HC Deb 23 July 1935 vol 304 cc1794-808

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Elliot.]


On a point of Order. Have we not been speaking on the Adjournment, and does not the Debate on the Adjournment terminate at half-past eleven?


We have been discussing the Motion which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.


I rise to ask you, Sir, what is the business before the House at this minute?


The business before the House at the moment is the Third Reading of the Cattle Industry Bill.

11.3 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I want to say how glad I am that the Government have found it possible to continue the subsidy for livestock pending the conclusion of an agreement with the Dominions and the Argentine. I am also glad that a levy has been definitely announced as the Government's long-term policy. But the farmers of Scotland will, I fear, learn with considerable concern that apparently a marketing scheme for livestock is to form part of the Government's proposals. That was indicated, not perhaps very definitely, a week ago, by my right hon. Friend, but it was made quite clear by the Prime Minister last Saturday. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture recently, seeing the serious loss caused to many producers by the milk scheme, and that some other schemes still have to prove their success, expressed the opinion that there should be no more marketing schemes for the present, that in particular, they desired no scheme at present for livestock. Livestock is much the most valuable part of farm produce, more especially in Scotland where it plays an even bigger part than in English agriculture. Therefore, I feel that there are many farmers who will be concerned about the introduction, possibly in this Parliament, or, anyhow, at some future date, of a marketing scheme for livestock. I would remind my right hon. Friend that at the last election the present Prime Minister gave a pledge that the farmers would be made secure against dumping. It does not seem to be consistent with that pledge to require a marketing scheme, as a condition of the levy, and I would point out to my right hon. Friend with how much concern this announcement is likely to be read. I hope therefore that very careful consideration will be given to the matter. In the meantime, I gladly support the Third Reading of the Bill.

11.8 p.m.


We are asked to pass a Bill to give farmers, over a period extending to October next, roughly £4,250,000. To-day we have debated other issues. The Government take a long time to consider human beings in distressed areas, and cannot act in regard to the things which have been complained of for years; yet to-day, in marked contrast, we see public money being handed over to the farming community, while the Minister's own Division, part of which is one of the worst depressed areas in the country, is neglected to a considerable extent. I hope that my hon. Friends will divide against this Motion. This is a case of public money being distributed among those whose interests are strong. We have been lectured about votes, but I have never seen a more ghastly spectacle of handing over public money to find votes for the Conservative party than that in which we are now engaged. We see to-day a spectacle which would have been condemned by past Parliamentarians of the Conservative party. The Minister represents as I do part of a great city which is in a terrible state of depression, and yet he is handing over public money to an industry for no other purpose than to gather in votes while his own poor people, not for a year or two, but for 10 years, have been in a state of almost unprecedented depression. That is a spectacle which is too contemptible for words.

11.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

Unlike the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Buchanan), I rise to thank the Minister for bringing in this Bill. The last speaker's suggestion was that the Bill was one to catch votes, but anyone who knows anything at all about agriculture knows very well that if this subsidy was not granted to the producers of cattle, the cattle industry would be in a terrible way, and the producers of cattle would have to go out of business, and a large number of farmers throughout the country would "go broke." I therefore thank the Minister very much for bringing in this Bill.

11.11 p.m.


The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has complained that the Government, in dealing with the question of the distressed areas, have not been as generous as he would like them to have been, but I would ask the hon. Member whether there would be any depressed area at all if the industries of that area had been able to remain in a flourishing condition. Surely had the industries of an area been kept going, there would have been no depressed area. The Government have taken the view, rightly, that whatever else happens, they do not want to add to the number of our distressed areas, and they have seen to it that the agricultural industry, which covers, after all, the major portion of the area of this country, shall not become depressed. The right way to keep any part of our country from becoming a distressed area is to support the industry of that area. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not support mining?"] I might ask the hon. Member who asks that question why it was that when his friends were in office they supported mining with so little success, because, after all, the depressed areas are mining areas, and therefore it ill befits hon. Members of the party above the Gangway to ask why the Government do not support the mining areas, when they themselves devoted so much of their time in this House, and rightly, to relieving that distressed industry in order that there should not be distressed areas. Unhappily, they made a failure of their efforts.

The Government do not intend to add to the number of depressed areas at any cost. They say it is far better to do something to support industries which are still alive, although being carried on with considerable difficulty. At least, where we have an industry alive, do not let us allow that industry to die. That must be a common-sense policy. Where there is an industry actually in being today, let us keep it alive at all costs. That is the only way in which we can keep people in work and drawing weekly wages. If an industry dies, there is no alternative to having, instead of two badly depressed areas, ten or a dozen badly distressed areas. Let hon. Members consider what are the results of some of the efforts of the National Government.


I think we must confine the Debate to what is in the Bill.


If I may turn to the intrinsic merits of the Bill, I would say that its great and chief merit is that it is coming to the assistance of an industry, namely, the cattle industry. But for the assistance which this Bill will afford to that industry, there would be another industry falling into decay. Surely on that broad ground alone, in view of all that has taken place in to-day's Debate, there should not be one hon. Member who is not prepared to support the Government in taking all reasonable measures to prevent any other man losing a job, in which he now finds himself at work and earning wages.

11.16 p.m.


I should like to add my thanks to the Minister of Agriculture for the Bill, and to congratulate him most sincerely for the steps he has taken and the success he has achieved in connection with the negotiations with representatives of the Dominions who have been over here in regard to the Cattle Industries Bill which we are now considering. I have no doubt that he has had a very difficult task. The more difficult the task the more essential it is that we should thank him for his achievements with the Dominions.


On a point of Order. May I ask whether on a Bill of this description it will be in order to discuss the question of the Dominions?


The hon. Member is founding his argument on the basis that there have been negotiations with Dominion representatives, and the Government have been able to bring in the Bill.


I should like to reply to the argument that the landlords will profit from this Bill. No man or woman can live to themselves alone. If hon. Members opposite will be serious and not so frivolous they will realise that no industry can live to itself alone. If we do not pass Measures such as this, we shall find that the industry of agriculture cannot continue. I should not be in order to refer in detail to the Debate that has taken place to-day on another question. One of the most serious facts in connection with the depressed areas is the lack of purchasing power of the people, which is not only detrimental to the people in the areas, but detrimental to those living outside these areas. If the purchasing power of the people whom this Bill is intended to benefit is reduced, other industries will suffer. Agriculture can never he prosperous by itself. Other industries are the customers of agriculture, and if they do not grant to those engaged in agriculture a right to purchasing power, they themselves will also suffer. Those engaged in the agricultural industry far outnumber those in any other industry. I have a great admiration for the colliers, but they do not equal the number of those in agriculture, whose purchasing power is equal to that of the miners and the quarrying industry combined. Therefore I say that it is important that agriculture should continue, and Bills of this description are the only method by which the industry can continue to maintain its purchasing power for the benefit of the whole country.

11.23 p.m.


The great statesman Talleyrand said to a person who was arguing against him on the pleasures of eating: What other pleasure is there which repeats itself four times in the day and goes on for an hour at a time? When the right hon. and gallant Member the Chief Whip heard of this he asked whether they had ever thought of the Minister of Agriculture on the Cattle Industry Bill. However, I should not have troubled the House to-night, but for the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He has repeated a statement to-night which I must challenge; indeed, it is necessary to challenge it whenever and wherever it is made, and particularly necessary after the Debate to which the House has just listened with regard to the distressed areas, because the problems of the special areas are closely bound up with the problem of increasing the number of those who are settled on the land. Of all things necessary before you can increase the number of persons settled on the land, surely it is necessary to maintain those who are already there. It is not a question of lack of prosperity among farmers, but a question of 600,000 or 700,000 or 800,000 people admittedly receiving wages at the lowest level and losing those wages or being thrown out of employment. As I said before, the hon. Member for Gorbals has voiced the feelings of the Opposition—voiced feelings which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are either afraid or unwilling to express. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] Does anyone deny that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are unwilling to speak upon this Bill?


We are waiting to speak. I and my right hon. Friend beside me rose when the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) was called upon to speak.


I said "unwilling." [Interruption.]


We will keep the debate going all night if you like.


Hon. Members are showing an unnecessary amount of heat. I do not wish to get into any sort of quarrel with right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I will withdraw the word "afraid" altogether, but I would point out that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) concluded his speech I kept my seat and no one rose from the other side to continue the Debate. Wherever and whenever a challenge is brought by the hon. Member for Gorbals, there and then that challenge will have to be met. The hon. Member stated that in some way or other an injustice was being done to the poor. Nowhere on earth can that challenge be made in my hearing without my doing my utmost forthwith to refute it. No one suggests that this Bill is going to do anything of any kind to injure the poor in the price of meat or the cost of living. Does the hon. Member for Gorbals deny that?


You take £4,500,000 of money out of national taxation. It should go to the poor, but you give it to other people who have not proved their poverty, and so you are injuring the poor.


Does the hon. Member apply that argument to the building industry?


In the building industry before money was granted they had to prove that the houses they were going to build were for working people and the poorest people. That was necessary before the subsidy was granted. Here a subsidy is granted without any test at all. It is simply shovelled out.


The hon. Member cannot avoid the issue in that way. His challenge was that money was being given, without a means test, to men who might be wealthy, but he avoids answering the question, whether the builders did, or did not get money without a means test.


I say again that the local authorities were granted subsidies to go on with the building of houses. So far as we were concerned, they got the subsidy but they had to build houses for the working people. Here, the farmers are being paid a sum of money without any regard to the use they make of it or anything else.


The evasion is patent. [HON. MEMBER: "No!"] There is no question about it whatever. I asked the hon. Member a straight question.


And you got an answer.


There was no answer given to it at all.


May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any portion of the housing subsidy was given by the Government, direct to any individuals working in the building industry? Was the subsidy not given to the local authority or to private contractors who were building houses?


Does the hon. Member suggest that nothing was given except in cases where direct building was being carried out by local authorities? It is common knowledge that this money was given through the local authorities to private individuals—builders who were building under the conditions of private enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Of course, it was.


Yes, but the private builders who were getting it from the local authorities were like the farmers to whom you are giving this money.




Exactly—and now, that question having been disposed of by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), I pass on to other points which were raised in the earlier discussion. A point of great interest was raised by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), as to marketing schemes. I am glad to be able to assure her that we have determined to examine this question—


I did not hear the speech of the Noble Lady, but, if she had referred to marketing schemes within my hearing, I should have called her to order.


Then it would be out of order for me to go further into that matter. As the question of the steps to be taken in connection with the long-term policy appears to be out of order in a discussion on this Measure, I need only say that those steps will be given full consideration before the long-term policy falls to be introduced. The long-term policy is being framed and the time which this Bill is designed to secure, will be used for that purpose. I can give the Noble Lady the assurance that the points she has raised will be carefully taken into consideration in the framing of that policy. As to the general question of whether the price level is being unreasonably held up by reason of this Measure or other Measures introduced by the Government, I say, without hesitation, that nobody can suggest for a moment that the price of food is being other than held down by this legislation. This Bill is necessary because, since 1930, the price of fat cattle has gone down from 100 to 67 where it is to-day and during that time the price of other great necessities of the working class, such as coal, has been held up, owing to legislation passed by—


We obviously cannot get on to the subject of coal.


I say that because the price of fat cattle has gone down con- siderably since 1930, and the price of other important articles has not gone down in anything like the same ratio. It is important for the interests of the people engaged in the industry that this Measure should be passed to-night. It is for the purpose of enabling us further to work out the long-term policy which we have repeatedly put before the House and which we are prepared to defend when the time comes. This Measure, which is a Measure of unmitigated good for every person, and more particularly for the working-classes, is one which the House cannot, after the earlier Debate to-day, refuse to give the Government.

11.36 p.m.


I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have suggested that we are unwilling to take up his challenge on this question. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman making a meal of his opportunity when the mutual admiration society started to operate. After the terrible display that we had from the Minister of Labour this afternoon and the equally terrible display we had from the "Minister of Brains," the Government are naturally anxious to cover up the tracks of the depressed areas Debate. For the right hon. Gentleman to state that we were unwilling to deal with this case because we had no courage is really the last word. The right hon. Gentleman brought a similar proposal before the House in July of last year, and he asked for seven months breathing space. He was breathing freely for seven months, and then he found he wanted more breathing space on the 18th February this year, when he asked for a further extension. We expected that the right hon. Gentleman, with his facile mind, great agility and courage, would, if we gave him three more months, be at least able to provide us with a long-term policy. But he failed again, and on 26th June he wanted more breathing space, and on 15th July he wanted still more. Really the right hon. Gentleman has compelled us to make speech after speech on the same subject until every other hon. Member except the right bon. Gentleman thought we had talked ad nauseam about cattle and subsidies.

The right hon. Gentleman always injects into these Debates the question of the mines. He has worked that problem overtime, and he has not done himself or the subject justice. He always tells us that unless this subsidy is made available 800,000 to 1,000,000 workpeople will be unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is talking bunkum. In 1932 we were informed by his predecessor, supported by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that unless £6,000,000 was made available there and then all our arable farmers would go out of existence at once. We were told by hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman, that were it not for the continuation of the sugar subsidy the industry would be in a parlous state and many people would be unemployed. The Scotsmen, and they were supported by the right hon. Gentleman, said "Unless there is an increased duty on oats what is to happen to agriculture in Scotland?" We have been told that unless £5,500,000 for milk was made available immediately—


I am waiting to hear about beef.


It is all in the same industry. The right hon. Gentleman says that unless all these subsidies are made available, so many hundreds of thousands of people, more than the number of miners in the country, are going to be thrown out of work. The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have captured £53,000,000 per annum, directly and indirectly, for agriculture. If he and his friends were half as generous to the mining industry we should have work not for 780,000 men but for 1,000,000. Why does he keep a quarter of a million men out of work? By implication the right hon. Gentleman can keep any number of people in any industry, that is, if the Government provide funds. We have been told that the Government are giving £2,000,000 to help the distressed areas, areas that are in absolutely dire straits through no fault of their own, whereas £4,300,000 is going to beef, to one branch of an industry alone, just to tide it over events for a time.

It is high time the right hon. Gentleman started thinking in terms other than subsidies. I can tell him that there is a great deal to be said on this subject from these benches and he should regard himself as fortunate that we have been so generous and sympathetic to him and have not talked as we might have done. That is only because we have been willing, up to a point, to allow experiments to be made and have agreed to large sums of public money being made available for those experiments. Money was voted in July, in February, in June, and in July again, all for the same industry, and still no permanent policy is forthcoming. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman retorting that subsidies were provided for the building industry. That was only because the capitalist system had broken down. There would have been no house for the working classes without subsidies.


We are not discussing housing.


I am sorry I crossed the borderline. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are not unwilling to meet him at any time, on fair ground, on this question of subsidies. We are not members of this mutual admiration society. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) will always compliment the right hon. Gentleman if the subsidy is bigger to-day than yesterday, and the hon. and gallant Member for Malden (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise), the Chairman of the Agricultural Committee of the House, would not be doing his duty if he did not express his admiration for the Minister when millions are being given to agriculture. The spokesmen of the farmers will, of course thank the right hon. Gentleman, and they have thanked him so often that in the end they have convinced him also that he has done the right thing. But I warn the right hon. Gentleman against his friends, and would remind him of a statement I made in this House some time ago, that if he was not careful he would go down to history not as the Minister with the most constructive mind but as the Minister who manufactured political paupers at a faster rate than any other Minister. I would repeat that warning. These expressions of delight and pleasure and the votes of thanks that are frequently heard are not for the good of the Minister of Agriculture in the National Government. It is because we feel that he is running down the wrong track, that he is off the rails and is not likely to get back on the rails, and that he is courting political disaster that we are willing to go into the Lobby against this Bill to-night.

Question put "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 62.

Division No. 285.] AYES. [11.45 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Maitland, Adam
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Fermoy, Lord Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Albery, Irving James Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Marsden, Commander Arthur
Anderson, Sir Alan Garrett Fleming, Edward Lascelles Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Apsley, Lord Ford, Sir Patrick J. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Aske, Sir Robert William Fox, Sir Gifford Meller, Sir Richard James (Mitcham)
Assheton, Ralph Fraser, Captain Sir Ian Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Fremantle, Sir Francis Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Atholl, Duchess of Ganzonl, Sir John Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Gledhill, Gilbert Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Glossop, C. W. H. Mitcheson, G. G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Goff, Sir Park Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Balniel, Lord Goldie, Noel B. Moreing, Adrian C.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Gower, Sir Robert Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Bateman, A. L. Graves, Marjorie Morrison, William Shepherd
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Greene, William P. C. Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Grigg, Sir Edward Munro, Patrick
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Grimston, R. V. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Bernays, Robert Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Blindell, James Gunston, Captain D. W. Orr Ewing, I. L.
Bossom, A. C. Guy, J. C. Morrison Palmer, Francis Noel
Boulton, W. W. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Patrick, Colin M.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hales, Harold K. Peake, Osbert
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton Hanbury, Sir Cecil Pearson, William G.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Peat, Charles U.
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.) Harbord, Arthur Percy, Lord Eustace
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hartington, Marquess of Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Broadbent, Colonel John Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n) Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith) Heligers, Captain F. F. A. Procter, Major Henry Adam
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Browne, Captain A. C. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Burghley, Lord Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ramsbotham, Herwald
Burnett, John George Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Horsbrugh, Florence Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Howard, Tom Forrest Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Remer, John R.
Carver, Major William H. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Rickards, George William
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Robinson, John Roland
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Iveagh, Countess of Ropner, Colonel L.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Laofric James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Ross, Ronald D.
Christie, James Archibald Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Clayton, Sir Christopher Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Runge, Norah Cecil
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Ker, J. Campbell Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Conant, R. J. E. Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Cooke, Douglas Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.) Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Cooper, A. Duff Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Salmon, Sir Isidore
Craven-Ellis, William Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Salt, Edward W.
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C. Law, Sir Alfred Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Crooke, J. Smedley Leckie, J. A. Sandys, Duncan
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Leech, Dr. J. W. Savery, Servington
Cross, R. H. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Crossley, A. C. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Liddall, Walter S. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Lindsay, Noel Ker Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Dalkeith, Earl of Llewellin, Major John J. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John Loder, Captain J. de Vere Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Dickie, John P. Mabane, William Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Duckworth, George A. V. MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr) Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) McCorquodale, M. S. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Dunglass, Lord Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Spens, William Patrick
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey McLean, Major Sir Alan Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Macmillan, Maurice Harold Stevenson, James
Elmley, Viscount Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Magnay, Thomas Storey, Samuel
Strauss, Edward A. Thomson, Sir Douglas Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Strickland, Captain W. F. Thorp, Linton Theodore Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Wills, Wilfrid D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Womersley, Sir Walter
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. Wragg, Herbert
Sutcliffe, Harold Turton, Robert Hugh
Tate, Mavis Constance Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) Sir George Penny and Lieut.-
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) Waterhouse, Captain Charles Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.
Thompson, Sir Luke Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mainwaring, William Henry
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Banfield, John William Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Batey, Joseph Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Maxton, James
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Groves, Thomas E. Milner, Major James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Grundy, Thomas W. Nathan, Major H. L.
Buchanan, George Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen
Cape, Thomas Harris, Sir Percy Rea, Sir Walter
Cleary, J. J. Hicks, Ernest George Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Janner, Barnett Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jenkins, Sir William Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Curry, A. C. Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Daggar, George Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Kirkwood, David West, F. R.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George White, Henry Graham
Davies, Stephen Owen Lawson, John James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Dobbie, William Leonard, William Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, Sir Charles Logan, David Gilbert Wilmot, John
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Lunn, William
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Glbbins, J. McEntee, Valentine L. Mr. Paling and Mr. John.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven, of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.