J.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Law, A. (Rossendale) Romeril, H. G.
Charleton, H. C. Lawrence, Susan Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Chater, Daniel Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Rowson, Guy
Cluse, W. S. Lawson, John James Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Compton, Joseph Leach, W. Sanders, W. S.
Daggar, George Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Sandham, E.
Dallas, George Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Sawyer, G. F.
Dalton, Hugh Lees, J. Scott, James
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lloyd, C. Ellis Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Day, Harry Logan, David Gilbert Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Longbottom, A. W. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Longden, F Sherwood, G. H.
Dukes, C. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Shield, George William
Duncan, Charles Lunn, William Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Ede, James Chuter Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Simmons, C. J.
Edmunds, J. E. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) McElwee, A. Sitch, Charles H.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) McEntes, V. L. Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Elmley, Viscount McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Foot, Isaac McKinlay, A. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Forgan, Dr. Robert MacLaren, Andrew Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Freeman, Peter Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) McShane, John James Smith, w. R. (Norwich)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Mander, Geoffrey le M. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Gill, T. H. Mansfield, W. Stamford, Thomas W.
Glassey, A. E. Marcus, M. Stephen, Campbell
Gossling, A. G. Markham, S. F. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Marley, J. Strauss, G. R.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.) Marshall, Fred Sullivan, J.
Gray, Milner Mathers, George Sutton, J. E.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) walker, J. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.) Wallace, H. W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Watkins, F. C. Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Tinker, John Joseph Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Tout, W. J. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Wise, E. F.
Townend, A. E. Wellock, Wilfred
Vaughan, David West, F. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Viant, S. P. White, H. G. Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Thurtle.
Walkden, A. G. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, "That further Consideration of the Bill be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Addison.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Tuesday next, 10th February.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.