HC Deb 03 March 1932 vol 262 cc1397-414

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on Consideration of Resolution [29th February]: That a sum, not exceeding £150,492,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Pensions, Education, Insurance and other Grants, and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933. Which Amendment was, to leave out "£150,492,000," and to insert instead thereof "£150,491,900."—[Mr. Lunn.]

Question again proposed, "That '£150,492,000' stand part of the Resolution."

10.0 p.m.


I am afraid it is not in order to ask for the indulgence of the House for a second time in one evening, but I would like to say to anyone who heard the start of my speech at 25 minutes past seven that I have not been speaking ever since. When I was interrupted I was saying that I had studied many of the different publications and suggestions dealing with unemployment. I have studied "How to cure unemployment," "How to tackle unemployment," and "Labour and the Nation," and I have come to the sincere conviction that in none of them is there any permanent and effective remedy for the unemployment situation. May I recall the phrase of an old Yorkshireman in dismissing all these cures for unemployment?—"You might as well try to mop up the Gulf Stream with a pair of swimming drawers." Possibly that metaphor may be inelegant, but in my view it exactly describes the inefficacy of all these suggested remedies. To come down to bedrock, there is no possible way of solving the unemployment problem other than by improving trade and industry. No doubt that has become a, truism—it is no original suggestion on my part—but it does no harm to repeat a truism.

Having come to that decision, one naturally asks what the National Govern- ment ought to have done when they were elected, and what they have done. I feel convinced that the Measures which we have been discussing ever since this Parliament met have shown the determination of the Government to deal with every possible proposal which will help the country over the crisis through which we are now passing. We began by passing the Abnormal Importations Act which has already done a great deal to diminish unemployment. At the British Industries Fair I had a casual conversation with the representative of a small firm who told me that they had already re-engaged 59 men. That is not a very large number, but I think it is a distinct sign that the Measures which the Government have passed and are passing have had a definite beneficial result. I have also been assured that the Imports Duties Act and the Wheat Bill have already led to steps being taken which will reduce unemployment in this country.

I know there are always difficulties in regard to Measures of that kind in their operation, but I think it is the duty of everyone, whether they believe in tariffs or not, to do their best to help the Measures which have been passed to function as smoothly as possible. We are all aware of the decisions which have been taken by some of the Ministers having led to them being spoken of as "dissident Ministers." I do not know who gave them that name, but I feel that there is a danger of creating a little misunderstanding in the country. The other day an elderly constituent of mine said to me, "Whatever are you going to do with those four dissolute Ministers?" I feel sure that my constituent will be greatly comforted by their attitude over the Wheat Bill. I would like to pay my modest tribute to the splendid work which has been done by the Minister of Labour and his colleagues, because I consider that in all their actions they have shown absolute reasonableness, humanity and a wide sympathy. I would like to express the hope that the National Government, in regard to the measures they have taken, and will take, to alleviate unemployment, will have the support, not only of the Members of this House, but also of the people of the country generally.


May I congratulate the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Munro) on his maiden speech, and I am sure the House will lend a ready ear to him on any future occasion when he chooses to address it. Many views have been expressed in the course of this Debate on the question of unemployment, but I do not think anybody who has been present to-day, or who has contributed to the Debate, will deny the fact that we have the unemployment problem with us on a gigantic scale ranging over the whole field of our industrial life. The House will agree with me when I say that, during the last few months, the problem has pressed more hardly than ever upon those who are unemployed.

The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) called attention this afternoon to the terrible experiences through which many people are passing owing to the new methods which are being employed to deal with a certain section of the unemployed. Most of us, from our own experience, can easily parallel what the hon. Member said on that subject. Like many other hon. Members, I often turn my attention to the statistics of unemployment, and I watch how the figures rise, and sometimes fall, with considerable interest. When I turn my attention to the statistics, I find myself confronted with the great human problem involved by the partial breakdown of our economic system. I have no patience with those people who sometimes manifest a certain amount of contempt for those who are unemployed. I have heard people talk about unemployment as though it were a crime. Instead of that, I think those people ought to take the view that unemployment is a misfortune which seems to be affecting a larger and larger number of people owing to the growing insecurity of the economic system under which we live.

The Minister of Labour, on the l7th of February last, called the attention of the House to the fact that since 1920 the Unemployment Grants Committee had assented to schemes to the capital value of £191,000,000, and that since 1924 the amount spent to relieve unemployment by means of public works and roads was £700,000,000. The Minister also called our attention to the fact that the indebtedness of local authorities had increased during the last nine or 10 years from £650,000,000 to well over £1,000,000,000. He appeared to me on that occasion to convey the im- pression that this had been a mistaken policy, because, he said, the problem still remained with us, more acute than ever. It never seemed to have been borne in upon his mind that that is the price that has to be paid for social peace in the chaotic, anarchic conditions of modern industrial production.

He also seemed to infer that this policy had aggravated the problem of unemployment, on the ground that capital resources so used give less employment than if they are used in other ways. That, of course, is an argument with which many of us were made familiar in the last Parliament, but, unfortunately for that argument, there is no great demand for those capital resources in other directions, because we cannot now absorb the amazing production of the modern industrial machine. I think the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in his deduction that, because the problem grew in intensity while endeavours were made to relieve it, the efforts at relief were the cause of its intensification. That by no means follows. It became more acute in that period for many reasons, to all of which attention has frequently been called in this House.

We have been reminded that the economic depression in which we now find ourselves is very largely due to the fall in the prices of primary products; we have been told that it is due to the policy of deflation which has been followed for a fairly long period; and undoubtedly it is due to some extent to the tariff systems which are choking the free flow of goods between the various countries of the world. Many hon. Members seem to have the mistaken idea that we on these benches advocate relief schemes as a cure for unemployment. We have never done so. If anyone has advocated relief schemes as a cure for unemployment, it has been the Liberal Members of this House. They have been strangely silent in this Debate to-day. It seems to me that perhaps, for the time being, in the existing political circumstances, they have thrown aside their attachment to widespread relief schemes, and are doing everything they can to support the policy sponsored by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which is to get us out of all our difficulties—the institution of a tariff system in this country.

Many of us on these benches regard unemployment as a permanent feature of the existing system, and, consequently, for us, the issue which is raised in a Debate like this is a very simple one. Millions of our fellow men can only live in the economic world of to-day either by working for wages or by some form of maintenance afforded to them. That maintenance may, in existing circumstances, be in the form of statutory benefits under the Insurance Acts, or in the form of transitional payments, which the Minister of Labour not long ago described as a form of State maintenance, or it may be in the form of Poor Law relief. The fact of the situation is, however, that they have either to obtain work for wages or to be maintained, and we on these benches are of the opinion that it would be infinitely preferable for the great bulk of them to be doing something rather than be receiving money in one form or another for doing nothing. Consequently, not being responsible for the chaos and confusion of the existing economic order, being faced with this huge mass of unemployed, and taking the view that it would be better for them to be at work than to be receiving maintenance in any form, we still advocate the operation of relief schemes on as wide a scale as is possible under existing conditions.

I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that they are going to get out of their difficulties relatively easily in the not distant future. They are waiting to see the effect of the Import Duties Act, which has just been put upon the Statute Book. But, assuming that to be correct, unless we are going, until it takes place, to allow many hundreds of thousands of unemployed to sink into utter despair, there will be a need for relief schemes for some time to come. Hon. Members opposite are aiming, I take it, at some sort of self-contained Britain. They want the minimum of goods and raw materials to be imported from abroad. They are aiming, it seems to me, at an economic system not subject so much as now to the shocks of what is happening in the great world outside. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) stated that there very seldom came from these benches any new ideas in regard to unemployment. If the new self-sustaining economic Britain, which frequently reflects itself in their speeches, is likely to mature at all, why not consider, in view of the changed circumstances, the shortening of the working day for everyone, why not consider the shortening of the working life for every man who toils in industry, and why not consider the lengthening of childhood for the children of the nation? Surely those are things that you might consider in this new Britain that you are going to create.

In conclusion, may I address a few questions to the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply? Has the Unemployment Grants Committee gone out of business entirely? What is its policy at the moment and what is it likely to be in the future? In the last Parliament we frequently had discussions on land drainage and we were told it was largely futile unless Protection was given to the British farmer. We were told that, if you gave him Protection, there might be something in draining the land and making more available for agricultural enterprise. There is a Land Drainage Act on the Statute Book. What is being done in regard to land drainage to find employment? Speaking as a member of a local authority and also of a county council, I am very much concerned as to what is happening in regard to housing. I feel that there is a definite attempt on the part of the Department to slow down housing. What is the policy of the Government in regard to it? Does it intend to allow much needed schemes to go, or are they going to put all sorts of obstacles in the way? If we can be assured that the Unemployment Grants Committee is going to continue to function, if other Measures already on the Statute Book are going to be operated, if there is going to be no drastic curtailing of housing policy, it will assist to some degree under existing circumstances. But when we are talking about these things in terms of economics, let us remember that behind the economic question that rises uppermost in our minds so frequently there is this great human tragedy of unemployment. We on these benches consider above everything else the human aspect of this problem.


May I begin by expressing the regret which my right hon. Friend the Minister feels at not being able to be here to-night? He had a very important engagement of long standing, and he explained the reason, I think, to my right hon. Friend opposite. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who opened the Debate, stated that a determined Government would stop the rot, and he invited us to state what the Government proposed to do. The answer is perfectly simple, and I should have thought that if he had been in the House during the recent Debates upon the Tariff Bill he would have realised that we believe that our proposals, which have now become law, are destined materially to improve the unemployment problem.

The Debate to-day has mainly run upon the question, so far as my Department is concerned, of the future of the Unemployment Grants Committee, and perhaps the House will allow me, in the short time which is left, to indicate the reasons for the decision to which the Government have come in this matter. For the benefit, possibly, of new Members of the House, I will very briefly sketch the history of the question. It is broadly true to say that every successive Government since the War has tried to find remedies for unemployment, and that the whole field of possible State activity has been reviewed over and over again by special committees of various kinds. The remedies which have been suggested at various times have fallen broadly into two classes. First of all, there has been the policy directed towards a revival of trade and industry in its normal channels, and, secondly, there has been an attempt to encourage employment by means of public works.

It is generally agreed, I think, that the first of those courses is the preferable one, and various attempts have been made in the last 10 years to carry it out. Although those attempts have met with varying success, it would not be unfair to say that on the whole they have failed to overcome the intense industrial depression, more especially of the last two years. The country has decided upon another experiment along those lines, and it is upon the success of that experiment that we believe we can at the present moment justifiably pin our hopes. As regards the second class, the State ever since the War has, I think on overwhelming grounds, always decided that it should not undertake the task itself. By grants to public utility companies and to local authorities it has endeavoured to get them to undertake the task. This policy culminated under the Labour Government of 1929 in the passing of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act and in the appointment of the Lewis Committee to make grants to profit-earning public utility companies, while the St. Davids Committee, which had been in existence since 1920, was left with the task of dealing with applications from local authorities and public utility companies not working for profit. These two committees, together with the Colonial Development Act, also passed by the Labour Government in 1929, represented, apart from roads and housing, the chief methods of dealing with this particular problem.

10.30 p.m.

Let me, in answer to what was said by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown), in his very clear speech, deal for a moment with the arguments that are usually advanced in favour of a policy of relief works. I think they can be said to fall under four heads. First of all, it is said that, by making use of idle labour, they are capable of improving the economic equipment of the country for the advantage of trade and industry and also the improvement of our competitive position; secondly, it is said that they provide employment at full wages; thirdly, it is said that in a normal trade cycle of depression, the extra expenditure that they involve tends to break the vicious circle of contracting demand and falling prices; and, fourthly, it is said that they' tend to improve the individual, local, and national moral.

I would invite the House to examine how those four arguments have stood the hard test of 10 years' experience. Let me take, first, the question of national equipment. At the end of the War there was undoubtedly a great variety of public work which had not been done, but which, if done, would increase the national equipment and improve our competitive position. It is also, I think, quite legitimate to say that there was a further series of public works which probably would not have been done for a certain number of years, but which, in view of the depression which came over the country in 1920 and 1921, might reasonably be done to meet it; and it was in view of that that the St. Davids Committee formerly was allowed to give grants for works where at least three years' anticipation could be proved. But the depression was not short-lived, the emergency continued, and the policy continued, with the result that after 11 years of anticipation it can fairly be said to-day that the State is subsidising local authorities to carry out works that normally those local authorities would have done by themselves. In many respects also the public utility equipment of this country is considerably in advance of any possible needs of British trade in the comparatively near future, and it is certainly true that the carrying out of this work over 11 years has imposed a colossal burden on the shoulders, not only of ourselves, but of our children.

Let me take the second argument, as to the employment of idle hands at full wages. Experience during these 10 years has shown that the possibility of employing men on these relief works is drastically limited by considerations of age, of sex, of physique, of the difficulty of finding suitable work, of the housing problems of the men brought to do the work, and, above all, of cost.

Over the last 10 years, on the whole, the average cost of maintaining a man in benefit has been less than £50 a year, but for that same period it has been proved that the cost of putting a man to work on public works is at least £500 a year and more, probably £600 a year, for each man directly employed, or from £250 to £300 if you assume, which is not always true, that for every man directly employed, another man is employed indirectly. It is quite clear from that that unless the resulting works have on completion an economic value of at least four-fifths of their cost, the nation is the poorer for having carried them out. It is true also to say that many of those works that have been carried out would not pass that test, and it is certain that they would not pass it if you take into consideration the very small extent by which they have increased our competitive position and have regard also to the enormous burden which they have cast on industry over the next 30 or 40 years.

Take the argument of credit expansion. In the last 10 years, or at any rate since 1924, there has been spent on public works financed wholly or partly out of the national exchequer a sum of no less than £700,000,000. That includes houses and roads and relief schemes and, in addition to that, there has been on the part of local authorities a very considerable expenditure on the development of their normal services, especially on their trading undertakings, with the result that the public debt of local authorities has risen from £658,000,000 in 1921 to no less than £1,223,000,000 in 1930. Those are the figures for England and Wales, and they take no account of a sum approaching £150,000,000 for Scotland. According to all the economic theories this huge expenditure, financed largely by loans, should have resulted in a, large expansion of credit and should have had direct beneficial results on industry. It has not had that effect, or at all events any effect it may have had has been entirely submerged by the industrial depression; and to that extent that money is wasted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Take the fourth argument, the maintenance of morale. It is true that on the whole work done on relief schemes has been done with a fair measure of efficiency, but the moral effect—there will be general agreement on this point—an men of short spells on relief works is very small compared with the inspiration they would get from a return to normal work, and though I should be the last person to depreciate the value of the moral effect of the public relief works which have been undertaken, it is not unfair to bear in mind the huge cost to the State and to ask whether a similar or even greater effect could not have been achieved by other methods at considerably less cost to the nation.

Let me return to the history of the Unemployment Grants Committee. The most striking characteristic which must impress anyone who studies this matter is the fact that since 1921 it has been necessary to increase year after year the terms of the grants in order to attract any schemes at all. Whereas in 1920 the original terms of the grant were one-third of the wages of all the additional men employed, which amounted to 15 and 20 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme, the figures last July which were necessary to attract schemes were 60 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme. Let the House note that even in spite of these very attractive terms, and even before any commencement was made to restrict schemes, applications had began to fall off. The peak figure of the number of men employed in these schemes was reached in March of last year, before there was any talk of restrictions, and since that time the number of men employed has continued steadily to decrease.

What has been the cost of these schemes? Under Part II of the Development Act—grants by the St. Davids Committee to local authorities and public utility companies not working for profit—the cost to the State has not yet reached its maximum, and it will not reach its maximum until next year. It will not begin to drop until 1937, and will not finally run out until 1963. Between now and 1963 the total sum paid will amount to £56,000,000. Take Part I. There the maximum peak figure will not be reached until 1934–35, will not finally run out until 1950, and the total that remains to be paid is well over £12,000,000. In addition to that, when it is recalled that the present value of the State grant for housing which has still to be paid amounts to no less than £218,000,000, the House will realise the colossal burden which we have already cast upon industry for the next 30 or 40 years.

I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to convince the House that the heavy expenditure of the last 11 years, in view of its very meagre results in creating employment, has shown itself unduly burdensome, and that, considered as a means of improving the national equipment, too little consideration has been paid to the probability of a profitable return, apart from its failure materially to improve our competitive position. I hope that the House will approve of the decision of the Government that it is imperative at present to reserve the capital resources of the nation for such developments as will definitely increase the national income. That is the answer to the question put by the hen. Member for Mansfield, as to what is to be the future of the Unemployment Grants Committee. He will know that the Unemployment Grants Committee have sanctioned no schemes unless they were started by 31st January last. They have been subject to temporary abeyance, as he will see from a Command Paper which will shortly be issued. So much for the question of the immediate future of unemployment grants.

As I have indicated, we propose to rely mainly for improved employment on cur tariff policy and on the result of the Ottawa Conference. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about German coal?"] The hon. Member gibes, but I was not in the last Parliament, and, needless to say, I was not in the inner councils of the late Labour Government; but I have always suspected, and I believe that my guess is not very far wide of the mark, that the demoralisation of the late Labour Government started from the day when they began to realise that the schemes of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), pressed on them for solving unemployment by unlimited expenditure, proved to be hopelessly illusory.

But there is still left the problem of the large numbers of persons who, until we get the trade revival fully under way, will be left without work. I agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield in that I have always thought that the most tragic thing about the unemployment problem is the fact that as week succeeds week and month succeeds month and too often year succeeds year, the unemployed man gradually begins to feel that he is no longer a useful member of the community, that he has no part in the civic life of the nation, and he gradually sinks further and further into the slough of apathy and despair. We have tried for 10 years to cure that evil by relief works and, as I hope, convinced the House, we have merely scratched the surface. It is time that we tried an entirely new technique. I believe that we have immensely to diversify the methods hitherto followed, and I hope that this year will see a number of small scale experiments of wide variety. But the fundamental thing to recognise, as I hope the House and the country will recognise, is that this is not a problem which the State can tackle alone.

The State is necessarily too impersonal and too mechanical for the task. The size of the figure alone—over 2,000,000 at present and even if trade revives possibly somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000,000—puts any single organisation out of account. But a problem which is intractable as a whole may well become manageable when split up into its component parts. I believe that there is a vast and almost untapped fund of willing personal service available in this country. I believe that in every town and district there are to be found numbers of public spirited persons, prepared to give their services provided that they realise not only the need, as most of them do, but the possibilities of those services being of real use and being applied. The State's activities are, after all, pretty well confined. It has Employment Exchanges for finding men work. We can do a certain amount of training. We have training facilities for young men from depressed areas or from blind alley occupations. We can recondition a certain number of men of the pick and shovel type and render them physically lit to take their places in industry to-day.

As regards trainees, we are, unfortunately, limited by the prospect of obtaining jobs for them. When trade was more flourishing we did not find that great difficulty. We actually succeeded in placing nearly 90 per cent, of our trainees, but in the course of the last two years we have had increasing difficulty in finding places. Therefore we have had to limit the intake of trainees so as roughly to correspond with the places which we could subsequently find, but we are maintaining our centres and as soon as trade shows any sign of revival we shall fill the centres up again, and, if necessary, take steps to increase their number. As regards reconditioning centres, these also for the last two months have not been full, but the question is under reconsideration of filling those centres to a greater extent than at one time was thought possible.

The House, no doubt, knows of the extraordinarily valuable work which is being done by the local education authorities throughout the country in co-operation with the Ministry along the lines of finding occupation for juveniles, both boys and girls, who are unemployed, by running courses for them. I take the opportunity of appealing to local education authorities not to select this as one of the first items for economy. It is one of the most valuable services that could be rendered to the country to-day, training the moral of these boys and girls instead of allowing them to go on the streets. I hope sincerely that nothing will be done to cut down that service.

The question of unemployed women is one of rather special difficulty, because I cannot imagine that even the hon. Member for Mansfield would suggest that they should be put on public works. But very good work has been done in this direction by the Central Committee on Women's Training in the training that has been given to many of these girls for domestic service. During the last 10 years over 50,000 women and girls have been given training in the centres, and the great majority of them have been found work. Although it has been found necessary to make certain economies, it has been found possible recently to open two new centres for these girls, and my right hon. Friend proposes to continue to utilise the very valuable assistance which the Committee has hitherto rendered.

But beyond all this there is still an enormous scope for private enter prise. Most interesting experiments have been made in the last two years and, if it is not invidious to mention some by name, I would like to say a word of commendation about the experiments made by the Society of Friends at Brynmawr and by Mr. Noble at Trealaw. Any Member who chooses to go down to the Rhondda Valley will be amply repaid by seeing these extremely interesting experiments.

The extension of allotments is, obviously, capable of immense development, again very largely by private individuals. I am informed by the Society of Friends that, taking last year as an example, an expenditure of 13s. 4d. on seeds and utensils brings in a return of about £7 or 2s. 8d. a week. It is obvious that a return of that nature offers a very valuable supplement to the income of the unemployed man, and not only that, but the vegetables form an important element, which otherwise Might be lacking, in the diet of the unemployed families. There must be throughout this country in the neighbourhood of the towns and mining villages hundreds and thousands of vacant plots which, with the goodwill and enterprise of the residents in the neighbourhood, could be made available to unemployed men.

We are also examining the possibility of certain classes of a semi-educational nature for the use of these unemployed men and women to whom they may be expected to make some appeal. As showing what can be done, I was told only yesterday of the probability of several of these classes being opened in London and staffed entirely by voluntary teachers. I think that is very much to their credit, and shows what can be done. Then classes for physical training, and the provision of clubs, where premises capable of use or adaptation can be secured, are other obvious methods of dealing with the problem. If I may venture a personal opinion it would be to support what the hon. Member for Rothwell said at the commencement of the Debate, and that is that the unemployed man does not want charity. What he wants is an opportunity to help himself, and to overcome that feeling to which I alluded just now, of no longer being a useful member of the community.

I hope to see experiments on the lines I have suggested started in various parts of the country this year. They will meet with the very greatest sympathy from our Department, and we will give every possible assistance towards overcoming any technical difficulty that may arise within, of course, the limits of the exist-

ing law. If difficulties arise that we cannot overcome, the experience we shall gain this year will be of value as indicating what ought to be included in the necessary legislation which will follow the report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance. I have no doubt at all that some mistakes, and possibly many mistakes, will be made. There may be deep-rooted prejudices also to be met and overcome, but I venture to think that the goal that I have indicated, namely, a constructive attempt to find useful occupation for the unemployed men and women in this country, until such time as they are able to be reabsorbed in industry by the revival which we believe will follow the passage of the Tariff Act and an agreement at Ottawa, is well worth many and varied efforts. My final word is to express the hope that in this task we may meet with the sympathy and active co-operation of hon. and right hon. Members opposite.

Question put, "That '£150,492,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 34.

Division No. 93.] AYES. [10.57 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Colville, Major David John Goldie, Noel B.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Conant, R. J. E. Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Albery, Irving James Cook, Thomas A. Gower, Sir Robert
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Cooke, James D. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Apsley, Lord Copeland, Ida Grimston, R. V.
Aske, Sir Robert William Cross, R. H. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Atholl, Duchess of Crossley, A. C. Gunston, Captain D. W.
Atkinson, Cyril Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Guy, J. C. Morrison
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Curry, A. C. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Dawson, Sir Philip Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Dickie, John P. Hanbury, Cecil
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Doran, Edward Hanley, Dennis A.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Duggan, Hubert John Harris, Sir Percy
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) Eden, Robert Anthony Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Bernays, Robert Edmondson, Major A. J. Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.) Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Bossom, A. C. Elliston, Captain George Sampson Hillman, Dr. George B.
Boulton, W. W. Elmley, Viscount Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Hornby, Frank
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Horsbrugh, Florence
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Broadbent, Colonel John Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Fleming, Edward Lascelles Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y) Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Browne, Captain A. C. Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Fox, Sir Gifford W. G. Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Burnett, John George Fraser, Captain Ian Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Ganzoni, Sir John James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Gillett, Sir George Masterman Jamleson, Douglas
Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Gledhill, Gilbert Janner, Barnett
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Glossop, C. W. H. Jennings, Roland
Christie, James Archibald Gluckstein, Louis Halle Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Clarry, Reginald George Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Goff, Sir Park Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Ker, J. Campbell North, Captain Edward T. Somervell, Donald Bradley
Kerr, Hamilton W. Nunn, William Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Kimball, Lawrence O'Donovan, Dr. William James Soper, Richard
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Knebworth, Viscount Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Law, Sir Alfred Palmer, Francis Noel Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Patrick, Colin M. Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Leckie, J. A. Pearson, William G. Stevenson, James
Leech, Dr. J. W. Peat, Charles U. Stones, James
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Perkins, Walter R. D. Stourton, Hon. John J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Petherick, M. Strauss, Edward A.
Liddall, Walter S. Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Lindsay, Noel Ker Pike, Cecil F. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Llewellin, Major John J. Potter, John Summersby, Charles H.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Sutcliffe, Harold
Loder, Captain J. de Vere Procter, Major Henry Adam Templeton, William P.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Pybus, Percy John Thompson, Luke
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
McEwen, J. H. F. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
McKeag, William Ramsden, E. Touche, Gordon Cosmo
McKie, John Hamilton Reid, William Allan (Derby) Train, John
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Remer, John R. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.) Renwick, Major Gustav A. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Magnay, Thomas Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Robinson, John Roland Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Mander, Geoffrey le M. Ropner, Colonel L. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Rosbotham, S. T. Weymouth, Viscount
Marsden, Commander Arthur Ross, Ronald D. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Salt, Edward W. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Mitcheson, G. G. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Scone, Lord Wise, Alfred R.
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) Selley, Harry R. Womersley, Walter James
Moss, Captain H. J. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Muirhead, Major A. J. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Munro, Patrick Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H. Skelton, Archibald Noel Mr. Walter Rea and Sir George Penny.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Attlee, Clement Richard Grundy, Thomas W. McEntee, Valentine L.
Batey, Joseph Hicks, Ernest George Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Hirst, George Henry Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George Jenkins, Sir William Price, Gabriel
Cape, Thomas John, William Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford Kirkwood, David Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Daggar, George Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Lawson, John James Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Logan, David Gilbert
Edwards, Charles Lunn, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. Groves.

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

It being after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  1. ADJOURNMENT. 16 words
Forward to