HC Deb 23 June 1931 vol 254 cc397-411

Resolution reported, That it is expedient—

  1. (a) to raise to one hundred and fifteen million pounds the limit on the amount of the advances to be made by the Treasury to the Unemployment Fund under Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1921, as amended by subsequent enactments, which may be outstanding during the deficiency period; and
  2. (b) to provide that the period of twelve months mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927 (which, as extended by subsequent enactments, is now a period of forty-two months), shall be further extended to forty-eight months; and
  3. (c) to authorise the payment into the Unemployment Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
    1. (i) such amounts as may be determined by the Minister of Labour, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to be approximately equivalent to the aggregate amount of the sums which from time to time become payable by way of benefit under Sub-section (2) of the said Section fourteen by virtue of the further extension as aforesaid of the said period; and
    2. 398
    3. (ii) an amount approximately equivalent to the expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour in administering the benefits which become payable as aforesaid."

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


The House is used by now to- the methods of the present Government, but it is extraordinary that we should be asked to vote, on the Report stage, a matter of £30,000,000 without having a word said from the Treasury Bench. Thirty million pounds may not seem much to hon. Members opposite, but it is just a quarter of our total national expenditure in 1906, and here we are asked to vote this sum without either the Minister of Labour or the Chancellor of the Exchequer being present. During the whole of the Debate on this Resolution the Lord Privy Seal, who, I understand, is primarily responsible for looking after the interests of the unemployed in this country, has not been present, and we have had no word of explanation from any competent Minister who was dealing with the thing from the angle of finding jobs for the unemployed.

The right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour read us a long discourse and delivered herself of many pieces of information on Monday, but she absents herself altogether this evening. When this matter was debated on Monday we constantly heard from the other side, especially from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who has not taken the trouble to take his place here on this occasion, the question, "What do you propose to do?" Our policy is perfectly clear in the matter of social insurance. We made it clear when we were in office with our widows' and old age pensions proposals. Our policy is one of helping people to help themselves—— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is significant and what one would expect that a remark of that sort should be met by the jeers of hon. Members opposite. They do not believe in helping oneself to anything but the public funds, and in that particular art they are masters. With the help of their allies below the Gangway here, they have every intention of enjoying the shower of gold that is now falling upon them. Our policy is one to help the people to help themselves, and it is the very opposite of the policy of 9d. for 4d., which was put forward by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and would no doubt be supported to-day by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).

I am glad that the Minister of Labour is now in her place, because I want to remind her of the expedient which she debated five years ago when she sat on a Committee which was examining this whole question, and I want to contrast what she endorsed in the report of that body with what she is doing now. In that report one finds several rather remarkable declarations of opinion. The first is this: Neither a surplus nor a deficit should reach unwieldy proportions. We recommend that there be an actuarial inquiry into the position of the fund every five years. It so happens that this Committee has sat in the fifth year after the Blancsburgh report: As the result of such inquiry any adjustments of contributions or benefits, or both, on the lines of the scheme which may appear necessary can be made. That is what the right hon. Lady thought in 1926 and 1927. That is what she put her name to. Now she says, "We can do nothing. We will take no steps. The fund may be insolvent. It is a pity, but we will take no steps until we have had further consultation and further reports on the whole question" She goes on to say in the Report: But all this shows how necessary it is that the fund shall be self-contained in fact and so designed as to convince everyone that the contributions to it really provide the benefits which it offers. Actuarial soundness is, we believe, expected and desired by all parties and we claim it for our proposal. We may again remark that, while we desire the benefits to be adequate, we should have hesitated to recommend even those proposed had they required contributions substantially in excess of those suggested. What events have taken place since 1926 to cause this complete turn on the right hon. Lady's part? There have been several. The first is that, when the report was issued, she got a thoroughly bad mark. She was hauled over the coals. She was castigated. How could a good Socialist put her name to such a report? Exactly the same thing happened in rather a different atmosphere. She was in power when this last report was issued. The Trade Union Congress, that power behind the throne, issued its veto. We had all been led to expect that the Government would pay a great deal of attention to the advice and the orders of the Trade Union Congress. After all, the people who pay the piper have some right to call the tune. But we did not expect that the Government would take their orders as they came and not even remonstrate with the body that was trying to divert them from the policy which they themselves had adumbrated. I have referred to the interesting address that the right hon. Lady gave the House and it is typical of her and her party that she should adopt a Micawber-like attitude. "I am confident that the tide will turn." It might be relevant to ask what steps they have taken to find out if the tide is going to turn, or if they have taken any measures to try to make the tide turn. It may be that a tide has turned or is turning. The figures of the bye-election which have come over the machine this evening give us good grounds for that opinion.

She referred at very great length to the report of some foreign economist, and said, speaking of foreigners as a whole, that they may well pause before they attack the financial integrity and the un- daunted character of the British people. I do not propose to dispute the second part of her statement. I believe that the character of the British people, in spite of the Government, is still undaunted, and that we shall survive all that they may do to us. But what about attacking our financial integrity, when we are here discussing a Budget which was unbalanced before the Finance Bill was read a Second time, and when we are making a financial arrangement, not for a sinking fund, but actually for a deficit? This iron Chancellor of ours, who had himself heralded throughout the Press of Europe, has turned into something much less implacable than iron. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was challenged by my right hon. Friend upon the experts' evidence. What did he say? He said that he did not repudiate it. He had seen it, but was not in a position to alter the evidence. How very annoying for him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to alter the evidence to be put before the Committee! If only that evidence had been coming from one of the other organisations, if only it had been coming from a loyal trade union, how different would have been the position! There would have been no question then of not altering the evidence which was to be presented. Finally, he said that the evidence was in no wise his, because it was the evidence of an expert. That is not an uninteresting remark to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country.

The right hon. Lady in her speech said that she would agree to no proposals which would put further burdens upon industry. But upon what are we engaged, and upon what have we been engaged day after day other than putting further burdens upon industry. She said she could not think of increasing the employers' contribution. Has she made an easy calculation in order to see what is the amount of the contribution? An employer employing 1,000 operatives would be asked to contribute £200 a year. Has she calculated or had calculated for her, what the Land Tax will amount to on a factory employing 1,000 people? The burden of which we relieved the industrialists by defeating the Education Bill is far greater than the burden which she declines with horror to inflict upon industrialists to-day. If she thinks this burden is not going to fall on industry, where does she imagine these £30,000,000 are going to come from? Is it to come from the sky? What sources of wealth have we in this country except the industry of the country? [Interruption.] Eventually it is from industry that this money has to be found, whether it is borrowed or raised by taxation. Every £1,000,000 she raises makes it so much harder for industrialists to borrow their thousands to carry on their industries.

The right hon. Lady said she was going to tackle this problem at once; that there must be no delay; that we must get straight on with the job. She said she hoped to pass this necessary Measure—a Measure on which she pretends this vote is dependant—during this Session. I understand this Session is going on until November. Does she mean she may not get this Bill until November? She takes six weeks to set up the Commission, and the Commission is to collaborate with her officials. They have to take evidence and make recommendations, and she has to take decisions on them. Where will we be when we get them? We will not be where we are; we cannot stop still. If we could stop where we are, we might be miserable, but we would not be desperate. The position is getting worse every day and every hour. We on this side protest most sincerely against this unwarranted delay. There is going to be six months' delay before these changes are put into operation. Nine months of this financial year may well pass before we get any decrease in the present rate of expenditure. The House and the country are aware of that. Everybody is aware of it except the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). He cannot afford to be aware of it. The whole plan is one gigantic hoax. It is possible to humbug the hon. Members opposite, because they do not object; it is possible to humbug some hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House, because they like it, but it is impossible to humbug the country, and it is wrong and immoral to humbug the unemployed. The right hon. Lady and her friends went to the country and obtained their mandates as friends of the people and the working man, but they are going down to posterity as the friends of the dole, the friends of idleness, and the enemies of all that is best in this country.


I want to make an emphatic protest against being at this late hour confronted with financial questions like this and the Government expecting them to go through without any discussion whatever. We have been considering for two or three weeks the details of the Finance Bill, to which there has been tacked on a Land Value Bill that might well have been left out. We have been monopolising the time of this House until late every night for the past two weeks, and now at this time we are asked to pass a Resolution which embodies no less a sum than £25,000,000. I think that this House should enter its most emphatic protest at such proceedings. I do not think the Government quite realise the position they have reached in the eyes of the general electorate of the country. The other week it was my privilege to preside over a meeting of a branch of the National Conservative League. [Interruption.] It won Sunderland for the Conservative cause. When the details of the year's working came to be presented by the treasurer, he said: "Mr. Chairman, I am glad to report a good year We have to report a balance of £2,000,000." He then paused and said: "I mean £2, but we have got so used to talk in millions now that we do not know whether it is pounds or millions." [Interruption.]

We are spending money in this House without any adequate consideration of it. As has been pointed out by the previous speaker, the amount is £25,000,000, and in the old days we would have spent a whole lot of time considering it. We are now asked in a few minutes to pass through the House, without consideration, this vast sum. We should protest with all the power that we can.

I would like to enter a second protest, because we are spending this money without adequately considering why we are spending it. We have been considering during the past day or two the question of unemployment insurance. We are not going to arrive at a solution by considering the question of whether we are to reduce unemployment benefit or increase the contributions. The truth is that until we get the figures of unemployment down to a workable condition this fund will never be redeemed from the position in which it is now. I have given considerable time, patience, and thought to every one of the Unemployment Insurance Bills passing through this House since 1922. I think it was in 1924 that the present Secretary of State for War told us that until the figures got down to 800,000 there would be no redemption for the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Minister of Labour said the day before yesterday that until the figures got down to 750,000 there would be no redemption for the fund. Not a word has been said regarding the redemption of the situation in which we find ourselves. We on this side of the House feel the impact of this very seriously. [Interruption.]

I want to draw the attention of the House to the pronouncement of no less an authority than Sir William Beveridge, in which he told the country very plainly—[Interruption]. During the period from 1921 to 1926 the average of unemployment was 13½ per cent., and we then carried a permanent 8½ per cent. above our pre-War figures. It has been increased now to 20.9 per cent. No one in this House can look at these figures without very serious consideration, especially in view of the fact that I have been devoting my attention for weeks and months to try and find a comparative position between this country and our competitors in Europe and elsewhere. Taking into consideration the position that has arisen since 1929, the truth is that further you get in your comparative figures there is no other competitor of ours that can show such a chronic state of unemployment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite jeer. I take this opportunity of challenging them on the point. Take the position of France. Today, according to the international figures given by the Ministry of Labour, she carries something like 77,000 people on the register. That is one-thirtieth of what we are carrying with the same population. In March she was only carrying 4.3 per cent. [Interruption.] The truth is that, however you compare it, this country is in a dire state. We have a two-fold problem. There is the problem of the chronic and permanent unemployment which we have carried since 1921, and there is the excess of 1,500,000 on top of that. When the world depression passes away, as surely it must pass away, this country will be found in a worse relative position than any other country. I protest against the procedure that has been adopted to-night and the inadequate time that has been left for the voting of this huge sum of money. The seriousness of the position——


Cheer up.


I have cheered up often enough, but I cannot stand by and see nearly every shipyard in my constituency, and on the Tyne as well, closed without attempting to make some substantial contribution to the solution of the problem. Therefore, I enter my protest against the action of the Government.


I wish to add my protest to that uttered by the hon. Member who has just spoken against the procedure of this House in voting £25,000,000 at this hour of the night without adequate discussion. The position of this country is, financially, becoming desperate. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but if they will only wait a few months they will not laugh. The amount we are voting to-night is £5,000,000 more than would be saved by the conversion of the £2,000,000,000 of 5 per cent. War Loan from a 5 per cent. to a 4 per cent. basis. The saving would be £20,000,000. I will ask the right hon. Lady, the Minister of Labour, this. She said that on no account would the Government be willing to lower the standard of living—I am interpreting her words, and I think she will agree that they are right—of the unemployed. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite cheer. I can tell them this, the hon. Lady knows—the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) knows it, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir Herbert Samuel) knows it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows it—that by doing this and going on adding to this debt on the Insurance Fund they are doing the thing which must inevitably end in lowering the standard of living of every single man, woman and child in this country, because they are destroying the national credit. If you destroy the national credit, what happens to your pound sterling? The cost of living will go up. These are facts which the Front Bench opposite, the Front Bench of the Liberal party, and the Front Bench of the Conservative party know perfectly well. It is a perfect scandal that we should go to bed to-night, having voted £25,000,000 more for this Insurance Fund, without any attempt being made to deal with the situation. We are doing a disservice to the country. We are betraying the masses of the people——[Interruption.]


I would only like some of our friends opposite who got up with such self-assurance to lecture us on economics and finance to look at themselves in the glass sometimes in order to understand their ignorance. We hear a lot of talk about the financial ruin of this country, and yet we know, although supposedly the country is on the basis of bankruptcy from the standpoint of our political opponents, that, as a matter of fact, the country was never richer than it is at the present moment. [Interruption.] I repeat—as a matter of fact, never richer. That is demonstrated by your returns for Income Tax. You do not tell the truth if you can help it. We find every year on the Income Tax returns given by yourselves, that your income has increased because of the development of the national wealth. Now we are asking for £25,000,000, and what do we discover? We find out that we have 2,500,000 unemployed poor. How many are rich unemployed? About 560,000, who return themselves as being men and women of independent means, and they know as well as we do that there is no such person. The men or women who do not work for what they get have to be kept by someone else who does work.

It is because unemployment benefit is the best insurance against revolution that you have it. You did not dare make these speeches in 1918; you did not dare deliver them then on public platforms. If you had done, they would have sent you to sleep with the dope in the rifles that they brought home with them. But now after years have passed and the people have forgotten you talk about the dole and you insult the people who saved you from being beaten in the War. The working man in the factory and the man at the front saved you, and now you have nothing but insults for them. We spend £100,000,000 to keep the poor unemployed, but what are the rich unemployed getting—£1,260,000,000. That is what they return to those who do not work. We are trying to save you from yourselves. I am not singling out any one. I am loyal to the Constitution of this country. I wish I could be as disloyal as the people opposite.

I resent these perpetual insults against the class to which I belong. They have rendered service and they would take work if they had a chance. When you find work with decent conditions for people and they do not take it, they should be struck off the list. I was a member of a board of guardians, and I knew the wrong ones and I knew the right ones. The wrong ones we all knew in our own localities and also the right ones, and we did our best for them. I would like to ask hon. Members opposite how they would like to keep a wife and three children on 32s. a week and pay 10s. a week rent You talk about men on the dole—why you have been getting it all your lives. We are willing to meet you—we who sit on the back benches—even in your own constituencies and ram the lies down your throats that you have been saying against the unemployed. Why should we stand it all the time? This money is necessary: it is an insurance against revolution. What is your alternative? Do you want to get people off the Insurance Fund and send them to the public assistance committees? If you do that, you are sending the people back to the districts which have been most badly hit. The poor have to keep the poor again.

What is your programme? Failing the Labour party programme—work or maintenance—what do you propose? A tariff—sticking plaster on wooden legs. So far as we are concerned, we are going to support the Government as far as they go. We would like them to go further. We would like to see a decent standard of maintenance. Our friends opposite wish to keep the unemployed down. Starve them, and they will be ready to grasp at any job. They think that they will force the men out of work to go against the men who are in work, and they will then reduce wage costs. We know that things would be a lot worse if hon. Members opposite were in. We can go into the constituencies with our plans prepared and our flags flying when the time comes. You might win a Pyrrhic victory at one or two elections, but, as sure as night follows day, the workers of this country will know where they are, and by their power they will wipe the system you people opposite represent out of existence.


I am sure the House will not think for a moment that the Government meant any discourtesy in not rising immediately this Debate began, but the fact of the matter is, as the House knows, that a whole day was given to the discussion of this matter yesterday. I think, although there was an Amendment to reduce the principal amount which was asked for, there was agreement on all sides of the House that, at any rate, it was necessary to increase the borrowing powers in order that those who are unemployed should receive their benefit in the ordinary way in the first week in July. If these borrowing powers are not increased, there can be no money for the unemployed in the first week of July. No one in this House would contemplate a situation of that kind for a moment, not even my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson). His is one of the districts which needs this money more than many others in the country. There will be, however, another whole day given this week to this matter, and I am sure the House will agree that, considering the time given yesterday and the day that will be given on Friday, it is scarcely necessary to enter into a prolonged Debate on the matter now. I would like to ask the House if it is possible to come to a decision? It would certainly be to the general advantage, in view of the Debate which has already taken place, for the House to come to a decision now, and I therefore beg the House to come to a decision at once.


At one o'clock in the morning we are asked to vote the sum of £25,000,000. In my office this afternoon I opened a letter from a working man enclosing a pawnticket for a shirt for four shillings. He said that that four shillings was the only thing standing between him, his wife and family and absolute starvation. Yet at one o'clock in the morning we are asked to vote £25,000,000. I wish to enter the strongest possible protest against the scandal of the proceedings of the Labour Government, who, by their own action, have created the unemployment which exists in this country to-day.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 173.

Division No. 347.] AYES. [1.1 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Herrlotts, J. Pathick-Lawrence, F. W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hicks, Ernest George Phillips, Dr. Marion
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M. Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth) Potts, John S.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillisbro') Hoffman, P. C. Price, M. P.
Alpass, J. H. Hollins, A Pybus, Percy John
Amnion, Charles George Hudson, James H. (Huddertfield) Quibell, D. J. K.
Angell, Sir Norman Hunter, Dr. Joseph Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Arnott, John John, William (Rhondda, West) Raynes, W. R.
Ayles, Walter Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas Richards, R.
Barnes, Alfred John Jones, Llewellyn-, F. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Barr, James Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Ritson, J.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) Romerll, H. G.
Benson, G. Kelly, W. T. Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Rowson, Guy
Bondfleld, Rt. Hon. Margaret Kinley, J. Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bowen, J. W. Kirkwood, D. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Broad, Francis Alfred Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Sanders, W. S.
Brockway, A. Fanner Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park) Sandham, E.
Bromfield, William Law, Albert (Bolton) Sawyer, G. F.
Brooke, W. Lawrence, Susan Scurr, John
Brothers, M. Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Lawson, John James Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Lawther W. (Barnard Castle) Sherwood, G. H.
Buchanan, G. Leach, W. Shield, George William
Burgess, F. G. Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Calne, Hall-, Derwent Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Shillaker, J. F.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Lees, J. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Charleton, H. C. Leonard, W. Simmons, C. J.
Chater, Daniel Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sinkinson, George
Clarke, J. S. Lindley, Fred W. Sitch, Charles H.
Cluse, W. S. Logan, David Gilbert Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Longden, F. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Cove, William G. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Lunn, William Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Dagger, George Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Dallas, George MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Sorensen, R.
Dalton, Hugh McElwee, A. Stamford, Thomas W.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) McEntee, V. L. Stephen, Campbell
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Strauss, G. R.
Denman, Hon. R. D. McKinlay, A. Sullivan, J.
Duncan, Charles MacLaren, Andrew Sutton, J. E.
Ede, James Chuter MacNeill-Weir, L. Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Edge, Sir William McShane, John James Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Edmunds, J. E. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Tinker, John Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Mander, Geoffrey le M. Tout, W. J.
Egan, W. H. Manning, E. L. Townend, A. E.
Foot, Isaac Mansfield, W. Vaughan, David
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Marcus, M. Viant, S. P.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Markham, S. F. Walker, J.
Gibbins, Joseph Marshall, Fred Wallace, H. W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Mathers, George Watkins, F. C.
Gill, T. H. Matters, L. W. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Glassey, A. E. Maxton, James Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gossling, A. G. Messer, Fred Wellock, Wilfred
Gould, F. Middteton, G. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Mills, J. E. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Gray, Milner Milner, Major J. West, F. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). Montague, Frederick Westwood, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Morgan, Dr. H. B. White, H. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Morley, Ralph Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Grundy, Thomas W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Mort, D. L. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Muff, G. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Muggeridge, H. T. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen) Murnin, Hugh Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) Noel Baker, P. J. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Harris, Percy A. Oldfield, J. R. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Haycock, A. W. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Wise, E. F.
Hayday, Arthur Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Palin, John Henry Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Paling, Wilfrid
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Everard, W. Lindsay O'Connor, T. J.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Falle, Sir Bertram G. Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Albery, Irving James Ferguson, Sir John Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Fison, F. G. Clavering Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Ford, Sir P. J. Perkins, W. R. D.
Atkinson, C. Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Ganzonl, Sir John Ramsbotham, H.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Remer, John R.
Balniel, Lord Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Beaumont, M. W. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Gower, Sir Robert Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Greene, W. P. Crawford Ross, Ronald D.
Bird, Ernest Roy Gritten, W. G. Howard Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Gunston, Captain D. W. Salmon, Major I.
Boyce, Leslie Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bracken, B. Halt, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Brass, Captain Sir William Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Briscoe, Richard George Hanbury, C. Savery, S. S.
Broadbent, Colonel J. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hartington, Marquess of Skelton, A. N.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Smithers, Waldron
Butler, R. A. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Somerset, Thomas
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Campbell, E. T. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Carver, Major W. H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Castle Stewart, Earl of Hurd, Percy A. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.) Inskip, Sir Thomas Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Chamberlain Rt. Hn Sir J. A.(Birm., W.) Kindersley, Major G. M. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Lamb, Sir J. O. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Naira)
Christle, J. A. Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby) Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Leighton, Major B. E. P. Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Colfox, Major William Philip Llewellin, Major J. J. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Colman, N. C. D. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Train, J.
Colville, Major D. J. Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Cooper, A. Duff Lockwood, Captain J. H. Turton, Robert Hugh
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Long, Major Hon. Eric Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Cranborne, Viscount Lymington, Viscount Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. McConnell, Sir Joseph Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Warrender, Sir Victor
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Makins, Brigadier-General E. Wells, Sydney R.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Margesson, Captain H. D. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Dalkeith, Earl of Marjoribanks, Edward Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Meller, R. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Elliot, Major Walter E. Muirhead, A. J. Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Nicholson, O. (Westminster) George Penny.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Miss Bondfield, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence and Mr. Lawson.