§ Motion made, and Question proposed:
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,880, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, the salary of a Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, the additional salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as a member of the Cabinet, and the salary of a Minister without Portfolio."
§ 7.21 p.m.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank)I think it would only be courteous to the Committee if I explained the reasons for this new subhead (Salary of a Minister without Portfolio), which was not in the original Estimate. It is brought forward in accordance with precedent. The appointment of a Minister without Portfolio is an exercise of the Prerogative power of the Crown, and is not covered by the legislation passed by the House of Commons, either by the Ministers of the Crown Act, which gives authority for the usual offices, or in the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act. Therefore, it is in accordance with custom that it should be brought specifically to the notice of Parliament as soon as possible. Previous occasions on which such appointments have been made were not only during the last war, when there were the cases of Mr. Arthur Henderson, Lord Milner, and Sir Edward Carson, but more recently in 1935, when there was the appointment of Lord Eustace Percy. The rate of salary is £5,000 a year, and the sum asked for (£2,880) is the amount payable at this rate since the date of appointment, namely, 3rd September last.
The subject of the functions and duties of a Minister without Portfolio is one upon which it is in the nature of things difficult to expand, but I think hon. Members can gain some knowledge of the facts by reference to the Reports of the War Cabinet during the last war. One assumes that the purposes for which the present Prime Minister has appointed a Minister without Portfolio are not very different from those for which previous Prime Ministers appointed Ministers without Portfolio. I can best describe it in 310 the terms of a Report of the War Cabinet for the year 1917:
In practice, a considerable number of less important, but often highly complex questions are referred to individual Members of the War Cabinet or to committees of Ministers or others. In some cases the Minister or committee has power to decide, in others, the instruction is to carry out a detailed investigation such as the War Cabinet itself could not usefully undertake, and submit a report for final decision to the Cabinet. By this means the War Cabinet is enabled to carry out exhaustive investigations, without the whole of its members being over-burdened with the details of every question.That shows the manner in which the detailed work of Members of the War Cabinet not holding Departmental responsibility was performed during the Great War. I am not in the secrets of the Cabinet any more than hon. Gentlemen opposite, and therefore I can only report what I am told on the subject, but to the best of my knowledge that is exactly the sort of way in which Lord Hankey's exceptional experience and qualifications are being utilised. That is to say, he is sometimes chairman, sometimes member of a committee, and he is continuously engaged in the investigation of special problems as they arise. Everyone agrees, I think, that an essential feature of the War Cabinet's organisation at present is that it should comprise a certain number of Ministers who are in a position to devote special attention to such problems. It is because the Prime Minister thought that the present Minister without Portfolio was in every way suitable and qualified by his great experience and knowledge that he invited him at the outset of the war to become a member of the War Cabinet. Because he cannot get a salary unless this Supplementary Estimate is agreed to by the House of Commons, I come forward to-day to submit it to the Committee.
§ 7.26 p.m.
§ Mr. DaltonI beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
I do not know. Colonel Clifton Brown, how widely you will be prepared to allow this Debate to rove. Perhaps that should be ascertained by the method of trial and error, rather than by asking you for any definition now, but may I express the hope that you will permit me to begin by making one or two general observations which I think are not irrelevant to the subject?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanIt might be well if, at the outset, I stated what are the Rules governing this Debate. I have no desire to limit the Debate unduly, but this is a somewhat complicated matter. To start with, hon. Members cannot criticise a Minister in his capacity as a Member of another place. They can only criticise him in his administrative capacity. Secondly, it would not be in order to turn this Debate, which refers to the appointment of one Minister without Portfolio, into a Debate on the War Cabinet as a whole and its general policy. Thirdly, Erskine May lays it down that in discussing such an appointment one cannot say whether or not a particular Minister should be in the Cabinet, or whether a Minister should be in this House or in another place. Those, I think, are three Rules which do rather tie up the Debate on this occasion, but I do not wish to be unhelpful, and I am prepared to allow hon. Members to discuss the subject as far as the Rules allow.
§ Mr. DaltonYou will agree, Colonel Clifton Brown, that this concerns a very interesting new appointment and that it would be a pity if the Committee were deprived of a reasonable opportunity for offering observations upon it, but I take note of your three Rules, and I shall endeavour to keep within them. At the same time, since the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was permitted by you to draw certain analogies between the present War Cabinet and the War Cabinet of the last war, I hope it will be in order to observe that there are certain distinctions to be drawn. The reasons for the opposition which I shall offer to this grant of money and which is symbolised by the Amendment I have moved, might well be less strong if the present War Cabinet were constituted as was the War Cabinet which existed during the Great War, that is to say, if this War Cabinet consisted practically entirely of Ministers without Portfolio instead of being, as it is, a curious amalgam of departmental Ministers and Ministers who are without departmental duties. I shall not develop that point beyond saying that there seems to be a certain difference between the then War Cabinet and the present War Cabinet of which it is reasonable to take account.
There are some who hold—and it would be out of order to develop this argument 312 further than merely to state the proposition—that fundamentally this War Cabinet is wrongly constituted and that it is not a practicable or a wise operation to stick on, as it were, for the purpose of investigating a particular problem relating to military defence operations, the three Service Ministers, all in the War Cabinet, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, also in the War Cabinet, and then two Ministers without Portfolio, of whom Lord Hankey is one, with a roving commission which must necessarily conflict with and run across the services of their colleagues. That is one reason why we view with suspicion this additional appointment on grounds of principle. We say it is merely carrying further an illogical and confused arrangement which we regard as very much inferior, from the point of view of utility in the conduct of the War, to that adopted in the last Great War.
Further than this, it is surely not unreasonable to ask for what we are being invited to pay this money. In other words, what are the duties which Lord Hankey is being paid to perform? I did not find the right hon. Gentleman's explanations very lucid, and I hope later on he will be able to tell us a little more about what Lord Hankey does and how the duties relating to the conduct of the war are divided between the Ministers without Portfolio and the Ministers specifically in charge of war functions. We should have some assurance that the whole thing is not merely the confused muddle which on the face of it it may well become. For example, the other day we noticed that the two Ministers without Portfolio were despatched to France on a tour of investigation. It would be interesting to know whether it is expected that this kind of duty will frequently occur in future. If so, these two Ministers will, no doubt, be very fully informed and fully occupied in the necessity of checking up evidence in matters of dispute between their colleagues.
Passing from that, I should like to make a few observations regarding Lord Hankey's undoubtedly very high qualifications. He has had a long period of greatly distinguished public service. He was the man to whom, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), there occurred in the middle of 313 the last war the bright idea that notes might be taken and minutes made of Cabinet proceedings. Before that no notes had been taken of decisions, and there were no minutes of their proceedings. Lord Hankey and the right hon. Gentleman evolved this very new idea, which has since been followed continuously. I wish to do nothing other than pay tribute to Sir Maurice Hankey, as he then was, in all his earlier activities in the public service. There was a period during which he was Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence in addition to being Secretary to the Cabinet, during the whole period from 1931 until his final retirement, when grievous errors were made in British policy in matters of armaments and defence. He held his office during the fiasco of the Disarmament Conference. He was then a civil servant and not subject to criticism. He had a very long close season, but we are now entitled to say—and he is entitled to reply to us—thathe must take his share of responsibility for gross errors of policy when the Government were failing to co-operate in disarmament by agreement, and also in the later period when the Government were failing to rearm in the face of the German menace. We have the very greatest doubt of the competence of Lord Hankey to advise to-day on questions of defence. He has been responsible, in a very high and responsible position, for giving advice to Governments in respect of these mixed questions when a disastrous error was made, first in regard to disarmament and, secondly, in regard to rearmament. Therefore Lord Hankey does not command confidence among my hon. Friends, certainly not in me, nor, I think, in them.
Further than this, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman said the Prime Minister thought he was in every way suitably qualified to hold the post. He is one of a series of persons who have been chosen to hold office in this Government from outside the ranks of the Government's habitual supporters. The Prime Minister is gradually surrounding himself with non-political functionaries. I will not run through all the names, but they are nearly enough to fill that bench. We are, therefore, finding that, although the Prime Minister thought Lord Hankey was in every way qualified for the post, he found it difficult to 314 find among his habitual supporters any person of equal qualifications. That is a matter which the Prime Minister and his supporters must fight out between themselves. It is not for us to intrude in these estimations of merit and demerit, but it is remarkable that the Prime Minister has had on this occasion, as on a great number of others lately, to pass by all the hundreds of honest, loyal, consistent, able, distinguished supporters who surround him in order to bring in persons from outside.
There are one or two other points on which I should like to put questions. Lord Hankey was in receipt of a pension for his long and honourable services to the State before he received this appointment. He had also been appointed a director of the Suez Canal, which is a form of pension not involving very long sojourns in the canal zone. I should be interested to know whether Lord Hankey is still receiving his pension, in addition to his salary, and also whether he is still receiving the emoluments of a director of the Suez Canal, or, if not—I suspect that the answer to the second question is in the negative—whether the post is being kept open for him, or whether it is intended to fill it while he is performing these onerous duties of Minister without Portfolio. In general it is objectionable that a person should draw both a pension and a salary, at any rate a full pension based on past services and a full salary based on a rate applicable to persons who are not pensioned.
My hon. and right hon. Friends have little confidence in the general make-up of the Government, and it would be an exaggeration to say that that confidence has been increased either by this particular appointment in itself or in the implied judgment of the Prime Minister upon the general body of those from whom normally he would be recruiting his assistants. I trust that Members who have served so long in the hard and dusty road of democratic politics will not be perpetually passed over when the Prime Minister is making appointments to posts whether with or without portfolio. It is curious that we should use this expression. I suppose it is an illustration of the Anglo-French alliance, which predated the war in many ways. Ministers here do not possess portfolios in the technical sense. When a Minister resigns in France he dramatically 315 throws his portfolio on the bench and leaves the Chamber. We do not do things in that way. But I do hope, when next a Minister is appointed, whether it is with or without portfolio, that he will be chosen from those who have struggled to get to this House and who have served the cause of their party, and that they will not be perpetually thrust aside, very unfairly, I think, by the Prime Minister.
§ 7.42 p.m.
§ Sir Percy HarrisI found myself on the whole very much in agreement with the preamble of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in moving this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has often criticised the form and character of the Cabinet and advocated that the Members should be free from the responsibility of Departmental administration. In other words, the Cabinet should consist entirely of Ministers without portfolio. That principle having been accepted we take no exception to this example of a Minister able to concentrate on general policy without being worried or troubled with details and difficulties in the administration of a Department in war time. As to the suitability of the Minister in question I am afraid I must part company with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). I do not suppose there is anybody more trained by experience and with more qualifications in the art of carrying on war. Lord Hankey's experience dates back even before the last war. When Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence he served under all sorts of Governments—under a Liberal Government, a Coalition Government, a National Government, and even under a Labour Government. I believe I am right in saying that he was—
§ Mr. DaltonHe did not serve in it but as a servant of the Government—as a civil servant.
§ Sir P. HarrisExactly, as a faithful and loyal servant discharging his duty with the impartiality characteristic of a civil servant. In serving in the capacity of Secretary to the War Cabinet or Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence he carried out decisions and the policy of his then masters and I assume 316 he did it with equal efficiency when the Labour Government went out and the so-called National Government took its place. I assume he carried out their decisions with the same efficiency when he was a civil servant. Surely it is not fair to suggest that as a civil servant he was responsible for policy. The qualification and justification for his membership of the Cabinet is his remarkably long experience in the business of carrying on war and it would be a pity, with so few men available of his experience, that the Government should not take the opportunity to utilise his services in the position where he is most suited. I do not take the view that many who have been through the process of election on the opposite benches are more qualified or more suitable than this very distinguished ex-civil servant who is extremely well qualified for this work. I am not prepared to support this Amendment.
It is a substantial point in connection with this gentleman's pension, but I do not take the same exception because, after all, a pension has been properly earned by a civil servant and he is entitled to it. We are, however, entitled to know whether Lord Hankey is a director of the Suez Canal. I think it would be most improper if he is receiving a salary as a member of the War Cabinet. Somebody else should be found to fill his position of a director of the Suez Canal. However small that work may be it obviously would not be proper that he should be carrying out double duties, but as for his training, knowledge and experience, I only wish every member of a War Cabinet was so well qualified.
§ 7.47 p.m.
§ Captain CrookshankI would like to endorse the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who spoke for the Liberal party, reinforcing what I said about the qualifications of Lord Hankey. It is rather interesting, for if hon. Members care to refer to Dod they will find that he was one of the very few survivors who received the thanks of Parliament at the end of the last war. It shows the experience and knowledge he must have gained and the opinion the then Parliament held of his abilities—rather contrary to that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton).
§ Mr. DaltonOn the contrary, I pay the highest tribute to his ability. My criticism relates to the period subsequent to 1931.
§ Captain CrookshankWe do not want to prolong the argument in this way, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to go to a Division, we had better carry on with the discussion. As the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green said, I must take exception to quoting views about what happened at a time when a particular person was Secretary for a body for which he had no responsibility. Secretaries are not responsible for the actions of the Cabinet. Indeed, to suggest that they are so responsible would be a perfectly stupid argument, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland should have put it forward in this connection. I can only suppose that it was a little difficult for him to get round the Chair; I do not blame him because perhaps it is a little difficult. The hon. Gentleman does not really expect any detailed exposition as to how the duties of the Minister without Portfolio are carried out in the War Cabinet but everybody knows the general idea. As I pointed out in my opening speech, there are departmental Ministers responsible for the Departments, and in addition there are Ministers without Portfolio, such as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. On the precedent of the last war they may sometimes be investigating a problem until they can present a report to their colleagues.
I now turn to the specific questions regarding the pension and the Suez Canal directorate. As regards the pension, it is, as the hon. Baronet quite rightly said, in cases of this kind to be considered as deferred pay, and can therefore be drawn at the same time as the salary of a Cabinet Minister. As regards the Suez Canal directorate, of course my noble Friend has relinquished it, as is necessary for all Ministers joining the Government.
§ Mr. DaltonIs the vacancy being kept open for him later, or is it going to be filled on his resignation?
§ Captain CrookshankI do not know whether it was not necessary to make an immediate appointment. I have no precise information about that at all, but if the hon. Gentleman likes to put a Question down to the Prime Minister whether 318 the directorate may have to be filled forthwith, no doubt he will get a specific reply.
§ 7.50 p.m.
§ Mr. TomlinsonI do not know the gentleman under discussion, but I know something about the principle, and particularly the last thing that has been referred to by the Financial Secretary. I am glad to hear the admission that pensions are regarded as deferred payment. I hope that we shall hear more of that principle during the next few weeks. If pensions are deferred payment when they range into the thousands, it is all the more reason why they should be regarded as deferred payment when they range only into shillings. I would ask whether the Government are following out the principle which governs those with a salary of £5,000 a year and applying it to other individuals who are called upon in the Services—
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI am afraid that we can discuss only the one salary and not ask about the general principle of other salaries.
§ Mr. TomlinsonI ask the Committee to vote against this salary because the Government lay down one principle for the man who is overpaid and another principle for the man who is underpaid. The passing of this Vote will create another anomaly which will cause great dissatisfaction. In the smoke room to night I was talking to a young man who is on his way to France. The dissatisfaction among the men in the British Expeditionary Force is growing as the result of anomalies such as this. It means that we are paying the people who have the money by taking it away from those who have not got it. I cannot justify the payment of this salary to a Member of the War Cabinet when we are treating men in the field in the scurvy way in which they are being treated.
§ 7.53 p.m.
§ Mr. PriceIn addition to the point raised by my hon. Friend, there is also the motive which has moved my hon. Friends to press the Amendment. It is that we are not satisfied with the constitution of the War Cabinet. We cannot discuss that, but it is necessary to point out one of the motives which have led us to divide against this Vote. We discussed this matter last Thursday, and it 319 comes up now on a much narrower issue. We are entitled, if we cannot develop it in the Debate, to register our views in the Division Lobby.
| [Division No. 11.] | AYES. | [7.54 p.m. |
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Price, M. P. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) | Pritt, D. N. |
| Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) | Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Riley, B. |
| Ammon, C. G. | Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) | Ritson, J. |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Hills, A. (Pontefract) | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Banfield, J. W. | Isaacs, G. A. | Shinwell, E. |
| Barnes, A. J. | Jackson, W. F. | Silverman, S. S. |
| Beaumont, H. (Batley) | Jagger, J. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Benson, G. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly) |
| Bevan, A. | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Buchanan, G. | Kirkwood, D. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Burke, W. A. | Lathan, G. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Clause, W. S. | Lawson, J. J. | Tinker, J. J. |
| Cocks, F. S. | Leach, W. | Tomlinson, G. |
| Cove, W. G. | Leslie, J. R. | Viant, S. P. |
| Daggar, G. | Lunn, W. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Dalton, H. | McGhee, H. G. | Watson, W. McL. |
| Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | Maclean, N. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Dobbie, W. | MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) | Westwood, J. |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | Marshall, F | Whiteley, W. (Blaydon) |
| Ede, J. C. | Maxton, J. | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Milner, Major J. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Montague, F. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Frankel, D. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Woodburn, A. |
| Gardner, B. W. | Mort, D. L. | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Naylor, T. E. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Oliver, G. H. | |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Pearson, A. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Adamson and Mr. Charleton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Sir R. T. D. | Entwistle, Sir C. F. | MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Erskine-Hill, A. G. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) |
| Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) | Etherton, Ralph | McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) | Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) | McKie, J. H. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. | Everard, Sir William Lindsay | Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Fildes, Sir H. | Magnay, T. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Fox, Sir G. W. S. | Manningham-Buller, Sir M. |
| Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. | Fremantle, Sir F. E. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. |
| Blair, Sir R. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. |
| Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. | Gower, Sir R. V. | Medlicott, Captain F. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Gridley, Sir A. B. | Mitcheson, Sir G. G. |
| Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge) |
| Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Grimston, R. V. | Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) |
| Brocklebank, Sir Edmund | Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) | Nall, Sir J. |
| Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) | Hannah, I. C. | Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Hannon, Sir P. J. H. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh |
| Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) | Harbord, Sir A. | Owen, Major G. |
| Butcher, H. W. | Harris, Sir P. A. | Palmer, G. E. H. |
| Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Peake, O. |
| Channon, H. | Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Colville, Rt. Hon. John | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. | Plugge, Capt. L. F. |
| Conant, Captain R. J. E. | Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. |
| Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) | Holdsworth, H. | Power, Sir J. C. |
| Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.) | Horsbrugh, Florence | Procter, Major H. A. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hume, Sir G. H. | Pym, L. R. |
| Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. | Hunter, T. | Radford, E. A. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hutchinson, G. C. | Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H. |
| Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page | Jarvis, Sir J. J. | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) |
| Crooke, Sir J. Smedley | Jennings, R. | Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) |
| Cruddas, Col. B. | Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.) | Reith, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. W. |
| Culverwell, C. T. | Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R. | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) |
| Davidson, Viscountess | King-Hall, Commander W. S. R. | Robertson, D. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Rowlands, G. |
| Danville, Alfred | Leech, Sir J. W. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. |
| Duncan, J. A. L. | Levy, T. | Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) |
| Edmondson, Major Sir J. | Lindsay, K. M. | Salt, E. W. |
| Elliston, Capt. G. S. | Lipson, D. L. | Samuel, M. R. A. |
| Emery, J. F. | Lucas, Major Sir J. M. | Sandeman, Sir N. S. |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) | Sanderson, Sir F. B. |
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,780, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 160.
| Schuster, Sir C. E. | Strickland, Captain W. F. | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Scott, Lord William | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Wayland, Sir W. A. |
| Selley, H. R. | Sutcliffe, H. | Webbe, Sir W. Harold |
| Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) | Tasker, Sir R. I. | Wedderburn, H. J. S. |
| Shepperson, Sir E. W. | Tate, Mavis C. | White, Sir R. D. (Fareham) |
| Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. | Thomas, J. P. L. | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. |
| Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) | Titchfield, Marquess of | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. |
| Snadden, W. McN. | Touche, G. C. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald | Tree, A. R. L. F. | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Spens, W. P. | Walker-Smith, Sir J. | |
| Storey, S. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) | Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro. |
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,880, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, the salary of a Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, the additional salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as a Member of the Cabinet, and the salary of a Minister without Portfolio."