§ It shall be an implied term of the contract of service between an employer and an employç who is called up for training under this Act that during such period of training the employç shall be entitled to receive from the employer, the salary or wages payable immediately prior to his being called up (or in the case of payment by piecework or other payment by results, the amount of his then average weekly earning) less the amount actually received by him during the said period by way of army pay and allowances (if any).—[Mr. Jagger.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 6.36 p.m.
§ Mr. JaggerI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, which stands in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, is intended to remedy something which I am 1268 sure was never intended to be done when the Bill was drafted. If the Bill goes through as it is now, there will be thousands of employers who will make profits out of conscription. I am sure that nobody on the opposite side of the Committee or on this wants to force young men into the Army for a period of military training in such a way that the employers will profit by their absence. If you take the whole gamut of clerical and distributive trades in particular, in not a single case will a man of 20 be replaced by a man at a similar rate of wages. If the establishment is of any size at all, the work will be divided up between the other employçs, and the employer will pocket the whole of the wages he formerly paid to the man of 20. In cases where that is not possible because of the smallness of staff, a boy of 14 or 15, at a wage 1269 of 4s. 6d. or 5s. 6d. a week, will be brought in to replace the youth of 20 who has gone for his military training. That is one aspect of the question.
The second aspect of the question to which I want to direct the attention of the Committee is the great hardship which, in innumerable cases, will fall upon families to which these youths of 20 belong. So long as the Government insist on trying to get military service done at less than the market price of labour, so long will that hardship continue. There is no general remedy except for this House to determine that those who have to undertake the defence of the country should be paid at least the general rate of wages earned by those engagd in commerce and industry. In the meantime, during the special period when this Bill has to operate, there is every justification for providing that a young man, who sacrifices, for the time being at all events, the position he has been building up in commerce or in industry, shall not be compelled in addition to inflict hardship upon his family through the withdrawal of his earnings.
The third aspect of the question to which I would draw attention is that so many arguments have been used on the benches opposite that I feel absolutely certain, no matter what happens to my hon. Friends behind me, hon. Members opposite will troop into the Lobby in support of this proposed new Clause. I have sat here day after day and heard hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that it is not right that a patriotic and well-disposed member of the community, who is prepared to do his duty by the country, should be allowed to do that while the shirker—I think I heard them call him that—evades his responsibilities. As far as the proposal contained in this new Clause is concerned, all the patriotic and decent and the best employers are contracting to carry it into effect. I would ask hon. Members opposite to keep as keen an eye on the shirker in business. Messrs. Boots, by no means an insignificant firm in the affairs of this country, have already given that undertaking. Dunlops have already done so, and the trade unions have given the undertaking to those of their employés who are called up. Imperial Chemical Industries, Messrs. Mackintosh, one of the biggest firms of confectioners in the country, the Co- 1270 operative Wholesale Society, and a number of the retail co-operative societies are extending to the militiamen the line they took with regard to the Territorials. We have no right to let these patriotic, right-thinking and good-feeling employers make all the sacrifice in meeting the country's necessities, and I ask the Committee to make it certain beyond any doubt that the worst and meanest employer shall be compelled to do what the decent employers are volunteering to do.
§ 6.42 p.m.
§ Mr. W. A. RobinsonI ask the Committee to remember what has been spoken in this Chamber during the last fortnight as to fair play for the men conscripted under this Bill. We were told that fair play is the very essence of British patriotism, and I hope that the new Clause which has been moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton. (Mr. Jagger) will be accepted by the Committee. My hon. Friend has stated that all the decent people in this country are determined, wherever possible, to make this Military Training Bill acceptable. The Imperial Chemical Industries, a tremendous combine, which was one of the first to bring about rationalisation have seen the wisdom, in a well-conceived rationalisation scheme, of giving recognition to young persons called up, by paying them on their return the amount they would have earned if they had kept in their employment. I know the plaintive story of the son of the widow, but we cannot argue that. We have to argue the principle here. The principle we have to argue is that this six months should be regarded as a six months' leave of absence because the nation and the Empire want these boys who are withdrawn from industry and commerce.
Hon. Members opposite may tell us that boys of 20 earn only so much, but whatever they earn it goes into the home to-help perhaps a widowed mother or an unemployed father and brothers and sisters. Is this Committee deliberately, after due thought and consideration, going to decide that the boys must leave their work for six months, forego the rights secured by their trade unions, that there is to be this void in their lives in which, they are forgotten in industry, are wiped out, are robots, their soul gone and their work gone, and that they are forgotten in the British constitution? The Com- 1271 mittee on calm reflection will not and cannot do that. I may be now speaking outside my book, but it may be that they are going to give these boys 10s. 6d. per week during their six months' training. What is wrong with asking the employers to bear this point in mind in connection with conscription? They want the boys to save the nation, but if the boys are getting £1 or £1 2s. 6d. per week what is wrong in asking the employers, some of whom will be engaged in making war profits, to guarantee to these boys, for the six months they are training, the wages which they would have got? It is a decent thing to ask for, and it is a decent thing to give.
There is no moral law which can dispense with the right of this Committee to say that in a moment of great international revolution when the youth of Britain is wanted, insurance claims, household insurance, and the obligations of helping the rest of the family shall be considered when the boy has been taken from his home. This Committee should not stand for anything but that. It is not a question of high phrases or of high finance. At the moment you hope to get 200,000 boys from industry and you may give them 10s. 6d. per week pocket money, leaving their mothers and unemployed fathers without anything barring a portion of the 10s. 6d. which the boys have as pocket money. We ask the Committee to rise to the big occasion and give lads, whom the Government are withdrawing from industry, the balance of the wages which they would have earned, and to do so as a matter of justice and equity.
§ 6.50 p.m.
§ Mr. FlemingIt is quite true, as hon. Members have said, that a great many firms have already agreed to carry out what I may call the spirit of the new Clause as regards making up the Army pay to the amount of the wages they would earn. It was done by a great many local authorities in the last War, but I want to deal with the point of a written contract of service. Many big firms have written contracts of service with young employés who will come within the ambit of the Bill, and I should like to ask whether an employé who is under such terms of service and is withdrawn from that service thereby breaks 1272 his contract with his firm. If the contract is broken—
§ Mr. FlemingThe point is that on a question of wages, if the contract of service is broken the employer would not be bound in law to pay any wages at all.
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)That was discussed on a previous Amendment and a decision come to.
The ChairmanClearly it has nothing to do with this new Clause. This is a question of terms which it is proposed to insert in a contract.
§ Mr. FlemingIf the contract is still subsisting, then the employer, "apart altogether from the new Clause" is undoubtedly liable to pay full wages.
The ChairmanIf it is "apart altogether from the new Clause," then the hon. and learned Member cannot discuss it.
§ Mr. FlemingIf the new Clause is accepted it is obvious that the employé would suffer. If a written contract is still subsisting the employé, although withdrawn from the service of his employer, is still liable to his full wages irrespective of what he receives from the Army and, therefore, if hon. Members opposite persist in this new Clause their friends the employés are going to be worse off. That is all I wanted to point out in regard to this proposal.
§ 6.54 p.m.
§ Mr. StephenI support the new Clause. It is obvious that as things stand many thousands of people are going to lose a certain amount of money. As I see it the question resolves itself into whether it should be the employer who is to lose or the employé, and I have no hesitation in saying that instead of the financial burden being put on the shoulders of the young men, in addition to the other burdens they will have to bear, it should obviously be placed upon the shoulders of the employers, unless the Government are prepared to accept the full responsibility of putting those who will be called up into such a position that they will suffer no financial loss. It is a definite proposition which the Committee has to face. We have to realise that many of the 200,000 will lose a certain part of their income, and that the families whom they have been assisting will suffer because of this 1273 financial loss. I do not think it is fair for the Committee to put this financial loss upon the shoulders of the young men who are called up.
It may be that hon. Members opposite will feel that it is pretty hard that every employer should be called upon to undertake this responsibility, but I am told of many employers who have undertaken it voluntarily. I was told yesterday that I was not sufficiently trustful of employers. I am prepared to trust them within reason; and the reason is in the proposed new Clause. Good employers will not suffer anything, because they are intending to make up the wages. I am thinking of the employers who will not undertake the responsibility which good employers are undertaking voluntarily. Why should you employ compulsion only in regard to young men in pushing them into the Army in order to defend the property of employers? I hope the Government will accept the new Clause, and will realise that if there is going to be financial loss in the carrying out of the scheme, if thousands of people are going to pay in connection with it, it should not be that section of the community which is also to be called upon to give this service.
§ 6.47 p.m.
§ Sir Joseph LambI have listened with great care to the arguments which the Proposer and Seconder of the new Clause put forward, and I think they were rather contradictory. The first argument was that there was a danger of the employer, when losing a young man, refusing to provide a substitute and therefore making a profit because the staff would be called upon to make up the loss. Anyone who did such a thing as that is not acting properly, but that is not a point which should be dealt with by an Act of Parliament. I am a strong believer in trade unions and they are the proper people to deal with a point like that. Where a man has been taken and no substitute employed, the other employés would have a strong case for making representations that the employer was not playing the game.
As regards the other question, I am told that large firms are doing it already, but the large firms which have been mentioned are not doing it out of their own money, they are not doing it out of directors' fees, but out of the money subscribed to the capital account of the com- 1274 pany. What we all want is to get fair treatment as between man and man. What are you going to do in the case of an unemployed man who is called up? Are you going to make up his unemployment pay? You have not mentioned his case in the new Clause.
§ Mr. JaggerIf you can get it included I will support it.
§ Sir J. LambThe hon. Member must deal with his own proposal. By it he is asking an employer to make up the difference between the normal earnings of a young man and what he will receive when he is in the Army. But nothing at all has been said about the unemployed man receiving unemployment pay, and that would create a greater injustice between the man who is unemployed when he joins up and the man who is in employment with a chance of going back to it.
§ 7.1 p.m.
§ Mr. E. J. WilliamsI am rather surprised to hear the argument that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. After all, good employers have already adopted something comparable to what is contained in this Clause and have never thought of the unemployed man at all. They have thought that it was a patriotic thing to do. Consequently we should be prepared to accept their conception, rather than that of other employers who are obviously very mean employers. Surely, if we compel young men to train, and ultimately to give their lives for the country, these employers ought to be made to do a certain patriotic duty and see that the dependants who are left behind are not left destitute.
§ 7.2 p.m.
§ Mr. E. BrownI think the Committee will have found this a very interesting discussion. The words "rich" and "good" have been used as exchangeable terms by several Members who have argued the Clause. The firms which have done what we are all glad to know they are able to do have all been large organisations. But the issue is not between the good and the bad at all. It is interesting to notice the arguments put forward from those benches in favour of large combines. I shall note them for future reference. But that is not the issue. It is not between the good and the wicked. The issue is this. The Clause asks us to put a burden not upon 1275 the rich but upon every single employer. It is not that the Committee has to choose whether they would say one employer is generous and another mean. It is a question whether or not in these circumstances Parliament ought to put this burden equally upon all shoulders irrespective of the scale of the organisation, its responsibilities, the possibility of replacement or the effect upon the industry if, as it would be in thousands of cases, it is a small-scale industry. There is no doubt whatever that small-scale industries on the whole would have the greatest difficulty in meeting the industrial implications of the Measure. There is no doubt whatever that to put upon many of them the burden suggested in the Clause would be to put upon them a burden which they would find it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to bear. [Interruption.] We shall have time to-morrow to discuss pay and allowances, which are not in this Bill.
Those who support the Clause overlook one thing. There is a very different state in the homes to which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Pilkington) referred, because the man is no longer there, and he is not merely receiving his pay and allowances but, if we are to discuss it on that basis, any value that may be taken into account in respect of his board and lodgings and the costs which the State has to bear while he is away from home on his training. The glorification of the large-scale industries which have been able to do this sounded very strange on the lips of hon. Members opposite. I hope a good many more will be able to do it. But it is one thing for the heads of organisations to meet the situation from a patriotic motive and to do what they feel in terms of their organisation able to do in fairness to their employés and to their organisation, and an entirely different thing to hold them up as a standard by which to judge other employers who may not be in the same fortunate position, who have very different responsibilities to face and might not be able, in the case of small industries, to carry the burden. I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Clause.
§ Mr. JaggerCan I get the right hon. Gentleman to say at least that the Government will set the example of doing it in the Civil Service?
§ Mr. Garro JonesThe right hon. Gentleman has excused himself from accepting the Clause on the ground that hardship would accrue to a certain limited class of, employers. Would he be prepared to accept it if a hardship Clause were added to it, as in the case of the conscripts themselves?
§ 7.7 p.m.
§ Mr. Rhys DaviesI feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not convinced the Committee. He has exaggerated the new Clause out of all proportion in order to try to get away with his argument. There are only 200,000 young men to be called up out of 17,000,000 wage-earners—that is the proportion—and when he talks of employers in small industries being burdened with this proposed financial problem he must know that in thousands upon thousands of cases of small businesses there will not be an employé of 20 years at all to be called up. The right hon. Gentleman also said that my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) rather glorified in the fact that we had great combines in this country. Of course he did nothing of the kind. What he did was to glorify in the fact that some of those combines were patriotic enough to do voluntarily what we now ask that all employers should do compulsorily. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) wants trade unionism to deal with the problem. He knows that there is no trade unionism covering the vast majority of workpeople. There are only 5,000,000 trade unionists out of 17,000,000 wage-earners.
§ Sir J. LambI said I was a great supporter of trade unions and, where there are no trade unions, I should like to see them.
§ Mr. DaviesThe point that the hon. Gentleman made was that it was not necessary to pass a law to compel this to be done because it could be left to the trade unions. The hon. Gentleman is interested in hospitals. I have yet to learn that there is a trade union among the nurses, even the male nurses in some cases, which would attend effectively to a matter of this kind. My hon. Friends who have spoken feel very strongly on this issue. Take the big shops and the large offices. When young men of 20 are called up from those it is almost certain that the employers will benefit financially by their going.
§ Mr. E. BrownThat is a large assumption.
§ Mr. DaviesSome of us are connected with the distributive trade and we ought to know more about it than the right hon. Gentleman does. When a shop assistant or a clerk is away ill for a month or two it is very seldom that the employer engages another person to do his work.
§ Sir J. LambThat is very often with the consent of the other workers, because they want to keep the place open for the man who is ill.
§ Mr. DaviesIt is very seldom indeed that their consent is asked, and we speak of what we know. The problem is not however as large as the right hon. Gentleman would make it out to be. What is the wage, in the trades that we know about, of a young man of 20? There are people employed in some of these trades who will be lucky if they get 25s. a week—some very much less. Consequently, the financial problem for the employers is not as heavy as the right hon. Gentleman would lead us to believe.
§ Mr. ButcherWill the hon. Gentleman quote the trade board rates for certain industries with which he is concerned?
§ Mr. DaviesThere are not trade boards for every industry. There are young men of 20 in Lancashire who are now working full time for less wages than the amount that will be paid to them when they are in the militia if you take into account the value of the lodgings and allowances they will get. There are many cases where they will actually be better off financially because of the poor wages that they are getting at the moment. There is no doubt that in calling these men up for service the Government are automatically reducing the income of the home in the vast majority of cases. I cannot understand the opposition of the Government to the Clause, because during the Great War there were cases where employers made up the wages of their workpeople for the whole of the four years. I have yet to learn that a hardship would be imposed on the employers if the Clause were carried. We are naturally very anxious that these young men should be kept on the employer's pay roll. In that case they will not be forgotten when their term of service expires. There is a very much greater chance of their securing reinstatement in their former posts if they 1278 are kept on their employers' pay roll. The right hon. Gentleman's opposition is not very sound when we remember the experience of the Great War. We intend to divide the Committee on this Clause, and I shall be very interested to see how much patriotism is displayed in the vote in the Lobby.
§ 7.14 p.m.
§ Mr. EdeThere were moments yesterday when I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman was going to rise to the height of a statesman. There were remarks that he made and concessions that he gave which indicated a breadth of mind which I have not noticed in him during the last four or five years. But to-day he has once again become the mere party politician. The Minister could have made a speech on this matter that would have been most convincing, even if he had not accepted the new Clause. Instead of the rather tepid admiration that he expressed for the firms that are carrying out the principle embodied in the new Clause, he could have, said that he was so strongly convinced they were right that the biggest combine of all, the Government, would adopt this principle in its relationship to the persons in its own employment. Considering the action of the Government during the last War and the action they have taken with regard to Territorials, I was at least hoping that he would take the opportunity of making that announcement. I regret that he did not do so; In view of his temporary enlightenment yesterday, I can only conclude that it is an oversight to-day. He cannot have been so dazzled by his own brilliance as to be unable to rise to the opportunity today. I hope he will take the opportunity, before we go into the Division Lobby, to announce that the Government will give a lead to the employers by accepting this principle with regard to its own servants.
§ 7.17 p.m.
§ Mr. Charles WilliamsThis is a very interesting Clause, which I could almost support, were it not, like so many of the new Clauses proposed by hon. Members opposite, completely unworkable. However, I feel that this is a case where the Government might meet the point that has been raised. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be only too glad that one tribute after another has been paid to the big employers by hon. Members of the Socialist party, who have said that practically all the big employers in this coun- 1279 try are really angels. As practically all the big employers are good, why should not the Government, which is good in other ways, say that any employés of the Government shall have the advantages laid down in this Clause? I do not think the matter should stop there. Why should not the big municipal authorities, such as London and Glasgow, which are notoriously bad employers of labour, guarantee these people work, as they might easily do?
There is another argument that has been made by hon. Members in favour of the Clause which has rather caused me to move towards the Clause. I think there is something to be said for keeping a man on the pay-roll of the employer even if the sum paid is only a small one, for this would keep up a connection with the old firm. It is the wish of the whole Committee, I feel, that during the time the men are called up and are away, the employers should do everything possible to help them in every way. That is a wish that has been expressed from all sides of the Committee. There is one case to which I want to refer which, although it may seem a small one, is of importance. Before coming into this Debate I heard of a case in a constituency—not my own—where a young man of 20 has been able to build up a very small business of his own, and during the period he is doing military training, in all probability the business will go. Such a case could not possibly be compensated in any way under this Clause. I have referred to this case because it shows how impossible it is to lay down a hard-and-fast rule such as is laid down in this Clause, and for that reason, although I would like to have seen it laid down, if that were possible, I do not see how I can vote for the new Clause. If hon. Members can explain how the Clause might be made workable—which none of them so far has done—there may be a chance of my following them into the Division Lobby.
§ 7.21 p.m.
§ Mr. CollindridgeWith regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I envy a good many hon. Members on the Government side who very adroitly pay a tribute to the proposals we make, but gracefully extricate themselves from the difficulty of voting for those proposals. If the right 1280 hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has any criticism to make about the points we put regarding his reply, I think he is himself largely responsible for the difficulty, for he and the Government have decided that the conscripts shall not have the normal standard of life to which they are accustomed before being called up for their training. I want to draw attention to the way in which statements are made and then not carried out in practice. In the early stages of the Bill, I listened with interest when the Minister of Labour, in grandiloquent terms, said that the people who would be called up under the Bill would be cooks' sons and dukes' sons, and that they would be treated equally. It now seems that there is to be a difference in the standard of life of the cook's son and the duke's son.
There is another point to which I wish to refer, as I think it has not been commented upon during the discussion. In the mining industry, from which I come, there has recently been a definite contraction of the working life of the average man owing to the heavy run of unemployment. Whereas our fathers did work when they were 65 years of age, a great many of the men in the mining industry now are prevented from working after they are 45 years of age. Under this Bill, there will be a further contraction of the working life of those between the ages of 20 and 21 by six months, which will represent a loss of well over £40 to the young men, and six months' less working time. The Minister has blandly said that we must have regard to the fact that the young man will not have to be kept in the house in which he lives. I think I am voicing the opinions of the men in the mining industry when I say that they wish it was otherwise, and that the young men were left where they are.
In the matter which we are now discussing, surely the Government are not acting with ordinary fairness. I suggest that if the Minister of Labour were sent by the Cabinet to various countries to investigate certain conditions appertaining to the interests of this country, his standard of life would not be reduced while he was doing that. I maintain that if these men are called up for training, they should be no worse off as a result of it. We have here a very definite test as to whether hon. Members opposite feel that there is equality in this matter. It is fair to say that in the mining industry, 1281 if the new Clause were accepted, the burden of the cost, as a result of the method of ascertaining the wages, would fall on the miners themselves, but I think I can speak for all the men in the industry when I say that they would prefer that the Clause should be accepted, that justice should be given to the men who are having imposed upon them the burden of looking after this country's interests, and that they should have no lower standard of life while they are conscripts than they had before.
§ 7.26 p.m.
§ Mr. BurkeI am rather disappointed that the Minister did not reply to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger), and I am surprised that no real case has been made against the new Clause. All that the Minister has done has been to say that he has noted the statements we have made and that he will keep them for use as evidence against us at some future time. I do not think the country is concerned with all that kind of twaddle. It is concerned—I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour will listen to me and take my advice—by the fact that the Government have had an opportunity this afternoon of doing something as good as is done by those employers about whom the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to feel very warmly, and that the Government have refused to take the opportunity of putting on the employers a sacrifice equal to the sacrifice which they very readily put on the homes. It has been argued that because this cannot be applied all round, it should not be applied to the thousands of cases where it can be. It seems to me to be a very weak argument to come from the Government Front Bench that because there happen to be two men who may be in a business of their own, and cannot be fitted into the scheme, it should be denied to the 200,000 people to whom it could be applied. Before the Debate is concluded, I would like the Minister to give a guarantee that, if he cannot get every employer in the country to do as the better employers—I will not say the good employers—do, the Government will give to all of those employers, whether rich or poor, good or bad, the lead which they can 1282 give, and which they have no excuse for not giving.
§ 7.28 p.m.
Sir Nairne Stewart SandemanI want to say a few words as the representative of a cotton constituency. At the present time, there is before the House a Cotton Enabling Bill, because the cotton trade is in such a very bad state. Any extra charge placed upon that trade will affect the employment of every one in the trade, and therefore I feel that this new Clause is one which I could not possibly support. It is all very well for those firms which have a monopoly. I am glad that they can do as the new Clause proposes, and I hope that many others in the country who are in a similar position will follow their very good example. What I am afraid of is that the firms which are just hanging on would not be able to continue if any extra charge were placed upon them.
§ 7.29 p.m.
§ Mr. G. GriffithsI want to ask the Minister whether he saw the circular that was sent to the Skegness Urban District Council asking them to pay their employés who were called up, or to make up the difference between the 10s. 6d. that the militiamen will receive and the wages they received before being called up. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) asked the Minister a question as to what he intended to instruct that urban district council to do. I wonder where the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester is to-night. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends suggests that he has gone to Skegness. The hon. and learned Member asked a question in the House as to whether the Government would press the local authorities to pay their employés' wages or salaries during the time they were called up, or to make up the difference between their pay as militiamen and their wages.
§ It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th May, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 263.
1285| Division No. 132.] | AYES | [7.30 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke | Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) | Parker, J. |
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Hall, J. H. (Whitsehapel) | Parkinson, J. A. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Hardie, Agnes | Pearson, A. |
| Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) | Hayday, A. | Price, M. P. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Pritt, D. N. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Richards, R. (Wrexham) |
| Banfield, J. W. | Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Riley, B. |
| Barr, J. | Hicks, E. G. | Ritson, J. |
| Batey, J. | Hills, A. (Pontefract) | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Bellenger, F. J. | Jagger, J. | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey) |
| Bevan, A. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Broad, F. A. | John, W. | Sexton, T. M. |
| Bromfield, W. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. | Shinwell, E. |
| Brown, C. (Mansfield) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. | Silverman, S. S. |
| Buchanan, G. | Kirby, B. V. | Sloan, A. |
| Burke, W. A. | Kirkwood, D. | Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) |
| Cape, T. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lathan, G. | Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lawson, J. J. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Cocks, F. S. | Leach, W. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Collindridge, F. | Lee, F. | Stephen, C. |
| Cove, W. G. | Leonard, W. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Leslie, J. R. | Stokes, R. R. |
| Daggar, G. | Logan, D. G. | Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) |
| Dalton, H. | Lunn, W. | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | McEntee, V. La T. | Thorns, W. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | McGhee, H. G. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Day, H. | McGovern, J. | Tomlinson, G. |
| Dobbie, W. | MacLaren, A. | Viant, S. P. |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | Maclean, N. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Ede, J. C. | Mander, G. le M. | Watson, W. MeL. |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) | Marshall, F. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Mathers, G. | Westwood, J. |
| Gardner, B. W. | Maxton, J. | Whiteley, W. (Blaydon) |
| Garro Jones, G. M. | Messer, F. | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Milner, Major J. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Gibbins, J. | Montague, F. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) |
| Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Muff, G. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Naylor, T. E. | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| Grenfell, D. R. | Noel-Baker, P. J. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Oliver, G. H. | |
| Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | Owen, Major G. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Groves, T. E. | Paling, W. | Mr. Anderson and Mr. Adamson. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Carver, Major W. H. | Duncan, J. A. L. |
| Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) | Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) | Dunglass, Lord. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. | Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) | Eastwood, J. F. |
| Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Edmondson, Major Sir J. |
| Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) | Channon, H. | Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. |
| Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's) | Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) | Ellis, Sir G. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Christie, J. A. | Elliston, Capt. G. S. |
| Apsley, Lord | Clarke, Colonel R S. (E. Grinstead) | Emery, J. F. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) | Emrys-Evans, P. V. |
| Assheton, R. | Colfox, Major W. P. | Entwistle, Sir C. F. |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Colville, Rt. Hon. John | Erskine-Hill, A. G. |
| Baillie, Sir A. W. M. | Conant, Captain R. J. E. | Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) |
| Balniel, Lord | Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) | Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) |
| Baxter, A. Beverley | Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) | Everard, Sir William Lindsay |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) | Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) | Findlay, Sir E. |
| Beechman, N. A. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Fleming, E. L. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. | Critchley, A. | Fox, Sir G. W. G. |
| Bernays, R. H. | Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page | Furness, S. N. |
| Blair, Sir R. | Crooke, Sir J. Smedley | Fyfe, D. P. M. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Cross, R. H. | Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Crowder, J. F. E. | Gledhill, G. |
| Bower, Comdr. R. T. | Culverwell, C. T. | Gluckstein, L. H. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | De Chair, S. S. | Goldie, N. B. |
| Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness) | Do la Bere, R. | Gower, Sir R. V. |
| Brass, Sir W. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) |
| Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Danville, Alfred | Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R. |
| Brocklebank, Sir Edmund | Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. |
| Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) | Dodd, J. S. | Gridley, Sir A. B. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) | Doland, G. F. | Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H. | Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. |
| Bull, B. B. | Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H. |
| Burghley, Lord | Dugdale, Captain T. L. | Hambro, A. V. |
| Butcher, H. W. | Duggan, H. J. | Hannah, I. C. |
| Harbord, A. | Maxwell, Hon. S. A. | Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. |
| Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) | Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) | Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. |
| Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) |
| Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) | Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) | Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) |
| Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. | Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) | Snadden, W. McN. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R. | Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald |
| Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- | Moreing, A. C. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hepworth, J. | Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge) | Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J. |
| Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth) | Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.) | Spears, Brigadier-General E. L. |
| Higgs, W. F. | Morris-Jones, Sir Henry | Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. |
| Holdsworth, H. | Nall, Sir J. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Holmes, J. S. | Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Hopkinson, A. | Nicholson, G. (Farnham) | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h) |
| Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. | Nicolson, Hon. H. G. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Howitt, Dr. A. B. | O'Connor, Sir Terence J. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Hunter, T. | Orr-Ewing, I. L. | Tasker, Sir R. I. |
| Hutchinson, G. C. | Peake, O. | Tate, Mavis C |
| James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. | Peat, C. U. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Jarvis, Sir J. J. | Parkins, W. R. D. | Thomson, Sir J. D. W. |
| Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) | Peters, Dr. S. J. | Thorneyoroft, G. E. P. |
| Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Petherick, M. | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Jones, L. (Swansea W.) | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Touche, G. C. |
| Keeling, E. H. | Pilkington, R. | Train, Sir J. |
| Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. | Tree, A. R. L. F. |
| Kimball, L. | Porritt, R. W. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. |
| Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. | Procter, Major H. A. | Turton, R. H. |
| Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Radford, E. A. | Wakefield, W. W. |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. | Raikes, H. V. A. M. | Walker-Smith, Sir J. |
| Lancaster, Captain C. G. | Ramsbotham, H. | Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan |
| Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Rayner, Major R. H. | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. | Reed. A. C. (Exeter) | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. |
| Lewis, O. | Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) | Warrender, Sir V. |
| Liddall, W. S. | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Lindsay, K. M. | Remer, J. R. | Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie |
| Lipson, D. L. | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) | Wayland, Sir W. A |
| Little, J. | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) | Wedderburn, H. J. S. |
| Llewellin, Colonel J. J. | Ropner, Colonel L. | Wells, Sir Sydney |
| Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. | Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) | Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham) |
| Loftus. P. C. | Rowlands, G. | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. |
| Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. | Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| M'Connell, Sir J. | Russell, Sir Alexander | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) | Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) | Wise, A. R. |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) | Salmon, Sir I. | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. | Salt, E. W. | Wood, Hon. C. I. C. |
| McKie, J. H. | Samuel, M. R. A. | Wragg, H. |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Sandeman. Sir N. S. | Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C. |
| Magnay, T. | Schuster, Sir G. E. | York, C. |
| Maitland, Sir Adam | Scott, Lord William | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest | Selley, H. R. | |
| Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Shakespeare, G. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Markham, S. F. | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Ferfar) | Mr. Munro and Mr. Grimston. |
| Marsden, Commander A. | Shepperson, Sir E. W. |