HC Deb 05 February 1931 vol 247 cc2170-83

I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, to leave out the words "by any corporation or company."

The deletion of these words is designed to ensure that property belonging to, say, the Central Electricity Board or the Electricity Commissioners would be safeguarded.

Amendment agreed to.


I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, at the end, to insert the words: (c) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition for the purposes of Section one or Section two of this Act of any land which forms part of—

  1. (i) any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or land adjoining a dwelling-house, or garden attached thereto;
  2. (ii) any home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house;
  3. (iii) any woodland;
  4. (iv) any land cultivated for osiers;
  5. (v) any bolding of fifty acres or less in extent or of an annual value not exceeding one hundred pounds for the purposes 2171 of income tax where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that the holding is the principal means of livelihood of the occupier thereof;
  6. (vi) any land which is not used or not intended to be used for agricultural purposes."
This additional proviso is designed to place some limitation on the compulsory powers to acquire land for the purposes of this Bill. In the preceding proviso lands occupied for certain purposes are exempt from the land which the Minister is authorised to acquire compulsorily, for example, railways, docks, canals and water and other public undertakings, and so is any land which forms part of any common or town or village green, or which is a public park, garden or pleasure ground. This Amendment proposes to exempt other lands which are regarded as equally unsuitable for the purposes of the Ministry. First of all, it is proposed to exempt— any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or land adjoining a dwelling house or garden attached thereto. I attach great importance to that item on the list, because it is quite clear that such land should not be used for the purposes of this Bill. It would alter the whole feature of the country-side and the life of the people. Such land is not suitable for large-scale farming experiments and demonstration farms. The second item in the Amendment refers to any land which forms part of any home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house. Home farms are not usually of great extent, but, by and large, they are probably the best-farmed farms of any in the country. All those things come under the owner's immediate supervision, and ought not to be acquired under this Clause. The home farm is clearly something which should not be taken either for a large-scale farm experiment or for a demonstration farm because, in the great majority of cases, home farms are admirable illustrations of how farming should be conducted. I also propose that any woodland shall be exempted. I do not think that there is any power in this Bill allowing the Minister of Agriculture to experiment in forestry. At the same time, we do not want woodland to be acquired and trees removed wholesale under any experiments which the Minister may propose to make under this Bill. For these reasons, I hold that woodland should be exempted from the compulsory powers of acquisition.

My Amendment also proposes to exempt any land cultivated for osiers. It is very likely that in the near future we shall require to cultivate more land for osiers than we have done in the past; consequently there is no reason why that land should not be exempted. Paragraph (v) of my Amendment reads: (v) any holding of fifty acres or less in extent or of an annual value not exceeding one hundred pounds for the purposes of income tax where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that the holding is the principal means of livelihood of the occupier thereof; Probably, in the course of the day, we shall come to the second part of this Bill which is designed to set up a large addition to the number of smallholdings in the country. It would indeed be foolish if, under the part of the Bill with which we are now dealing, which authorises large-scale farming and experimental farms, we should at the same time authorise the Minister to acquire compulsorily land which is already in the hands of small cultivators for experimental farms. I do not want to see undone in this part of the Bill what the Minister proposes to do on a large scale in the next part of the Bill. I think all holdings of 50 acres or less in extent should be immune from this part of the Bill. The last proposal of my Amendment is to exclude any land which is not used or not intended to be used for agricultural purposes. Up to the present we have not been successful in placing any restrictions on the Minister with regard to large-scale farming, and I do not want to see any experiments carried out which would take over a great area of land which is not intended to be used for agricultural purposes. I do not think there will be any difficulty experienced in finding large areas of land in any county, whether it is clay land, light land or loam which is required. The effect of this Amendment is to limit the Minister's discretion as to what kind of land he can compulsorily acquire for the purposes of Part I and Part II of the Bill. That is the purpose of my Amendment. We made a similar proposal in Committee upstairs, but we were not successful in getting it adopted. I hope that the House will now take a more kindly view of this proposal.


I beg to second the Amendment.

To take away the kind of land mentioned in this Amendment or land attached to a house would be a great disaster, and the value of the whole property might be very much depreciated by taking away certain kinds of land for agricultural purposes. I myself have a doubt as to the advisability of excluding woodland. There is land which is sometimes covered by soft timber near which there often is land suitable for the creation of poultry farms. There is often near woodland a certain quantity of land which is of little value for woodland purposes, but which might be of considerable value for other purposes such as poultry farming. With regard to land cultivated for osiers, I think such laud ought to be left out of the operation of this Measure. As to excluding holdings of 50 acres or less, such holdings are generally held by small men who are largely dependent for their success on being able to obtain cheap labour. The removal of such people from their holdings might be a very serious thing, and might have the effect of driving them to other occupations.

Many smallholdings are successful simply because they have the advantage of employing cheap labour at a very much less cost than the Government will allow anybody else to employ labour. That is the real reason why they have an advantage over the large farmer. Many smallholders have, by their own industry, and the industry of members of their own family, worked up a very good business in the home market, and although it may be argued that these people would receive compensation, my point is that no compensation is adequate for the loss inflicted upon them by taking them away from their own local market where they are known. Besides this, there is a great sentimental feeling for the home and the smaller the holding the greater the sentiment attached to it. We do not want to interfere with the sentimental feeling which attaches to the old home of a smallholder. For these reasons, I support this Amendment, and I hope the Minister of Agri- culture will be able to give us some assurance that the points we have placed before him will be met in some form in the Bill.


This is an Amendment which was fully discussed upstairs. In regard to one part of it, I owe the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) an apology for what actually occurred last night. I do not think it ought to be assumed that the Government will be any more unreasonable in regard to these matters than other people. In 99 cases out of 100 those who buy properties on behalf of the Government behave like ordinary human and sensible people, and it ought not to be assumed that the Ministry of Agriculture is going to do anything more unreasonable than would be done by an ordinary private person.


The difference is that the Minister has compulsory powers.


Part of this Amendment was referred to last night. The Amendment provides that the State shall be precluded from buying certain bits of land. Is it reasonable that a buyer who wants a, farm should not be able to buy the home farm which, from the point of view of transport, being in a central position, is necessarily of great importance? What is the good of providing for the purchase of certain areas of land if you are going to say that the Government should not be allowed to buy this or that bit.


Look at my home farm! I have two rabbits.

6.0 p.m


In a number of estates for sale there is generally a place known as the home farm. It is true that an owner may say, in the case which is set out in the Schedule, that if it is desired to buy his land, he will not sell it without the house, but that the whole must be bought. That is fair, and it is provided for in the Schedule. This Amendment, also, would preclude our buying any woodland. Why should that be so? It might be very useful to have a spinney or wood which could be cut down for the purposes of the holding, and it is quite egregious that we should be prevented from acquiring a little bit of woodland in that way.

With regard to osiers, which are a favourite interest of the hon. Member for Barnstaple, the other day I was down at the Rothamsted Research Station, and, if the hon. Member would pay a visit to Rothamsted, he would see there a demonstration of the fact that further investigational work is very desirable in regard to osiers. For instance, there is a. particular insect—I do not know what the name of it is—which bites at the top of the osier, and the result is that, instead of growing to a long willowy rod as it should do, it branches out and is of no use for the purpose for which osiers are grown. I can assure the hon. Member that, if he will go to Rothamsted, he will come back a, champion of this Bill and regret that he moved this Amendment.

As to the question of holdings of 50 acres or less, this Bill, as a matter of fact, puts a more onerous obligation upon the Minister than rests upon any private individual, because, in consequence of Amendments which were made in Committee, if we dispossess a man from a holding by its acquisition under this Bill we have to provide him with another holding if he wants it. That is all right, and I am not complaining at all. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that there is no particular reason for excluding such holdings in the case of estates which we may buy, since the holder has much better security than before, but there is no reason why we should be precluded from acquiring the land as part of an ordinary business proposition.

With regard to paragraph (vi) of the Amendment, which refers to land which is not being used for agricultural purposes, I would ask why in the world that should be excluded? I expect, judging from what the Forestry Commissioners have to give for land of this kind, that it would not cost much, and there may be patches of this, so to speak, scrub land which a very enterprising Ministry of Agriculture could manage as a demonstration farm, and so, as I hope will be the case, bring into use a great deal of land which may now be regarded as useless. Anyhow, they ought to have a chance of doing so. It would not cost much, and it is quite absurd to exclude the purchase of such land—it is not business.

Colonel ASHLEY

I should have been more impressed with the argument of the Minister if it were very difficult at the present moment to buy agricultural land in this country. If land were so rare and expensive that it would be very difficult to purchase it at a moderate price, and the Minister might be held up to ransom by grasping landlords or smallholders, who would prevent him from getting this land for his large-scale experiments, I could understand his argument; but that is not the case. We contended earlier in the discussions on the Bill that without any compulsion at all the Minister would have got, at very reasonable prices, all the land that he could possibly need. I must not argue whether we should have compulsion or not, because it has already been decided that the Minister shall have compulsory powers, but I consider that those compulsory powers are quite unnecessary, and that he could get his land by voluntary agreement. We are, however, now dealing with the injustice that may be caused by the exercise of these compulsory powers. If the House gives to the Minister compulsory powers to purchase land, I think the House is perfectly entitled to say to him, "You may have these compulsory powers, but we will bind you down not to do so-and-so and so-and-so."

I hope that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment will not mind my saying that I do not think the osier beds and one or two of the other items really matter very much one way or the other; probably he thinks so himself. But I do feel rather strongly on the question of smallholdings. That is a definite case where a man who has spent all his life on his smallholding, where his father and grandfather may quite possibly have spent all their lives, where they may have been in possession for 200 years, and they may be compulsorily expropriated. It is no answer for the Minister to say that such people will get ample compensation. Ample compensation does not make up for the violence done to sentiment and to the love of the soil which is implanted in many people in this country. We know how difficult it has been in the past in Ireland, though ample compensation was offered to the smallholder, to get him to emigrate—that he would say, "No; I would rather have a hand-to-mouth existence on the land where I was born and where my fathers have lived, and I will not take gold in order to go abroad, even though I may better myself." Again, it is no answer to say that the cases in which a smallholder may be compulsorily expropriated will be few. I do not care even if there are no more than one or two; you have no right to inflict possible injustice upon a man whose sole means of livelihood is his smallholding, who was born there and wants to die there. In view of the fact that there is so much land going begging in Great Britain, I cannot see why the Minister cannot, at any rate as far as smallholdings are concerned, accept the Amendment and prevent a possible injustice.


I want to put in a word for the osier. The right hon. Gentleman was rather brief in dealing with this question, because he said that a great deal of work remains to be done in connection with the pests and diseases of osiers. I quite agree with him that this Amendment represents rather a "mixed bag," but I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken that the smallholders have the strongest case. With regard to osiers, however, I understand that a definite request has been made that existing osier beds should be excluded. If the right hon. Gentleman wants land, either for large-scale farming or for demonstration farms—and the whole of this Amendment deals simply with experimental farming—if the right hon. Gentleman wants land for these purposes, and wants it so acquisitively that he is not prepared to leave it to the corporation to negotiate as an ordinary buyer in the market, but is himself going, as Minister, to acquire it compulsorily, I would ask him to leave the existing osier beds alone. If he desires to have a new Ministry of Agriculture demonstration osier farm, I would beg him not to go and buy compulsorily one of these existing osier farms, down in the west country. This industry is a very special one, which for generations has been associated with the basket-making industry, and while, no doubt, scientific work is wanted, I do think that, as they have asked to be excluded from the compulsory operations of the Minister, he should not take the existing osier beds of one of these long-established growers, but should try on his own account, on fresh land, to show how very much better it can be done by the Ministry of Agriculture.

I agree that paragraph (vi) of this proposed Amendment is quite unimportant. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have a "bonanza" farm, as we now call it, on land that is not used or intended to be used for agricultural purposes, let him try, though we do not think that it is in the least likely to be a practical proposition. But the case of the smallholder is a very strong one. It is no use the Minister saying that he is going to try a large-scale farming experiment and sweep away a lot of smallholders whose principal means of livelihood are their smallholdings, giving them land elsewhere with which to start again to establish new market connections and so on. All through the proceedings on this Bill, we on this side of the House have emphasised the fact that our main objection to this Bill is that very proposal, and we shall lose no opportunity of recording our continued objection to clearing people off the land and joining holding to holding in order to make these large-scale farms. Therefore, we propose to divide the House on this Amendment.


May I just intervene for the purpose of protesting once more against the misrepresentation of which the right hon. Gentleman was unconsciously guilty in the last part of his speech? I object to this Amendment because it would preclude the acquisition of holdings which might lie in the middle of an estate, but the provisions with regard to large-scale farming include words which were put in deliberately, and which have been defended explicitly on the ground that they provide for the continuance of smallholdings which happen to be there. No reasonable person would ever contemplate the wholesale sweeping away which the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe, although he himself knows perfectly well that it would not be so, is a normal occurrence in matters of this kind. I will undertake to say that the security of tenure enjoyed by a holder of land acquired in these circumstances will be vastly better than before.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been learning lessons at Rothamsted. He quoted Rothamsted as an authority as to why it would be right to interfere with osier beds, but Sir John Russell, the director of the Rothamsted Research Station, said nothing of the sort, nor is that his opinion at all. In point of fact, one of the reasons why English home farms are run on such good lines is because of the close touch that there is between them and the Rothamsted experiments, and the help that they get from Sir John Russell. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government would not be unreasonable in regard to these home farms, mansion houses, and so forth, but, if it is necessary to exclude the compulsory acquisition of such land when it is in the occupation of local authorities, because they are afraid that he might be unreasonable, why is it not equally natural that home farms under private management should be excluded in the same way?

If there is anything in this Bill at all, it lies in two points, which are that it is going to help employment, and that it is going to help agriculture. One thing that is perfectly certain is that the home farm and the mansion and pleasure grounds give more employment than any amount of farming or other agricultural land, and more than any Government farm would give. The most valuable help in the Bill would be to let those places which are giving more employment exist as they are at present. If you come to agriculture, it cannot be denied that the home farm is the best farm and gives the most employment. The home farm is better farmed and experiments are carried out there which make this Bill perfectly useless. If the money was spent in helping Rothamsted and home farms, it would be better both for agriculture and for employment. Anyone who wants to help unemployment in agriculture must accept the Amendment.


I am very much obliged to hon. Members opposite for giving us a lesson in confiscation, the idea being that the Government are doing wrong by buying up property. Some of us believe we ought to take it, because it is our own country, and we have a right to take the country, in the same way as we confiscate other people's countries when in times of danger we go to war. The arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite seem most ridiculous. I come from a constituency where 800 families have got to move out because we have a great improvement in connection with a new dock road scheme, and they have no compensation. The only thing they get is alternative accommodation with, on the average, a 4s. increase in their rent. They muster for work at the docks twice a day, and they will have to travel more and pay increased fares.

I do not understand why there should be this difference of feeling as between the town worker and the land worker. Cannot hon. Members understand that they are all part and parcel of the same community? Our friends opposite are always talking about the rural situation. They never seem to realise the position of the worker in the town. We in the East End are up against the same proposition that you are talking about. We claim that it is a national matter and not a local question belonging to any county or town. If this Bill is going to make it better for the whole country and give people a chance to develop agriculture, it is worth having. Some people have spoken as though it was only to help a certain section of the agricultural community.

The land is not supposed to be bought. I should not like to see it bought. I should like to see it taken, but I am a compromiser. I am very generous. When we want to buy a bit of land to build houses in West Ham, land which we could buy 40 years ago for £40 an acre, we now pay £600 an acre to the patriots who talk about land as though they were the land. What do home parks and home farms matter to us? We have no home farms or home parks. If it is necessary for public purposes that their land should be taken, it ought to be taken. [Interruption.] You could do the same as I do and have a six-foot backyard. You have one advantage over us. You can always shift somewhere else, but we have to stop where we are. We cannot afford to keep chauffeurs and motor cars. Yet you object to your land being bought. I hope the day will come when we shall object to buying it off you, and when we shall do the same as you have done so often in pinching the land from the people.

This House of Commons has been used to take land away from the people, and now, when we offer to buy it, we are told we must not even be allowed to buy it, but that we must leave it with those who have pinched it. The Minister is not to take anything unless he is allowed by an arbitrator. We know who the arbitrator will be. The court will be in Hell and the Devil will be the presiding magistrate. You will get your full pound of flesh. You need not be afraid. The landlord's interest will be well

looked after and the smallholder is the decoy duck. He is the man behind the scenes. He is always trotted out, like the widow and orphan. I hope you will suffer more in the future than you have ever done in the past.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 243.

Division No. 128.] AYES. [6.25 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Albery, Irving James Eden, Captain Anthony Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Edmondson, Major A. J. O'Connor, T. J.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) O'Neill, Sir H.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Everard, W. Lindsay Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Athoil, Duchess of Falle, Sir Bertram G. Peake, Capt. Osbert
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Ferguson, Sir John Penny, Sir George
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Fermoy, Lord Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Fison, F. G. Clavering Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Balniel, Lord Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Power, Sir John Cecil
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Ganzoni, Sir John Pownall, Sir Assheton
Beaumont, M. W. Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Ramsbotham, H.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Bird, Ernest Roy Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Boothby, R. J. G. Gunston, Captain D. W. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hail, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich) Ross, Major Ronald D.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Boyce, Leslie Haslam, Henry C. Salmon, Major I.
Bracken, B. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bralthwaite, Major A. N. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Brass, Captain Sir William Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Briscoe, Richard George Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Savery, S. S.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Buchan, John Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Skelton, A. N.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Butler, R. A. Kindersley, Major G. M. Somervilie, A. A. (Windsor)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Knox, Sir Alfred Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Campbell, E. T. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Castle Stewart, Earl of Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.) Little, Sir Ernest Graham Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Liewellin, Major J. J. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Chapman, Sir S. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Tinne, J. A.
Christle, J. A. Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Long, Major Hon. Eric Train, J.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Lymington, Viscount Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Colville, Major D. J. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Turton, Robert Hugh
Courtauld, Major J. S. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Cranborne, Viscount Margesson, Captain H. D. Warrender, Sir Victor
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Marjoribanks, Edward Wayland, Sir William A.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Wells, Sydney R.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Meller, R. J. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Withers, Sir John James
Dalkeith, Earl of Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Womersley, W. J.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Muirhead, A. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Duckworth, G. A. V. Nelson, Sir Frank Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain
Euan Wallace.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Attlee, Clement Richard Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Ayles, Walter Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Benson, G.
Ammon, Charles George Barnes, Alfred John Birkett, W. Norman
Angell, Sir Norman Barr, James Blindell, James
Arnott, John Batey, Joseph Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Aske, Sir Robert Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Bowen, J. W.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Brockway, A. Fenner Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Bromley, J. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Phillips, Dr. Marion
Brooke, W. Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Pole, Major D. G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Kelly, W. T. Potts, John S.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Pybus, Percy John
Buchanan, G. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Burgess, F. G. Kirkwood, D. Raynes, W. R.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Knight, Holford Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Cameron, A. G. Lang, Gordon Rlley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Cape, Thomas Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.) Lathan, G. Ritson, J.
Charleton, H. C. Law, Albert (Bolton) Romeril, H. G.
Chater, Daniel Law, A. (Rossendale) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Clarke, J. S. Lawrence, Susan Rowson, Guy
Cluse, W. S. Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour. Lawson, John James Salter, Dr. Alfred
Compton, Joseph Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Daggar, George Leach, W. Sanders, W. S.
Dalton, Hugh Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.) Sandham, E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Sawyer, G. F.
Day, Harry Lees, J. Scott, James
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lloyd, C. Ellis Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Devlin, Joseph Logan, David Gilbert Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Longbottom, A. W. Sherwood, G. H.
Dukes, C. Longden, F. Shield, George William
Ede, James Chuter Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Edmunds, J. E. Lunn, William Shillaker, J. F.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Simmons, C. J.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Foot, Isaac McElwee, A. Sitch, Charles H.
Freeman, Peter McEntee, V. L. Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) McKinlay, A. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) MacLaren, Andrew Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Gill, T. H. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Glassey, A. E. MacNeill-Weir, L. Snell, Harry
Gossling, A. G. McShane, John James Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gould, F. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Mander, Geoffrey le M. Stamford, Thomas W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Mansfield, W. Stephen, Campbell
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Marcus, M. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Markham, S. F. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Groves, Thomas E. Marley, J. Strauss, G. R.
Grundy, Thomas W. Marshall, Fred Sutton, J. E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Mathers, George Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Matters, L. W. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Maxton, James Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Melville, Sir James Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Messer, Fred Tinker, John Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Middleton, G. Townend, A. E.
Harbord, A. Mliner, Major J. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Hardie, George D. Morley, Ralph Vaughan, David
Harris, Percy A. Morris, Rhys Hopkins Viant, S. P.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Walkden, A. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Walker, J.
Haycock, A. W. Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Watkins, F. C.
Hayday, Arthur Mort, D. L. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hayes, John Henry Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Muggeridge, H. T. Wellock, Wilfred
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, s.) Murnin, Hugh Westwood, Joseph
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Naylor, T. E. White, H. G.
Herriotts, J. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Oldfield, J. R. Wilson, C, H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hoffman, P. C. Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Hopkin, Daniel Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)
Horrabin, J. F. Palin, John Henry Wise, E. F.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Paling, Wilfrid
Hunter, Dr. Joseph Palmer, E. T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Isaacs, George Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Mr. Ben Smith and Mr. Thurtle.
John, William (Rhondda, West) Perry, S. F.