HC Deb 21 March 1932 vol 263 cc770-83

Every registered grower shall keep a record, in a form to be prescribed by the Minister, of the acreage of wheat sown by such grower each year, of the variety of the wheat so sown, of the method of cultivation (including harvesting) employed by him in growing of such wheat, and of the quantity (in hundredweights) of such wheat actually threshed, and shall, when required by the Wheat Commission, furnish a return to the Wheat Commission giving the information contained in the said record in respect of the wheat then under cultivation by him or, if so required by the Wheat Commission, of the wheat grown by him in the previous cereal year.

Provided that if any registered grower fails to keep such a record or fails, when required, to make such a return, he shall cease to be entitled to any deficiency payment in respect of any wheat grown by him during the cereal year in which such default is made.—[Sir P. Harris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture who has guided the Bill so far with such skill and ability is not here at the moment, but he has such able assistants that no doubt they will be able to accept this proposed Clause. Anybody who has followed the long discussions on this very complex Bill will realise that it will not be easy to make it operate; it has been necessary to set up very cumbersome machinery in order to make it work. The Committee must realise that after three years the whole position will be surveyed. It will then be necessary to judge whether the Bill has worked fairly and justly, and whether it has helped agriculture on the one hand and added to the cost of living on the other. It is clear that unless the farmers are required to keep statistics, to collect facts, and to schedule their information, the committee which will inquire into the working of the Act will largely work in the dark. This is a country, compared with other countries, of small farmers, and it is notorious that the one thing that British farmers do not like is to keep necessary statistics. My friends and I are influenced in moving this new Clause by a wider reason. I was impressed by a speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He raised the case for the Bill to a higher plane: this was not a Bill to give a subsidy, but a constructive attempt to help agriculture get on to its legs. Let me quote from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Second Reading of this Bill a passage which is appropriate to the proposed Clause: I do not think that cereal farming can be or ought to be maintained at its present level of importance in our agricultural system as long as the old methods of production, and of marketing are employed. I have never disguised my belief when speaking in this House on the problems of agriculture that when the present world depression has passed, and world prices for primary productions have begun to rise, the main expansion of agriculture in this country will take place along the lines, first, of live-stock farming for which our cool, moist climate producing the best grass in the world is pre-eminently suitable; and, secondly, the production of those commodities in which freshness is a primary element of value, and in which the farmer starts with a substantial advantage in the home market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1932; col. 1072; Vol. 262.] That embraces what I want to get into this Bill. I do not want to stereotype agriculture on its old lines; I want to secure that there is a record of the methods of cultivation. In the Report of the Imperial Economic Committee on the Wheat Situation, 1931, which was circulated just before the Bill was presented, there is a passage dealing with improvements in cultivation. It says: The improvements in machinery have resulted in a great saving of labour. When wheat was harvested with a sickle and threshed with a flail, from 35 to 50 hours of labour were necessary for harvesting and threshing an acre of wheat with a yield of 15 bushels. … At present, farmers in the Great Plains usually use from four to five hours of labour for harvesting and threshing an acre of wheat when it is harvested with a binder and threshed from the stook with a stationary thresher; from three to four hours of labour when the crop is harvested with a header and threshed with a stationary thresher; and an average of three-fourths of an hour of labour when the combined harvester-thresher is used. Does this Bill mean a new era for agriculture? Does it mean that for the first time, with security to the farmer for good prices for his wheat, we are to have the introduction of the combined harvest-thresher and the latest methods in agriculture? [Interruption.] I understand from same remarks behind me that we are not. I say that we are, and that is why I move this new Clause. We are living in the 20th century, and we have to be realists. We cannot go on ignoring world causes—[Interruption.] The only case far Protection that has ever been made from the Front Bench is that along with Protection we shall get the proper methods and mass production which security will provide. T do not suggest mass production, for that is not possible in agriculture, but I say that the mechanisation of farming must come with the security which the Bill is supposed to give.

It is suggested that our system of farm tenure and of small farms will not lend itself to mechanisation. If that be true, the case for the Bill goes to the wall. If we are to stimulate the production of wheat, we can only be justified in doing it by bringing our methods of production, sowing, ploughing and harvesting up to the very latest ideals and the Standards even of the Dominions. It may even mean filling up ditches and cutting down hedges. I am sorry that the Noble Lady, who so eloquently spoke on this Bill, is not present. It may be arguable that it is wiser to encourage farmers to produce milk, eggs, vegetables and poultry on small family farms, but if we wish to have wheat, we must know that our methods of production will he modernised and brought into line with the methods in other parts of the world, and that may mean cutting down hedges and filling up ditches. These facts and figures should be secured so that after three years' experience of security for the farmers, the House and the country would know what the Act has done. The Minister has been rather adamant up to the present and not very ready to make concessions. Most of his concessions have been promises of reconsideration before the Report stage. Hardly a word of the Bill has been altered.

The right hon. Gentleman is a regular stone-waller, but he is a great agriculturist From all I hear, he has been a successful farmer, and that largely explains his occupation on this particular job. Let him show that he has a message to the farming community and to the nation. This is supposed to be a temporary Measure, and, to use the phrase of the Secretary of State for Scotland, a lifebuoy thrown out to farmers to help them over a stormy sea. [Laughter.] It may be a mixed metaphor, but it is not mine. If the Minister is really taking a long view of the real interests of agriculture—and after all, it affects more than agriculture; it affects the real interests of the nation—he will make it clear that this Bill aims at tiding over difficult limes and a period of transition, and that only those farmers will be encouraged to continue in the production of wheat who are prepared to bring their methods of cultivation into line with the practice in other parts of the world where wheat-growing is carried on on profitable lines at a low price.


The hon. Baronet declared that the Bill was not easy to work and that the object of his proposed Clause was to make it more easy. It is difficult to see how it would achieve that result, because it would impose upon the farmer the duty of attempting to keep a series of elaborate records, the value of which would be entirely lost if in any considerable proportion of them there was any misunderstanding of what each particular point meant, or any inaccuracy in the result. I cannot think that the hon. Baronet can expect my right hon. Friend to accept this proposal, for indeed it would add to the lifebuoy a very considerable burden of lead. All are agreed that it will be of immense importance and interest to see the effect of this Bill on the cultivation of wheat, but that can be done and be accurately assessed, not by a proposed Clause such as this, which only suggests that a certain number of facts should be tabulated by farmers; it can only be done by a proper and full farm survey.

If you are to have really reliable information as to the effect of the new system, over and above such items as those mentioned in the proposed Clause, any really proper and valuable scientific survey of the result of wheat cultivation in this country would have to include facts with reference to mechanical equipment, the quantities of manure, artificial and farmyard, used, whether crops were top-dressed with nitrogenous fertilisers and such things, the number and size of fields under wheat, the total area in each farm, the rotation of crops, the yield of wheat per acre, the rate of application of seeds, whether home-grown or purchased seeds are used and varieties grown. I very much doubt whether this would even exhaust the items of information which would be necessary for an accurate survey. In any case, that kind of work is the work of the scientific examiner and investigator, and not the work of a practical, administrative body.

7.0 p.m.

I venture to say again what has often been said before on this branch of the topic, that nothing could be more foolish than than to burden the administrative Commission, which has got quite enough work to do, with the task of collecting and analysing the scientific and agricultural facts connected with the growing of wheat under the new system.

There is this further point. Mere paper returns are not the best basis for scientific farming. The whole Committee knows by this time that there is at present operating in the Eastern counties a very elaborate farming survey, which is to be continued and which is not based on returns handed in by farmers, who may be very doubtful as to the exact meaning of several points in the questionnaire. Personally, I never had to answer a, questionnaire which was not open to several interpretations, and I do not think one can frame a questionnaire which is not. This farm survey is based not on returns but upon personal investigation and personal visits of skilled and scientific men. That kind of survey is worth the money spent on it, but it cannot be done by the Wheat Commission. That kind of survey cannot have a substitute in returns containing the very partial information which the hon. Baronet thinks will do very well for the scientists in Bethnal Green.

He need not be grieved because his Clause cannot be accepted. It is certain that, when this new system comes into operation, there will be an immense amount of scientific agricultural thought and skill turned with the greatest interest and anxiety to see what its results will be. This country has now followed in the wake of many other countries in making this great experiment of assisting wheat-growing by means of a quota and not by a tariff. This country, whatever its agricultural defects may be, is certainly among the very first in its scientific experts and in the interest it takes in the results of agriculture. To suppose that our whole body of agricultural scientists is going to sit down and take no notice of this particular experiment is to suppose something that will not happen. I have no doubt that the survey to which I have referred will direct its attention to wheat-growing when this Bill becomes an Act; I have no doubt that the information it will receive will be of great value; I have no doubt that the information properly collected, tabulated and analysed will be at the disposal of the Wheat Commission; I have no doubt that information collected in that way will be of great value to them. I am certain that to burden the farmer with a scientific questionnaire, which must be accurately filled in or else it will not be worth the paper on which it is written, and then to ask the Wheat Commission to add to its labours the work of collecting and analysing these figures would not be to help the working of the Bill, but would go far to making the Bill a complete farce.


I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot follow his point about the scientific survey. It may be that the scientific survey, which is at present being undertaken, will be invaluable and may well be the only kind of survey that will be of ultimate value to agriculture, but how is that survey related to the new Clause? This new Clause deals exclusively with wheat and, as this Bill deals exclusively with wheat, the scientific survey referred to is a side issue at the moment, because the scientific survey which is being conducted is intended to deal with the whole of our agricultural situation. This Bill, on the other hand, deals exclusively with the production of wheat and by no means covers the comprehensive ground referred to by the hon. Gentleman. The new Clause asks that a record be kept by the farmer of the acreage of wheat sown. That is not difficult. It asks that the farmer should indicate on the form the variety of wheat sown. That, too, is not very difficult. It asks him to indicate the method of cultivation, whether horse power or mechanical power, and there is also a reference to harvesting, as to whether it is the old-fashioned harvester or whether it is the combine. That, too, is not very difficult. It also asks the farmer to state the amount of wheat threshed. There are four different items in the new Clause and the hon. Baronet is not asking too much.

The point of this new Clause is that we are entitled to know season by season what acreage is under wheat. We are entitled to have the records, or else how are we to know, when the new Committee comes into existence, to what extent we are going to exceed the 25,000,000 cwts? Unless these records are available in a very clear form, how are we to know that land unsuitable for wheat growing is not going to be used for wheat growing? A record of the four items mentioned in the Clause would not be a burden on the farmer, and would not require him to employ a special clerk or secretary to tell the Wheat Commission how many acres he has sown, what variety he has sown, whether he employs a combine harvester or the old-fashioned machine, and how much wheat he has threshed. There are simply four items to be dealt with and, in view of the fact that the country and the Government are guaranteeing a certain price, we ought to have that information.


I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision, because the Clause strikes me as a most useful Clause. The gibe of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Skelton) that this was more suitable for Bethnal Green and not for agriculture indicates that he had not read the Clause, which states that the grower shall keep the records in a form described by the Minister. That puts the responsibility upon the Minister of drawing up a form of record which will be suitable for agriculture. Therefore his references to Bethnal Green are beside the mark, and have no reference to this particular Clause. If we can get a form drawn up, the statistics will be most valuable and will be a great addition to the ammunition of the Minister himself and for the committee in three years time when they come to decide what is to be done. In every way it seems to me most valuable for future reference and for future guidance as to whether this Bill should be permanent or temporary.

When the Minister reads this Clause, which is intended to help him and to facilitate his work in every way, he will, I am sure, reconsider the Clause, which is supported by all men of impartial mind. It is not a party Clause in any sense of the word, but a Clause which my colleague for Edinburgh would, I am sure, support. As he is so anxious to help agriculture, here is an opportunity for him to do so. He is confident that the more information we get about wheat-growing the more encouraged wheat-growers would become. If that is the case, he and others should welcome this Clause as providing information to guide future Governments. The Clause must be in accordance with the ideas set forth by the Minister for Agriculture, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision and be prepared either now or on the Report stage to consider some method by which we will have a permanent record of wheat-growing, which will guide us in the future, and be of value to the Minister.


My hon. Friend, who is my next-door neighbour in the representation of Edinburgh, hopes that I will support the new Clause. I rise to tell the Committee and him in particular that I am not going to do any such thing. The policy of those Members of this Committee who oppose this Bill seems to be guided by two great objects. The first is to deny the farmer a fair chance of a living and of pursuing agriculture at a reasonable price and then, when we prevent them from having their way, the next thing is that the same individuals propose Amendments which want to worry the farmers after they have done a hard day's work. I am a delinquent myself and hate filling up forms of all kinds. If anybody has worked on the land and worked among farmers, they know that there is nothing more distasteful to them than to think that in the next week or fortnight they will have to fill up a long series of inquiries to satisfy inquisitive gentlemen like the hon. Member. Hon. Gentlemen who want such information had better go among the farmers, as some of us have done, and find out at first hand about agriculture. Anyone who wants to know about farming should not merely address his constituents in East Edinburgh but should go down to the Lothians, and live there, or come to the county of Perth and live with me for a bit, as the hon. Member can do, if he likes. I will take him round and we will get first-hand information. Forms! What are forms? They are only misleading. Forms are nothing in themselves. We want first-hand information, and the farmer will tell the hon. Member more in 20 minutes, and put more good sense in him in 10 minutes, than can be learned from a million forms. We ought not to worry the farmers, but let them get on with their job, and then we shall have fewer Members such as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh returned to Parliament.


This is all very fine! Nobody would want to worry the farmer if he had not worried us, but here we have been spending a week or two considering the state of the farmers simply because they cannot get on without the House of Commons. They want some money—a lot of money—£26,000,000, and when we say, "Tell us how you are getting on, and what you are doing with the money," the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) gives us the sort of homily to which we have just listened. Are we not entitled to know what we get for our money? We do not let workmen off in that way. [Interruption.] Certainly. Parliament would never dream of giving £6,000,000 to subsidise the wages of workpeople without wanting to know all about it, and wanting millions and millions of forms filled up. Even to get unemployment benefit the working people have to fill up foams. A man has to tell all about his ancestors, what they have done and left undone, and what they ought to have done; how many children he has got and why he has had them—and a whole lot more information. Here we are asking only a few perfectly simple questions.

I do not believe the Committee and the Minister really understand the Amendment. It is such a simple one. All it asks is that every registered grower shall keep a record, in a form to be prescribed by the Minister. No one would accuse the present Minister of Agriculture of sending out forms which the farmer did not understand—even though he may give him a Bill which nobody understands. Not one of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench can give a really good and conclusive exposition of this Bill and say what it will be when it becomes an Act But we will trust the Ministry of Agriculture to send out a form! All we ask the farmer to tell us is the acreage of wheat which he sows and the variety. [Interruption.] It might be difficult if we asked him to tell us whether it was millable or not, because nobody has defined "millable wheat." But we would leave it to the Minister to get over that difficulty. Further, we ask that the farmer should inform us of the method of cultivation he follows, and so on. For the life of me I cannot see why that should not be done.

There is one perfectly sound reason for getting this information. I have heard experts on both sides—my hon. and learned Friend on one side and hon. Gentlemen on the other side—arguing over what land is suitable for wheat growing, and whether it is economically desirable to grow it in certain places and under certain conditions. Surely when we are spending £6,000,000 we ought to have a record of the places where the farmers are trying to get this money and the conditions under which they are trying to get it. Instead of pitying the poor farmer I congratulate him—on getting away with the swag—and feel that we are requiring a very small thing in asking that he should fill up a form in order that the country may know whether he is cultivating land which is economically suited for wheat growing, what he produces and whether our money is assisting efficient methods of cultivation. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh appears to think that all that is necessary is to say to the farmer, "Here is this £6,000,000; do the best you can with it; we will trust you." [Interruption.] Yes, but the real reason I am against it is that we never dream of doing this in the case of the working people. We should not dream of saying to the working man, "We will pay you extra money and not trouble whether you deserve it or not." We want to make certain that the money will be spent in a proper manner and that we get results from it.

I am not one of those who believe that cheapness is the ideal. I think there are circumstances under which the State ought to give a subsidy to industries of various kinds; but whenever a subsidy is given we ought to know all about the spending of it, in order to ascertain whether we are getting adequate results. I cannot understand why the Minister should object to so simple a Clause, which would enable him to have information at his disposal as to the success or otherwise of his Bill.


I trust the Minister will not accept this proposed new Clause. If practical farmers could listen on the wireless to the discussion which is now going on in this House they would smile. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said the farmers ought to get their coats off. I can tell him that the farmers never have their coats on, having to work so hard in order to get a living in the present condition of the industry.


I think the hon. Member could not have heard what I said. I never mentioned farmers' coats.


Get their jackets off.


Some of them.


They have got their jackets off. I am surprised that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, who are possessed of common sense and practical knowledge, should support a Clause which is unworkable. Farmers do not like having to fill up forms. They like to get their jackets off and get their job done. The object of this Bill is to increase the acreage of land under wheat in this country and to provide more work in the rural districts, and I trust the Minister will turn a deaf ear to this Clause.


The attention of the Committee ought to be drawn to the amazing thirst for knowledge which has been evinced by one or two of the speakers. When we see the purest of Socialists combining in his desire for knowledge with the purest of pure Liberals—as we are told the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) is—we may be quite sure they are after something. I have listened to a great number of Socialists and Liberal speeches in my time—it is one of the things I rejoice in—and when they are concerned with agriculture the one idea seems to be that farming can be, made to pay if only there is a sufficiency of statistics. If only there are enough statistics everything will be all right! Even the Secretary of State for Scotland believed that, in his unregenerate days. I have heard him make a bril-

liant speech in favour of statistics. Now, of course, he has improved; I do not think he would say the same thing at the present time. The real reason why such whole-hearted support has been given to this Clause is to be found in the proviso. If the farmer makes the slightest slip in sending in his record, or is a day late with it, he cannot get the quota payments. That is the real reason why this Clause is put forward. [Interruption.]


I laughed, that is all!


The right hon. Gentleman laughs because he has been caught out. Now that their design has been given away, I feel sure the Committee will vote against this Clause, and I hope that young and immature Liberals will not be led away by this new alliance of the purest of Liberals with the purest of Socialists, who will always do the Liberals in sooner or later.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 42;. Noes, 274.

Division No. 131.] AYES [7.26 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normenton) Maxton, James
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan).
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Harris, Sir Percy Parkinson, John Allen
Briant, Frank Hirst, George Henry Pickering, Ernest H,
Cove, William G. Holdsworth, Herbert Price, Gabriel
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jenkins, Sir William Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Daggar, George Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thorne, William James
Edwards, Charles Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Tinker, John Joseph
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Lawson, John James Wallhead, Richard C.
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lunn, William Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Granfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Groves, Thomas E. Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grundy, Thomas W. Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Mr. D. Mason and Mr. Dingle Foot
Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Blindell, James Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Albery, Irving James Borodale, Viscount Carver, Major William H.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.) Bossom, A. C Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Boulton, W. W. Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Aske, Sir Robert William Boyce, H. Leslie Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. SirJ. A. (Birm., W)
Astbury, Lieut. -Com. Frederick Wolfe Bracken, Brendan Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaitoh)
Atholl, Duchess of Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)
Atkinson, Cyril Broadbent, Colonel John Chotzner, Alfred James
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Brocklebank, C. E. R. Clarry, Reginald George
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Clayton, Dr. George C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Buchan, John Cobb, Sir Cyril
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T. Colville, John
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Burghley, Lord Conant, R. J. E.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Burnett, John George Cook, Thomas A.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Cooper, A. Duff
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B, (Portsm'th, C.) Butt, Sir Alfred Copeland, Ida
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Caine, G. R. Hall- Crooke, J. Smedley
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Kerr, Hamilton w. Raid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Kimball, Lawrence Renter, John R.
Cross, R. H. Kirkpatrick, William M. Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Crossley, A. C. Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard. Knebworth, Viscount Robinson, John Roland
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ropner, Colonel L.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Law, Sir Alfred Rosbotham, S. T.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Law, Richard. K. (Hull, S. W.) Ross, Ronald D.
Dickie, John P. Leckie, J. A. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Conner, P. W. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Drewe, Cedric Levy, Thomas Runge, Norah Cecil
Duckworth, George A. V. Liddall, Walter S. Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Lindsay, Noel Ker Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Llewellin, Major John J. Salmon, Major Isidore
Eales, John Frederick Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Eastwood, John Francis Lloyd, Geoffrey Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Eden, Robert Anthony Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Savery, Samuel Servington
Elmley, Viscount Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Scone, Lord
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard McKie, John Hamilton Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) McLean, Major Alan Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Macmillan, Maurice Harold Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Skelton, Archibald Noel
Everard, W. Lindsay Manningham-Buller, Lt. -Col. Sir M. Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Marsden, Commander Arthur Somervell, Donald Bradley
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Martin, Thomas B. Scmerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Fox, Sir Gifford Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Fuller, Captain A. O. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ganzoni, Sir John Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Milne, Charles Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Glossop, C. W. H. Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- Stones, James
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Strauss, Edward A.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Goff, Sir Park Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Goldie, Noel B. Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Sutcliffe, Harold
Gower, Sir Robert Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Templeton, William P.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Morgan, Robert H. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Greene, William P. C. Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Morrison, William Shephard Thorp, Linton Theodore
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro W.) Moss, Captain H. J. Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Grimston, R. V. Muirhead, Major A. J. Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Munro, Patrick Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Gunston, Captain D. W. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Guy, J. C. Morrison Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Turton, Robert Hugh
Hales, Harold K. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd) Nunn, William Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hanley, Dennis A. O'Connor, Terence James Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Hartland, George A. O'Donovan, Dr. William James Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gfn) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) Palmer, Francis Noel Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Pearson, William G. Wells, Sydney Richard
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Peat, Charles U. Weymouth, Viscount
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Penny, Sir George Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd) Petherick, M. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Hepworth, Joseph Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Hoars, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Pike, Cecil F. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hore-Belisha, Leslie Potter, John Wise, Alfred R.
Hornby, Frank Powell, Lieut. -Col. Evelyn G. H. Womereley, Walter James
Horsbrugh, Florence Procter, Major Henry Adam Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Howard, Tom Forrest Pybus, Percy John Worthington, Dr. John V.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred b. Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Wragg, Herbert
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Ramsbotham, Herwald TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. Ratcliffe, Arthur Sir Victor Warrender and Captain
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Rea, Walter Russell Sir George Bowyer.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)