HC Deb 10 July 1935 vol 304 cc376-91

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £200,532, be granted for the said Service."


Before I call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to resume his speech, I am bound to warn him that an alteration of the specific salary which he was raising would require legislation. On the general question I think he is in order, but it would not be in order on this occasion to raise the question of increasing the salary paid to a specific Minister.

5.55 p.m.


I am obliged to you, Captain Bourne, for that intimation. I had not intended to make any specific suggestion on the lines suggested. When the House proceeded to attend in another place I was dealing with the case of the Secretary of State for Scotland as a matter of analogy, and not with a view to suggesting that any specific salary should attach to that office. I was just reminding the Committee of the situation which exists with regard to the Secretary of State for Scotland. When the increased dignity of a Secretaryship of State was attached to that office, which had previously been an ordinary Secretaryship, we all anticipated that the salary would be made commensurate with the dignity of the office. We realised that, at the moment when the change was made, conditions were not suitable for increasing charges upon the State and that no alteration in the salary was likely then to be made. But we believed that as soon as the situation had eased sufficiently for the State to consider increases of salary, the first office to be recognised in that respect would be that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not suppose anyone imagines that it is enough to suppress the grievance of a Scotsman to give him an extra dignity when no money goes with the increased importance of the office, and in Scotland we always understand it to be the case that the salary indicates the grade of the post.

Probably English Members of the Committee do not realise the extent and importance of the functions of this office. It is not merely a case of running one office or presiding over one department. The Secretary of State for Scotland has a series of departments under his charge. To begin with, he is Home Secretary and has to perform very exacting duties in that capacity. My native country is not entirely serene and tranquil at all times in regard to such matters as give trouble to the police. In addition, the Secretary of State is Minister of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Prime Minister mentioned the Ministry of Agriculture in England as one which was worthy of a higher salary than is being accorded to it at the present time. Furthermore, in addition to being Home Secretary and Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State is also Minister of Health and any one who knows the obligations attaching to that office must realise that it takes up a very large portion of his time. He is also Minister of Education. Education is a topic in which Scottish people take a most intense interest, and Scottish representatives pay close attention, both by questions and by expressions of opinion in this House, to the manner in which the duties of that office are being carried out.

I venture to say, on behalf, as I think I can, of all the Scottish Members, that we regard this situation as intolerable. It has been made more intolerable today. We might have gone through a further process of time in which, being naturally of a modest character, we might not have made too much trouble, but when we find supernumerary Ministers getting £3,000 a year, then undoubtedly Scotland will feel extremely irritated with regard to the position in which Scotland is put, and I am very glad to think that the Prime Minister has indicated that, at least in the case of these other Ministries, some levelling up ought to be done within no remote period of time. If higher salaries are to be given to the Ministers of Labour and Agriculture, I think the case of Scotland is infinitely stronger than either of these, and I hope the Prime Minister will reassure us upon this matter. I hope he will tell us that his omission of the case of the Secretaryship of State for Scotland was merely an omission and was not intentional or deliberate, and that it will have at least as good consideration as these other offices. We think it ought to have better.

I am sure my right hon. Friend will be ready to give us that assurance, because indeed those who observe the local Press in Scotland are very well aware that there is a considerable amount of grievance expressed in Scotland at present that their affairs are not receiving sufficient attention, and one of the things which not only irks them in their daily life but hurts their pride is the fact that the Secretaryship of State should be regarded as an inferior office with a salary of nothing more than is paid to a certain number of Under-Secretaries. That is a condition which ought not to be allowed to continue, and I beg the Prime Minister, who, I am sure, must be sympathetic upon this matter, to give us the assurance of his most earnest attention to it.

6.3 p.m.


This has been an interesting Debate upon an interesting, if distressing, subject. The Government have recently been having discussions with another right hon. Gentleman on the question of a New Deal, and they wanted themselves to have a new shuffle. Although the cards have been changed, however, they are all from the same three packs, and, as a French proverb has it, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." There is another proverb which says that you ought not to swap horses when you are crossing a stream. It seems to me that that is what the Government are doing in approaching the election. Anyhow, they have swapped leaders. The late Prime Minister has become Lord President of the Council, and now, instead of, in the words of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), gazing at his reflection in the broken mirrors of Europe, he is now surveying his past career in the broken looking-glass of his lost ideals. I will not say that King Log has succeeded King Stork, but King Log has certainly succeeded King Peacock.

As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, for a long time he has been doing the work of a Prime Minister on a very inadequate salary. He is now continuing to do the work on the full salary attached to that post and honesty compels us to congratulate him, if not the country, on the result. There has been a change in the Home Office. The late Home Secretary, having militarised the police against their will, has taken his armament shares to a back bench and has been succeeded by the late Foreign Secretary, who, having spilt the milk all over Europe, is now engaged in answering questions about little boys stealing milk cans in the City of Oxford, a very sad and melancholy end to a once promising career. I am very sorry, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has been deprived by the domestic arrangements of another family of the opportunity of inhabiting the house in Downing Street, upon which he had set his eye, and, owing to the well known assiduity of the Prime Minister, who comes here day after day, he cannot exercise the opportunity of being Deputy-Leader of this House.

There have been one or two other changes besides. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, for example, has been mentioned. I have no personal criticism to make upon that particular appointment. If I had any, it would be of a political character. I did not have any objection at all, when the Government were first formed, to the right hon. Gentleman being made Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I think parental solicitude is entitled to see that a member of the family should have one foot on a rung of the ladder, but I think it is carrying it too far to say that he must go right to the top. I prefer the precedent of King Edward III at the Battle of Crecy, when he said, "Let the youngster win his spurs." I was rather sorry that, as a result of these changes, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Sankey, a great friend of the miners, had to go and to be replaced by the author of the Trade Disputes Act.

Then we have the Secretary of State for the Dominions. Muddlers may come and muddlers may go, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to go on for ever. During the period of his office Newfoundland has gone bankrupt, Ireland has been ostracised, and Australia has been allowed to win the Test Matches, but in order that the rest of the Empire may be preserved, the Government have given the right hon. Gentleman the assistance of the scion of a noble house and the descendant of a long line of statesmen. I am sure his Under-Secretary, in the many conversations which he will have with his chief, will anyhow enrich his vocabulary, especially on the adjectival side. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty is going to haul down his flag at the end of this Parliament. I am sorry that before doing so he should have dipped his ensign to Germany and given the German naval authorities their revenge over Jutland. As for the Foreign Secretary, words absolutely fail me. I am sorry he is not in his place. I once said of the late Foreign Secretary that he was the worst Foreign Secretary since the days of Ethelred the Unready, but when I contemplate his successor, I almost wish he were back again in that particular office, for in the course of but three weeks the present Foreign Secretary has broken the Stresa front, very nearly wrecked the League of Nations, and seems to have preferred Herr Hitler to British honour.


I think we had better discuss that to-morrow.


Finally, I want to say something about the Minister without Portfolio. We all know the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). We have listened very humbly to his lectures and admired his omniscience. We all know, of course, why he is in the Cabinet. It is for one reason, and one reason only—to tell all the other Cabinet Ministers where they are wrong and what mediocrities they are. I notice in the paper to-day that, as he has now taken on the work of being schoolmaster to the Cabinet, he has decided to resign the Presidency of the Royal Society of Teachers. As for the National Government as a whole, they remind me of one of the features of our social life that has long, I am afraid, passed away. We remember those pictures of a Bank holiday, with a number of 'Arrys and 'Arriets walking or reeling down the street, arm in arm with each other and wearing each other's hats. That is what the National Government are doing at the present time. They are reeling down the street to the general election, and when that takes place I trust the great genius of our race, which has looked after us in so many troubles, will see that for them at least there is no resurrection.

6.10 p.m.


I wish to express, on my own behalf, and I believe I speak for a large number of other Members, our satisfaction at the assurance given by the Prime Minister this afternoon that the office of Minister for League of Nations Affairs, with a travelling commission to visit on behalf of the Foreign Office the capitals of Europe, is only a temporary appointment, and when I say that I desire to emphasise, as did the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), that it is not because I have any fear of the ability or the personality of the right hon. Gentleman. I consider that he is one of the ablest Members of the Cabinet, but many of us have felt for a long time past that negotiations with foreign Powers are very much better carried out by the trained Ambassadors accredited to the various countries. They are the men on the spot. They know the idosyncrasies of the people with whom they have to deal, and they do their job very much better than any Minister, however able he may be.

We have recently seen a striking example of this. As I say, it is no reflection on the present Minister for League of Nations Affairs, but we know that he was sent by the Cabinet to tell the Prime Minister of Italy that Great Britain would be prepared to give up a portion of Somaliland if this would be of assistance in the settlement of the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia. We all know what was the result, that it was refused almost with scorn by Italy, and that it has created apprehensions in and been considered undesirable by France. In fact, there is a practically united feeling that it was a very stupid thing to have done. If there had not been this peripatetic commission of Ministers going abroad, it would not have happened.

Surely the proper course would have been, if the Cabinet thought well to make such a proposal, to get our experienced Minister in Rome, Sir Eric Drummond, to have brought this proposal to the attention of the Italian Government. If it had not been acceptable, as it has proved not acceptable, nobody would have heard anything about it. On the other hand, if, as the Cabinet thought it might have been, it had been accepted, what a coup for the Cabinet, which could then have come forward and said, "We propose to ask the approval of the House of Commons in due course to what we have suggested to the Italian Government, namely, that a small piece of barren land should be handed over to the Abyssinian Government, and this will settle the dispute between Abyssinia and Italy." If it had not been accepted, it would have had no publicity, and the Government could have retired from the position gracefully and without loss of prestige, but when they send a Cabinet Minister and it is heralded in every capital of Europe that he is going to do this and that, if he does not do it, it reflects very adversely, not only on the Government, but on the country as a whole. I thank the Prime Minister for giving the assurance to the House and to the country that this is only a temporary appointment, and that there is in future to be no permanent Minister for League of Nations Affairs who will be continually travelling abroad. We hope that means that the foreign affairs of this country will be conducted by those who conducted them very satisfactorily in the past, namely, the Ambassadors and Ministers accredited to the various countries.

6.16 p.m.


I had not intended to intervene in the Debate, but I feel impelled to do so by the very unfair attacks that have been made on the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I have spoken to him only once or twice during my Parliamentary career, but I have watched him very closely, and I consider that if any man is worthy of promotion he is the Secretary for the Colonies. I have heard him on several occasions, in important Debates, and he has shown great ability and a great knowledge of the facts which he has been able to present in a masterly way. We remember his visit to Australia last year, when he did valuable service for the British Government and helped considerably to clear away difficulties and misunderstandings which had arisen. Everyone will agree that he acquitted himself admirably on that occasion. It seems to me that the criticism that has been directed against him is uncalled for. I can understand the bitterness which has emanated once more from the Opposition benches in regard to the Lord President of the Council, but I was hoping that after nearly four years some of the venom which existed earlier in this Parliament would have disappeared. It has not done so, however, and I object to the sins of the father being visited on the child.

The fact that the Secretary for the Colonies is the son of his father should not be put up against him. The father may be criticised, and he has been unfairly criticised this afternoon, but I do not think that heredity should be a bar to promotion. That is the position taken up by the Opposition. I once heard—and I think there is a great deal of truth in it—that in the old days Mr. Gladstone was too punctilious in regard to helping any relatives in connection with Parliamentary work. I was told that Mr. Herbert Gladstone, who was in the House for many years and was a most able man—as I know personally—was kept in a very low position simply because his father was so punctilious about appointing any relatives to office. I think that he carried it too far, and I am glad that the Prime Minister to-day has risen above that and has made this promotion, which I believe is justified. One of the criticisms of the remodelled Government is that it is too old, but here is an attempt to put in a man who is young in outlook and who yet has considerable experience. That is a good step and will strengthen the Cabinet instead of weakening it, as hon. Members in the Opposition have suggested.

6.19 p.m.


I want to refer to the point which was forcefully put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) with regard to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He referred to the fact that the Secretary of State is Minister of Agriculture as well as of other Departments in Scotland. He did not mention the fact, which the Government ought to consider, that in Scotland the Secretary of State is the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, a position which no Minister in England holds. Therefore, it is important that he should have a salary commensurate with his office.

6.20 p.m.


I would like, as one of the new younger Members of the House, to say how much I agree with what the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) said about the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman has had opportunities which do not come the way of many young men. Whether that be so or not it is certain that he has made the most of those opportunities, and anyone who has watched his work in the House is only too glad, even if influence has had something to do with it—and it is nothing to be ashamed of, if it has—to see him worthy of having influence exercised on his behalf. We hope that other men may also be found to serve their country at a younger age than is usual in politics. Some of us, and I believe the country, feel very strongly that the process of rejuvenating the Cabinet has not gone nearly far enough. Let us, at any rate, be grateful for a beginning. Possibly in future a Prime Minister even more daring than the right hon. Gentleman who holds that office to-day may introduce more younger men into the Cabinet. Let us, however, be thankful for the mercies we have received. Of one thing I am certain—and I say this with no disrespect to hon. Members opposite—that no one on their benches has shown greater ability than the Secretary of State for the Colonies. We all, without churlishness, are glad to see his elevation to the Cabinet and hope that it presages the great changes in the Government to which the country is looking forward at some future date.

The appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is a most interesting appointment, with which I am sure the Committee will agree, perhaps even more for the sake of the appointment than for the sake of the man, although for the sake of both. It is essential that, with unemployment at the figure it is now, we should have a forward and constructive policy. Some of us have been trying in our small way to urge such a policy forward. There have been a few disappointments, but we shall go on persevering. Some of us who have been doing that felt in an embarrassed situation yesterday. On the one hand, it was impossible for us to feel the slightest enthusiasm for the party opposite, which was the cause of unemployment having risen from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000. We were certainly not going to do anything to get rid of Charles the Second to make James the Second King—and I pay James the Second a very poor compliment when I make that comparison. On the other hand, we like to feel that we support our own side, not because it is far better than the opposite side, but because it is the Government which comes nearest the ideal Government which we have in our minds. The Government were able to show yesterday beyond challenge that they have succeeded in placing the finances of this country upon a solid basis. Without such a solid basis constructive reform is impossible, and it is because hon. Members opposite—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I think that the hon. Member had better get back to the subject of the Vote.


I at once accept your Ruling. I am afraid that I was arguing at greater length on the subject than was perhaps justified. We hope that the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings means that, at any rate, one Minister of the greatest ability will present to the Government new ideas for dealing with the problems of unemployment. We must have new ideas, or we shall have that problem with us for a great many years. In Lancashire there is a great exporting industry in distress, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings to devote himself, not to presenting new legislation, but to presenting a report as to what he thinks would be the best way of dealing with the situation in the cotton industry. If we allow it to drift, if we allow anarchy to go on from bad to worse, there will be no hope for that industry. Many of us feel very strongly on the question of the aged men in industry, and think that men should be retired at an earlier age.


That would require legislation.


I am not suggesting legislation, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to present a report on the subject. I hope that the importance of the subject and the lack of opportunities for private Members to raise these points will be my excuse for going outside the Rules of Order. When we see the suffering of our constituents we sometimes feel that there is something more important than points of order in this human problem. I say that without the slightest disrespect to the Chair. I say it as a justification for having possibly gone a little further than one would have gone had one had opportunities of putting this matter forward when it would have been in order. The Government have done much. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings has done much. All we hope is that they will bring in new men and will not be afraid of pursuing a policy because some people label it Socialistic; and that in every direction they will go forward to make a real effort on new lines to grapple with unemployment. If they do that the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings as a Minister to inquire into a solution of this problem will have been justified a thousandfold.

6.28 p.m.


I know the Committee is anxious to take a Vote, and I do not intend to keep it more than a few minutes. I would not have occupied those few minutes but for the hon. Member who has just spoken. He tells us that this is the best Government, and then proceeds to thank Heaven for the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and then to threaten the Prime Minister that, unless there is another infiltration of youth into the Cabinet, it will mean death and glory for this country. The Prime Minister ought to take note of the fact that the hon. Member is not yet an old man, and that if he is anxious for further youthful recruits the hon. Member is apparently awaiting his opportunity. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rendered a signal service this afternoon when he introduced this Debate. It was not, as the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Leckie) and the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) seemed to imply, with the object of attacking any individuals. My right hon. Friend was anxious to make an attack on an innovation which he explained so clearly as not to require further words from me.

The Prime Minister this afternoon did not so much laud the ability of one Minister or another as tell the Committee for the first time the real truth about the make-up of the present Government. He said, in effect, that this was not a ministry of ability but a ministry of proportions, and we ought to characterise it as such for all times. He said that in view of what happened in 1931, and the magnificent political services rendered to the Tory party by certain Members of the so-called National Labour party, they were entitled to so many ministerial posts, and like the honest Member he is the Prime Minister persists in maintaining the proportions that obtained in 1931. There he admits that this is not a ministry of ability but a ministry based upon proportions and fragments of parties.

That leads to the next stage, the reshuffle. Dealing with the Minister for League of Nations Affairs the Prime Minister told us that he had been anxious for a long time to make arrangements to meet the new set of circumstances that had arisen, his object being to obtain the best ministerial team to deal with foreign affairs. That does not pay the late Foreign Secretary a very great compliment, because by implication he has been deposed so that we may have the best foreign affairs team. Although the Prime Minister declared that he would not explain why he made this or that appointment, he did by implication inform us that certain Ministers had been deposed or transferred from one office to another, and we must wait and see whether the weekday Foreign Secretary and the Sunday Minister for League of Nations Affairs will unite their efforts so as to obtain the maximum results. So far, I am afraid that they have been a very signal failure.

The next point the Prime Minister brought out in his statement was that this ministry of proportions are so lacking in all-round ability that they must have one or two Ministers without portfolio to help them with their thinking. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings is to have an open sesame. He must look at all the social problems, the unemployment problem and the allied problems. He has really become the minister of the universe. As my hon. Friend for one of the Nottingham Divisions said, he is there to tell the other Ministers when they are wrong. While the Ministry as a whole do more work than in the past, there are more Ministers to deal with the various problems confronting them, but it is an open confession that Ministers are incapable of dealing with their individual jobs when one or two Ministers without portfolio have to be appointed to scour the universe and do what ordinary Ministers are not excepted to do.

But this is consistent with the very origin of the Government. All hon. Members know the origin of this Government. It was a scramble in the early stages. It was a Government of elements which had agreed to disagree. They disagreed and they agreed for a period, until Ottawa came along, when there were certain Liberal defections. Then there were certain National Liberal scrambles for office, and the ministry of proportions has been continued ever since. The hon. Member for Gorton said a moment ago that the Government had satisfied the House yesterday that they had stabilised the foundations of this country and almost solved every problem, but then he proceeded to show that the depression, the decay and the demoralisation in all parts of the country have become more or less stabilised since this ministry of proportions has been in office during the last four years. I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rendered a signal service to-day. He has pointed to the real defect of the Government, which is that it was not appointed on the basis of ability but in such a manner as to give certain Ministerial offices to certain fragments of political parties which had rendered certain services to the Conservative party in 1931.

In conclusion, I would say one word to the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). He never loses an opportunity of attacking hon. Members on these benches, but there is one thing he cannot say of us. He has never been able to charge us with the inconsistency which, according to his own confession, has characterised his last 25 years of political life. He was in the Liberal party, he told us, went into the Coalition party, came into the Socialist party, went to the National Labour party, and if the Tory party are in office after the next election he will be there, if he

happens to be returned to the House. I have heard the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) chastised for changing his party allegiance, but he has always been wise, because whenever he has changed he has sat on the Treasury Bench. He is not there now, but, as he knows, it requires an exception to prove the rule. The hon. Member for Central Leeds has not had that success. His political acrobatics have not done him a lot of credit, and every time he attacks Members sitting on these benches we can well afford to listen to him, because he represents nothing and nobody, and is only here in a temporary fashion, and I am looking forward to the day when Central Leeds will return to sanity and turn him out.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £200,532, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 220.

Division No. 267.] AYES. [6.38 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R. Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Banfield, John William Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Batey, Joseph Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Groves, Thomas E. Maxton, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Milner, Major James
Cape, Thomas Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Owen, Major Goronwy
Cleary, J. J. Harris, Sir Percy Parkinson, John Allen
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Healy, Cahir Rea, Sir Walter
Cove, William G. Holdsworth, Herbert Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Janner, BarnettSmith, Tom (Normanton)
Curry, A. C. Jenkins, Sir William Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Daggar, George Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Thorne, William James
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Kirkwood, David West, F. R.
Dobbie, William Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George White, Henry Graham
Edwards, Sir Charles Lawson, John James Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Leonard, William Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Bann)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Logan, David Gilbert
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Lunn, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Paling.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter McEntee, Valentine L.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Brass, Captain Sir William Cooper, A. Duff
Albery, Irving James Broadbent, Colonel John Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Brocklebank, C. E. R. Copeland, Ida
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Browne, Captain A. C. Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Apsley, Lord Burnett, John George Craven-Ellis, William
Aske, Sir Robert William Butler, Richard Austen Crooke, J. Smedley
Assheton, Ralph Caporn, Arthur Cecil Crossley, A. C.
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Carver, Major William H. Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Cautley, Sir Henry S. Dalkeith, Earl of
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Davison, Sir William Henry
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Dawson, Sir Philip
Beit, Sir Alfred L. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Denman, Hon. R. D.
Bernays, Robert Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Doran, Edward
Blindell, James Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Boulton, W. W. Clarke, Frank Drewe, Cedric
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton Cobb, Sir Cyril Eales, John Frederick
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Eastwood, John Francis
Bracken, Brendan Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Edmondson, Major Sir James
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Loder, Captain J. de Vere Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Lyons, Abraham Montagu Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr) Runge, Norah Cecil
Ford, Sir Patrick J. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Fremantle, Sir Francis MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw) Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Fuller, Captain A. G. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. McKeag, William Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Goldie, Noel B. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Salt, Edward W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. McLean, Major Sir Alan Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Macmillan, Maurice Harold Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Guy, J. C. Morrison Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Marsden, Commander Arthur Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Hales, Harold K. Martin, Thomas B. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Hammersley, Samuel S. Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Hartington, Marquess of Meyhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Somerset, Thomas
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. Somervell, Sir Donald
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tl'd & Chisw'k) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimstord) Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Hepworth, Joseph Morgan, Robert H. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties) Spens, William Patrick
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie Morrison, William Shepherd Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Hornby, Frank Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Munro, Patrick Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Stones, James
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Strauss, Edward A.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) North, Edward T. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Nunn, William Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Iveagh, Countess of Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Orr Ewing, I. L. Summersby, Charles H.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Patrick, Colin M. Sutcliffe, Harold
Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas Peake, Osbert Tate, Mavis Constance
Jennings, Roland Pearson, William G. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Peat, Charles U. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Petherick, M. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Thomson, Sir James D. W.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Potter, John Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Turton, Robert Hugh
Kimball, Lawrence Procter, Major Henry Adam Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Kirkpatrick, William M. Radford, E. A. Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Leckie, J. A. Ramsbotham, Herwald Wills, Wilfrid D.
Leech, Dr. J. W. Rathbone, Eleanor Wise, Alfred R.
Lees-Jones, John Rawson, Sir Cooper Womersley, Sir Walter
Levy, Thomas Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Lindsay, Noel Ker Reid, David D. (County Down) Worthington, Sir John
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Liewellin, Major John J. Rickards, George WilliamTELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lloyd, Geoffrey Ropner, Colonel L. Major George Davies and Dr.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th) Resbotham, Sir Thomas
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Ross, Ronald D. Morris-Jones.

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.