§ Section five of the Act of 1933 (which exempts certain dwelling-houses of low value from the restrictions as to the right of possession) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. T. Williams.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 5.10 p.m.
§ Mr. T. WilliamsI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope and almost expect that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this proposed new Clause. On numerous occasions one has had to call attention to the amazing difference between the treatment meted out in this House to farmers on the one hand and that meted out to agricultural labourers on the other. From 1920 the labourers have suffered disadvantage under rent laws such as the one we are considering to-day. In every other case, under the original Act, alternative accommodation had to be provided if the owner wanted possession but as far as the agricultural labourers were concerned, something less than that was available. If a farmer required possession of the agricultural labourer's cottage he did not proceed straight to the courts to prove that one of the conditions laid down in the original Act had not been fulfilled. He went instead to the county agricultural wages committee which was almost always composed of farmers and landowners and secured a certificate from that body. He then proceeded to the court, which, almost always accepted the certificate as the last word, and the labourer had to depart.
There is another kind of penalty on the agricultural worker. Ever since 1920, as I say, agricultural labourers had been at a disadvantage compared with every other section of tenants in the country. In 1933 when the Opposition were numerically very small another Bill was passed. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) and the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) persuaded the Minister of Health of that time—Sir Hilton Young as he then was—that the Government ought to go a step further and create more disadvantages for agricultural labourers. They imported into the 1933 Act the Section referred to in this new Clause. Section 5 was provided, on the ground, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury argued, that unless 974 houses where the rent was 2s. 6d. or less were withdrawn from control, owners would be tempted, once they lost tenants, to leave the houses empty, because to accept another tenant would be to create a statutory tenancy and the landlord would then not be able to dispossess the labourer when he wanted to—which the hon. Member thought, was a very serious business. That, however, had been the case for 13 years and no serious problem had accrued, and yet the then Minister of Health, without any further information, advice or guidance produced this Section and embodied it in the 1933 Act.
Now the position from the agricultural labourer's point of view is this. Under the original Act of 1920, the owner had to show either that there were arrears of rent, or that the tenant had committed misconduct and become a nuisance, or that the tenant had given notice and another tenancy had been created, and that then the first tenant had refused to move, or that the owner required the house himself, or one of several other reasons under the Act. If the owner could show that one of these conditions had been fulfilled he could secure possession. This Section 5 eliminated all agricultural labourers' cottages from those conditions, so that now instead of the labourer securing such small advantage as the 1920 Act gave him, even that is withdrawn. Parliament raised the figure from 2s. 6d. to 3s., so that now where the rent is from 3s. downwards the agricultural labourer's cottage is decontrolled except for rent purposes. The owner of the property can get rid of the labourer without any condition whatever.
Therefore, we are asking that that Section of the Act of 1933, when, unfortunately, we had very few Members on these benches and so little technical guidance and assistance that we were taken undue advantage of by the great massed forces of His Majesty's Government, should be repealed. The Minister asks me whether I was here. I was here, and my hon. Friend who was in charge of the opposition to the Bill at that time and I were trying to do the work of six Members. I am not sure that we did any of it effectively, but we did our best in most difficult circumstances. This is one of the results of the numerical weakness of the Opposition, as 975 was the case from 1931 to 1935. The agricultural labourer living in such a cottage can be turned out at any moment without any conditions and in any set of circumstances if the property owner wants to get rid of him. I am referring to the house which is let at a rent of from 3s. downwards. It is well understood that the wages of most agricultural labourers will not permit of them paying a higher rent than 3s. per week. If they had to pay much more than 3s., plus rates, there would be nothing left for food at all.
The Minister of Health may ask in how many cases agricultural labourers have been evicted in the past year or so. Last year no fewer than zoo cases were dealt with by the National Union of Agricultural Workers. It was thought that these labourers, who were dismissed or whose contract had been worked out, were safeguarded by the 1920 Act, but the landlords knew better. They had the appropriate help, guidance and influence, and these 200 agricultural labourers had to depart. It did not matter whether they had been faithful servants, good tenants, had cared for the property, cultivated the garden, and decorated the railings, if they had any; the moment the contract of service ceased, out they had to go on to the streets. What has been the result?
Since 1921 we have lost approximately 200,000 agricultural labourers from the land. We know from the figures of the Minister that we have lost 70,000 since 1931. I ask the Minister of Health to try and imagine a case of this description where the farmer finds cause for putting off one of his employés. The farmer decides to get possession of the house at the same time because he may not require the man's labour for another three or six months. Sometimes machines are obtained to do the work of the men, who consequently are displaced. What must be the state of mind of the agricultural labourer who find himself without work and without a house? The best he can ever hope to get is 34s. or 35s. a week in wages in an agricultural area, but now he is without work, without a house, and, therefore, without a home for his wife and children. It is not unnatural that such a man should start to make tracks for the town or city. If he is to 'be unemployed, he might as well be unemployed in a town or city as in a rural 976 area. The Minister knows better than any Member of this House that the kind of house, the rent of which such a person can afford to pay, has not been built. The houses are not available, and as there is no alternative these men migrate to the city or town and join the ranks of the unemployed there, and agriculture probably loses some of its most skilled workers, which it really cannot affard to lose.
Here is a case where the Minister placed agricultural labourers at a disadvantage when there was no justification for it at all. It is true that such a house is controlled for the purpose of rent, but it is decontrolled for the purpose of tenancy. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom, after all these years of serious disadvantage superimposed upon agricultural labourers, at least of giving them such guarantees as are embodied in the 1920 Act. In order to do that he requires to remove the offending Section 5 of the 1933 Act, and I hope that he will see the wisdom of doing it here. It has been said that agriculture is the pet and darling of the Tory party, but nobody can claim that the agricultural labourer has been the pet and darling of the Tory party. I hope at all events that the right hon. Gentleman, who has a very big heart and can on other occasions express real feeling for the downtrodden, will see the wisdom of accepting the new Clause which I have moved.
§ 5.22 p.m.
§ Mr. T. SmithI beg to second the Motion.
I wish to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health straight away, that I was in the House in the last Parliament. I had been back, I think, five days when Section 5 of the 1933 Act was put into the Bill at that time. I do not think that there was any need for my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to say that it was due to the fact that there was only a handful of Members in this House. I think that most hon. Members will agree that from 1931 right away to the next election the little bunch of Labour Members in this House did work for which they could take credit, and we ought not to decry it. I remember very clearly the Minister of Health, the then Sir Hilton Young, conceding the provision to the hon. Member 977 for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). I did not at that time recognise the implications of it, and our experience from 1933 to date has taught us that it is time the House took out this provision.
The National Union of Agricultural Workers say—and they have plenty of evidence to bear it out—that this Section has had the effect of causing many farm labourers to be evicted, and that it has been tantamount to victimisation. In these days when there is such a decline in the number of people employed on the land in this country—and even the Ridley Committee made some very valuable comments about that decline—it ill becomes a House of this character to treat agricultural workers as inferior to the rest of the workers of the country. While it is true that the Section in the 1933 Act safeguarded the agricultural worker as far as the actual rent was concerned, it left him in an absolutely inferior position. He could be evicted without any appeal to the court.
The right hon. Gentleman claims to have much sympathy—I am not finding fault with it—for those who work on the land. If there is any section of the community who have been compelled to live in bad houses it is many of the skilled farm workers in the countryside. Until the inferiority of treatment of agricultural workers is removed, the decline in their numbers will continue. In nearly every piece of legislation affecting agricultural workers which has been passed during the past three or four years, they have been placed in an inferior position. They are placed in an absolutely inferior position in regard to Unemployment Insurance. They receive lower benefits than the rest of those who are in Unemployment Insurance. The maximum benefit, despite the fact that a man may have six children, is 30s. a week. After nearly five years' experience of the working of Section 5 of the 1933 Act—we can bring abundant evidence that it has been used to the detriment of agricultural workers—we ask the House on this occasion to take it out of the Rent Restrictions Act, and at least assure the agricultural worker that he is not to be placed in an inferior position in regard to rent restriction.
§ 5.26 p.m.
§ Sir K. WoodThe hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) 978 has made. as he always does, a very able and persuasive speech. I would very much like, after hearing a speech of that kind, and after what he was good enough to say about myself, to do anything which the hon. Member would desire me to do.
§ Mr. James GriffithsWhy not?
§ Sir K. WoodIn a good many cases I have no doubt that l should be able to do that, but the difficulties in this matter arise, under the Rent Restrictions Acts and Measures of that kind, where there are claims of a conflicting character, and it is necessary to consider what is the best thing to do. Speaking generally, apart altogether from the merits of the proposed Clause, the best remedy for all the difficulties, as far as housing in the countryside is concerned, is undoubtedly to build more houses. I hope that the Act of Parliament which has just been placed on the Statute Book will mean a considerable addition to the number of houses for agricultural workers in this country at reasonable rents. I have been engaged in the last few days in preparing a communication to the local authorities of the country urging them immediately to avail themselves of that legislation and the very generous subsidy—I think perhaps the most generous subsidy that has been given—to enable houses to be built quickly.
Legislate as we may, the real remedy for the position which the hon. Member has put before the House so vividly is undoubtedly the provision of more houses for agricultural workers at reasonable rents. Perhaps I may be unduly optimistic, but I believe that under this new legislation, we shall be able to do that, or, at any rate, to obtain a considerable addition to the housing accommodation for the agricultural workers in the country districts. I would recall to the House the circumstances in which my predecessor in office, the then Sir Hilton Young, brought in the Section to which the hon. Gentleman has now taken exception and placed it upon the Statute Book. I asked him, not very seriously, whether, in fact, he was in the House at the time the particular Section went through. I was curious enough to read up the Debates, and it was very interesting to observe that the Section went through without any opposition. It may be that the hon. Member for the Don Valley was so exhausted by his efforts the previous 979 day that he was not present, and it may be that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) did not appreciate the meaning of the Section, but the fact remains that it went through without any objection. My predecessor, Sir Hilton Young, then Minister of Health, explained the Section. It was not done in a hurried manner, because the question was raised in Committee stage and he said that he would reflect on the proposal and see what could be done. It was after some mature consideration that my right hon. predecessor brought forward the proposal. He said—and on the reasons that he gave I largely base my case to-day—
It is to enable the best use to be made by the agricultural world of cottages for agricultural and estate management purposes.I would emphasise that sentence, because what we are seeking to do is to achieve the best that is possible in this difficult kind of legislation for the agricultural industry as a whole. The then Minister of Health went on to say:The new Clause proposes to do this by providing that in the case of cottages let at 2s. 6d. a week or less—that is a category that covers practically nothing except agricultural cottages—the provisions of the Act of 1920, except those. which limit the permitted rent, shall cease to apply if the landlord wishes to obtain possession. It will be apparent to the House that this Clause deals only with cottages which are in use for agricultural or estate management purposes. In effect it provides an alternative method of obtaining possession for the sake of the management of the farm or estate—an alternative to the present method under which the owner has to get a certificate from the local authority to the effect that the House is required for agricultural purposes. This is considered to be a more convenient method."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1933; col. 37, Vol. 278.]If we delete this Section we should be left with the earlier provision on the Statute Book which the hon. Member thinks has not worked well. I rather gather that he considers the Committee is packed with landlords.
§ Mr. T. WilliamsThe right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said that from 1920 to 1933 the agricultural labourer had been suffering a disadvantage as compared with all other tenants, but under the Act of 1933 it was a still greater disadvantage, and in over 200 cases last year tenants who were dismissed summarily from their 980 houses would have had a chance of remaining even under the disadvantageous provisions of the 1930 Act.
§ Sir K. WoodI would point out to my hon. Friend that you have to take into account the general interests of the agricultural industry as a whole. Let me quote what Sir Hilton Young said in 1933:
There are two points I would emphasise to enable the House to understand the bearing of the Clause.First, it leaves the present sitting tenant fully protected in his tenancy, and, secondly, future tenants also, who under the law as it is now would have no protection at all, will have the protection of a limitation of rent. The Clause preserves the pool of small houses and carries out the general policy of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1933; col. 38, Vol. 278.]I think it is a reasonable view of the position to take into account the interests of the industry as a whole. The Section which the hon. Member wishes to delete from the Statute Book does give protection so far as rent is concerned. Agricultural housing was carefully considered by the Ridley Committee, although there was some question as to whether it came within their terms of reference.
§ Mr. T. WilliamsIt was absolutely excluded from the terms of reference to the Marley Committee, and the 1933 Act was intended and actually did carry out the recommendations of the Marley Committee. But in the terms of reference agricultural cottages were excluded.
§ Sir K. WoodI think that is a perfectly correct statement, but it is fair to add that apart from the evidence of the National Union of Agricultural Workers no other evidence was taken. Therefore, I must ask the House to rest upon the Clause in the Bill and deal with the matter as I think it can best be dealt with, that is, to proceed as rapidly as we can with further housing accommodation.
§ 5.40 p.m.
§ Sir Percy HarrisThere is no greater artist than the Minister of Health in the gift of persuasion, but he gave away the whole show in his opening remarks. I am not an agricultural labourer, or a rural Member, although I was at one time a Member for an agricultural constituency. The right hon. Gentleman has 981 said that there is no more appalling problem than the house shortage in the agricultural community, and that he was going to carry on a great campaign for building houses with the exceptional subsidy which the State was giving to stimulate house building. The right hon. Gentleman is a great organiser and propagandist, but even he with all his enthusiasm, with all his platform campaign, cannot turn out houses to replace the 150,000 houses concerned, in a week, or a fortnight or a year. In the meantime thousands of honest people who are the backbone of the country are in tied houses at the mercy of their employers. It is an out-of-date position and would not be tolerated in any of our urban areas. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is suggesting that these shackles on the life of the agricultural labourer shall be removed, that he shall feel some security in his home; that if he loses his job he will not at the same time lose his home. That is not an unreasonable proposition. If at the end of three years the right hon. Gentleman can show that as a result of his campaign there is a surplus of houses provided by local authorities, then by all means go back on the Section in the Act of 1933, but until these houses have been built and are available, until his campaign has succeeded, it is not unreasonable to put the proposed new Clause in the Bill.
§ 5.43 p.m.
§ Mr. SextonThe Minister has said that he wants to provide agricultural cottages at a reasonable rent. The rent will have to be reasonable indeed, considering the income which an agricultural worker gets. Country cottages are essentially low in rent, and very many of them are as low in standard as they are in rent. During the last few years people from urban areas have been coming into the rural places in motor cars and have cast envious eyes on the cottages. They have got them for week-end cottages. There is now a tendency for agricultural workers to be displaced in order that richer persons may get these cottages for the week-end. These richer people are able to pay more. They are also able to do something to the garden railings and do other necessary repairs which the landlord has evaded. The agricultural worker cannot afford to do this out of his meagre wages or the unemployment benefit which 982 he receives, and he is being displaced by these week-end visitors.
It is unfortunate, but true, that these worthy agricultural workers are compelled to occupy cottages which are too small because they cannot afford to pay a higher rent for larger places. It is unfortunate, but true, that agricultural workers are condemned to worse conditions all round than workers in the industrial areas. They have now the benefits of the agricultural workers' insurance, but if you consider the low wages which are fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board you will realise that 3s. a week is a very big rent for them. These tenants have no safeguard and they ask the Minister to agree to this proposal. We want the agricultural worker to have at least one secure tenancy, the security of a home, even if he has not security of tenure in his occupation. Is it to be wondered that rural depopulation is going on? Two hundred agricultural workers have been evicted during the last year. In five years that means 1,000, and where are they to go except into the towns to try and get work there? So long as these anomalies remain so long will you have the problem of rural depopulation.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. ButcherThe hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has suggested that my right hon. Friend will take three or four years to complete his housing programme, and as that is about the time when there will be a General Election, it implies that the hon. Member expects the Government to win the election—a very comforting thought. I want to make a request to my right hon. Friend to meet us if he can in this matter. I feel that at the present time, when an agricultural worker's family has to leave a cottage, there is a very grave danger of that family migrating to the nearest town and taking a house there at a higher rent, and although earning higher wages, having a net income which is no greater. Such depopulation of the countryside should, if possible, be avoided, and I hope that the Minister will do what he can to assist us in this matter.
§ 5.46 p.m.
§ Sir Hugh SeelyI hope the Minister will not leave this matter as it is. This is not a new question, and anybody who lives in a rural area or owns property 983 there knows the difficulties connected with tied cottages. The whole question of tied cottages is no longer considered in the same way as it was previously, when the idea was that all cottages ought to belong to the farm and that when the tenancy of the farm changed, the farm labourers should be turned out of their cottages. In modern farming there is not the need for the same number of tied houses, but the principle of the tied house still remains. With mechanisation, there is no doubt that fewer tied houses are needed than was formerly the case. I am certain that it will not be possible to get proper accommodation for farm workers until we get rid of the tied-house system. I do not think the elimination of that system would cause anything like the difficulty which some people think, and I believe it would cause a real stir to get proper housing in agricultural districts, not only from the Ministry but from the owners of the property, and people who still have a large obligation to see that the workers on the land are not in a different condition from those who live in the towns.
§ 5.48 p.m.
§ Mr. A. BevanThe right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health was asking the House to believe a little too much when he said that in this class of house control of rents is continued, and that therefore, that question does not arise, and that we are discussing the control of tenure. Our experience is that control of rents is not of much use unless it is accompanied by control of tenure. There are many instances in which rents far in excess of the legal rents are connived at by the tenant himself, and unless the tenant pays a higher rent, the landlord, by this power, is able to get him out of the house. Part of the protection given by the old law was that the tenant could go to the committee and raise the matter, and if the committee had any judicial sense, it would reject the application of the landlord for possession of the house unless there was proper evidence. The Ridley Committee
§ pointed out—I am not now dealing with tied cottages as such, but with free cottages—that what is happening in the countryside in many instances is that, within a reasonable radius of big cities, there is an invasion of the countryside by large numbers of people who can afford to take week-end cottages.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not considering the best interests of the agricultural industry in allowing this condition of affairs to continue. This would have been all right, as the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said, if there had been such an increase in rural housing that rural workers could find other accommodation. In that case, this problem would not affect the rural population. But surely it is to the grave disadvantage of the agricultural industry if such high rents are charged for these houses, as a result of the connivance of which I have spoken, or if the houses are freed in order that urban workers and comparatively well-off people may live in them, thus depriving the agricultural industry of a number of skilled labourers. It seems to me that if the Minister took into account the best interests of the industry, he would try to keep these people in the countryside. I suggest that one of the ways of doing that would be to give security of tenure to the agricultural workers, who would be happy enough not to be in tied cottages. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would find a large measure of support in all parts of the House if he would give further consideration to this matter which, after all, is not a fundamental one, but one on which, nevertheless, he could do a great deal to preserve for the countryside those people who are indigenous to it and who are so valuable to the agricultural industry.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 210.
987| Division No. 175.] | AYES. | [5.53 p.m. |
| Acland, R. T. O. (Barnstaple) | Banfield, J. W. | Broad, F. A. |
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Barnes, A. J. | Bromfield, W. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Barr, J. | Brown, C. (Mansfield) |
| Adamson, W. M. | Bellenger, F. J. | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. | Buchanan, G. |
| Ammon, C. G. | Benson, G. | Burke, W. A. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Bevan, A. | Cape, T. |
| Cartland, J. R. H. | Hopkin, D. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) |
| Cassells, T. | Jagger, J. | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Cluse. W. S. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Cocks, F. S. | John, W. | Salt, E. W. |
| Cove, W. G. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. | Salter, Or. A. (Bermondsey) |
| Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Seely, Sir H. M. |
| Daggar, G. | Kelly, W. T. | Sexton T. M. |
| Dalton, H. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. | Silverman, S. S. |
| Davidson. J. J. (Maryhill) | Lathan, G. | Simpson, F. B. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Lawson, J. J. | Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) |
| Day, H. | Leach, W. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | Lee, F. | Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) |
| Ede, J. C. | Leonard, W. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) | Leslie, J. R. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Logan, D. G. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) | Lunn, W. | Strauss, G. R. (Lambetn, N.) |
| Foot, D. M. | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Summerskill, Edith |
| Frankel, D. | McEntee, V. La T. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Gardner, B. W. | McGhee, H. G. | Thorne, W. |
| Gibson, R. (Greenock) | MacLaren, A. | Thurtle, E. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Maclean, N. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Green. W. H. (Deptford) | Mainwaring, W. H. | Tomlinson, G. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Maxton, J. | Viant, S. P. |
| Granfell D. R. | Messer, F. | Walker, J. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Montague, F. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Walton, W. McL. |
| Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | Muff, G. | Westwood, J. |
| Groves, T. E. | Naylor, T. E. | White, H. Graham |
| Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) | Noel-Baker, P. J. | Whiteley, W. (Blaydon) |
| Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Oliver, G. H. | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Paling, W. | Williams, D. (Swansea, E.) |
| Hardie, Agnes | Parker, J. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Harris, Sir P. A. | Parkinson, J. A. | Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) |
| Hayday, A. | Pearson, A. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Withers, Sir J. J. |
| Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Price, M. P. | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Pritt, D. N. | Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C. |
| Hicks, E. G. | Quibell. D. J. K. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Hills, A. (Pontefract) | Ridley, G. | |
| Holdsworth, H. | Riley, B. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hollins, A. | Ritson, J. | Mr. Mathers and Mr. Charleton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Crooke, Sir J. S. | Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. |
| Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) | Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. | Hannah, I. C. |
| Albery, Sir Irving | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Hannon, Sir P. J. H. |
| Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) | Cross, R. H. | Harbord, A. |
| Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's) | Crowder, J. F. E. | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Culverwell. C. T. | Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) |
| Assheton, R. | Davies, Major Sir G. F, (Yeovil) | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. |
| Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) | Davison, Sir W. H. | Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. |
| Baillie, Sir A. W. M. | De Chair, S. S. | Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- |
| Balfour, G. (Hampstead) | De la Bère, R. | Hepworth, J. |
| Barrie, Sir C. C. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Denville, Alfred | Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) | Doland. G. F. | Holmes, J. S. |
| Bernays, R. H. | Dower, Major A. V. G. | Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. |
| Blair, Sir R. | Duckworth W. R. (Moss Side) | Hopkinson, A. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Dugdale, Captain T. L. | Howitt, Dr. A. B. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Duggan, H. J. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) |
| Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Duncan, J, A. L. | Hunter, T. |
| Broadbridge, Sir G. T. | Elliot Rt. Hon. W. E | Hurd, Sir P. A. |
| Brocklebank, Sir Edmund | Elliston, Capt. G. S. | Hutchinson, G. C. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Elmley, Visoount | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. |
| Bull, B. B. | Emery. J. F. | James, Wing-Commander A, W. H. |
| Bullock, Capt. M. | Entwistle, Sir C. F. | Joel, D. J. B. |
| Campbell, Sir E. T. | Erskine-Hill, A. G | Jones, L. (Swansea W.) |
| [...]Carver, Major W. H. | Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) | Keeling, E. H. |
| Cary, R. A. | Everard, W. L. | Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) |
| Cazatel, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Findlay, Sir E. | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) |
| Channon, H. | Fleming, E. L. | Latham, Sir P. |
| Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) | Fox Sir G. W. G. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Christie, J. A. | Fremantle, Sir F. E. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. |
| Clarke, Frank (Dartford) | Furness, S. N. | Liddall, W. S. |
| Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) | Fvfe D. P. M. | Little, Sir E. Graham- |
| Clarry. Sir Reginald | Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) | Lloyd, G. W. |
| Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J. | Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. |
| Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) | Gluckstein, L. H. | Loftus, P. C. |
| Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith. S.) | Gower, Sir R. V. | Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) |
| Cooper. Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) | Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) | MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C G. |
| Cox, H. B. Trevor | Grattan-Doyle. Sir N. | McCorquodale, M. S. |
| Craven-Ellis, W | Gridley, Sir A. B. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) |
| Croft Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page | Grimston. R. V | McEwen, Capt. J. H, F. |
| McKie, J. H. | Procter, Major H. A. | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Radford, E. A. | Storey, S. |
| Magnay, T. | Raikes, H. V. A. M. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Maitland, A. | Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir M. | Ramebotham, H. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. |
| Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Ramsden, Sir E. | Tasker, Sir R. I. |
| Markham, S. F. | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) | Tate, Mavis C. |
| Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) |
| Maxwell, Hon. S. A. | Rayner, Major R. H. | Thomson, Sir J. D. W. |
| Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) | Touche, G. C. |
| Meller, Sir R. J. (Miteham) | Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead) | Tree, A. R. L. F. |
| Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) | Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. |
| Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) | Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Morris-Jones, Sir Henry | Ropner, Colonel L. | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) | Ross Taylor, w. (Woodbridge) | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Rowlands, G. | Warrender, Sir V. |
| Munro, P. | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. | Wayland, Sir W. A. |
| Nioholaon, G. (Farnham) | Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) | Wedderburn, H. J. S. |
| Nioolson, Hon. H. G. | Salmon, Sir I. | Wells, S. R. |
| O'Connor, Sir Terenco J. | Sandys, E. D. | Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham) |
| O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Scott, Lord William | Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Orr-Ewing, I. L. | Shaw, Major P S. (Wavertree) | Willeughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Palmer, G. E. H. | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Patrick, C. M. | Shepperson, Sir E. W. | Wood, Hon. C. I. C. |
| Peake, O. | Smiles, Lieut,-Colonel Sir W. D. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Peat, C. U. | Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) | Wragg, H. |
| Petherick, M. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | |
| Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Spens. W. P. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Ponsonby, Col. C. E. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) | Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Major |
| Sir James Edmondson. |