Skip to main content

Education (School Attendance) Money

Volume 244: debated on Tuesday 11 November 1930

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to raise to fifteen years the age up to which parents are required to cause their children to receive efficient elementary instruction and to attend school, and to make provision for maintenance allowances in respect of children attending school up to that age who are over the age of fourteen years, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums by which the grants in aid of education payable by the Board of Education to local authorities, under section one hundred and eighteen Of the Education Act, 1921 (as amended by any subsequent enactment), and the regulations made there under are increased by reason of the provision under the said Act of maintenance allowances at the rate of five shillings a week."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Sir C. Trevelyan.]

On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling for the convenience of the Committee before we begin the debate? Some of my hon. Friends who have studied this Resolution are of the opinion that the only thing it authorises is the making of grants and that the debate to-day must be strictly limited to that subject. We are confirmed in that view by Section 118 of the Education Act of 1921 which appears to give statutory powers to the Board of Education to contribute towards the expenditure of local education authorities in so far as the position of the schools and salaries of teachers are concerned, and it would seem to us that so far as this Measure requires extra accommodation the Board of Education has statutory powers to make the contributions necessary and that the figures must come before us in the shape of an Estimate or a Supplementary Estimate. We are anxious to obey your Ruling in regard to this matter, but we feel that we shall be able to carry on the discussion much better if we are aware of the limits of the debate.

I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for having given me notice that he intended to raise this point. The terms of the Money Resolution deal with maintenance grants, and with maintenance grants alone; and, if hon. Members will look at Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, they will see that the italicised Sub-section also deals with maintenance grants and with no other expenditure.

In order to make the position perfectly clear, may I ask whether it is not a fact that, while this Financial Resolution is connected with the purpose of raising the age at which children are to receive additional elementary instruction to 15 years, we cannot discuss on the Resolution any expenditure arising out of raising the school-leaving age apart from these maintenance grants?

The right hon. Member is quite correct. Although the Bill itself is for the purpose of raising the school age, the only purpose of this Financial Resolution is to supply maintenance grants up to that age.

I take it from your Ruling that on the discussion of the Bill proper it will be in order for us to discuss the question of the proportions of the expenditure that are to be paid by the local authority and the State respectively?

I do not know what the hon. Member means by "the Bill proper." At the moment, we are concerned with this Money Resolution, and, when we get into Committee stage, we shall be concerned then only with the Amendments on the Paper which are in order.

The question I am putting to you, arising out of the Ruling which you have just given, is whether this Money Resolution limited as it is to the question of maintenance allowances, does not preclude on the Bill proposals for increasing the proportion which should be borne by the State as against the proportion which should be borne by education authorities?

At this stage, I am called upon to give no decision on that point, neither would it be my duty to give any decision of that sort. What I am now concerned with is the Money Resolution, and, when we go into Committee, I shall then be concerned with the Committee stage.

Are we to understand from your Ruling that, if this Financial Resolution is defeated, the Bill would automatically fall?

Is it not the case that, when we give a vote on this Financial Resolution, we are voting only for or against maintenance grants, and that it has nothing to do with the raising of the school age?

The Bill deals with the raising of the school age. This Money Resolution deals with money.

I shall be glad of your guidance, Mr. Chairman, on a matter which perplexes many of us. We are anxious to raise the question of the whole cost of maintenance grants being borne by the National Exchequer and not being a charge on local rates, and we are anxious to know whether, if this Resolution goes through in its present form, we shall automatically be prevented from raising that matter on the Bill itself. There is a further question I should like to put. If that is the case, can we be permitted to move an Amendment to this Financial Resolution in order to make it quite clear that the whole cost of maintenance grants is to be borne by the national Exchequer?

The Financial Resolution before the House fixes the rate at 5s. per child per week, and it covers the charge on the Exchequer. That is all we can deal with at the moment.

I understand your Ruling now is that this Financial Resolution allows of an Amendment of the kind I have described on the Committee stage of the Bill.

The hon. Member surely must realise that I can give no decision in relation to any Amendment that I have not seen.

You can give a Ruling about this Money Resolution, its scope and its limitations, when you are asked by hon. Members on the other side.

If the hon. Member desires to make accusations against the Chairman he knows the proper occasion on which to do so. I am certain that he does not mean to impute motives to the Chair. The fact that an hon. and gallant Member gives notice that he intends to raise this question should not disqualify me from giving a proper reply.

What I mean to suggest is that, as I understand it, your function is to help hon. Members and not to hinder them.

I am not hindering anyone. I am confining the debate on both sides of the Committee to the terms of the Financial Resolution. No doubt hon. Members on all sides of the Committee, in all parties, would like a wider discussion than the Resolution will allow, and I am only fulfilling my duty by confining the debate to the terms of the Resolution. That is my Ruling.

I put a second question to you which I think you must have overlooked. I asked whether it would be in order to move an Amendment to this Financial Resolution requiring that the whole of the charge of this 5s. per week should be borne by the Exchequer and that none of it should be a charge on local rates?

If that would mean increasing the charge on the taxpayer it cannot be moved by a private Member.

There is a further point on which we ask your guidance. It is a matter of great public importance and raises an important matter of principle on which this Committee should be allowed to express an opinion. The point is whether the charge for maintenance allowances shall fall partly on local rates or wholly on the national Exchequer. What we are anxious to know is at what time and where, whether on this Resolution or on the Bill, can that issue be raised. I submit that it is a point of importance on Procedure on which we are entitled to ask the assistance of the Chair.

The hon. Member should have pressed such arguments during the Second Reading of the Bill. It is my duty in Committee, whether on a Money Resolution or on a Bill, to rule out any Amendments which increase the charge on the taxpayer. Therefore, I must give my Ruling as I have given it now.

That is exactly the point. This Resolution lays down no limitation of cost at all. As I read it, it says that this Committee is to make provision for maintenance allowances and

"to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums by which the grants in aid of education payable by the Board of Education to local authorities, under section one hundred and eighteen of the Education Act, 1921 (as amended by any subsequent enactment), and the regulations made thereunder are increased by reason of the provision under the said Act of maintenance allowances at the rate of five shillings a week."
There is no limitation. I understand that the terms on which these payments are to be made are to be defined by regulations subsequently to be made, and there is no limitation of money laid down in this Money Resolution.

4.0 p.m.

Section 118 of the Education Act lays down certain conditions under which the Board of Education pays grants to the education authorities. This Resolution deals with that part of the increased expenditure which will arise out of the increased grant, and anything that would increase the expenditure other than that put forward by this Resolution would, of course, be out or order.

Let me put this point. There is nothing in the regulations under the Act of 1921, and there can be nothing in the regulations under that Act that governs the proportions at which maintenance grants are to be borne. It is, obviously, impossible to make provision in the Act of 1921 for something which is going to be set up by the Act of 1930, and it is obvious that these regulations have got to be varied. The regulations now make the proportion of education payment something like fifty-fifty in most cases. The Government propose to alter that proportion to sixty-forty, and must therefore make a new regulation. I am very much concerned about this, because in certain Highland counties of Scotland the present proportions are not fifty-fifty but fifty-twenty, because of present regulations, and I want to know that this House is to have an opportunity, not merely on the Second Reading, when debating the general principle of the Bill, but in Committee to discussing in detail whether the proportions suggested are the right and proper proportions. I ask whether the House is to be denied the right of full discussion on this important point upon this Money Resolution?

If the hon. Member puts down an Amendment on the Committee stage, it will be for me to consider whether it is out of order.

From the Rulings which you, Mr. Young, have given, we understand that the discussion to-day will be confined to the proposed maintenance grants in this Bill. I do not at the moment propose to deal with the merits or arguments for maintenance grants, because I stated the case on Thursday, and I will reply later to any objections that may be raised. At the moment, I will confine myself, as is usual on this occasion, to a brief statement of the financial implications. The provision of maintenance grants to children in the new age group is not susceptible of exact calculation, but I reckon that, under the income limit proposed in the White Paper, probably 75 per cent. of the parents are likely to apply under the declaration. The figures given in the Financial Memorandum are based on that assumption. It is considered likely in the first full year, 1932–33, that the total will amount to £3,750,000 instead of £3,000,000, which I estimated in May last, with a temporary rise in cost in the following years, owing to the larger num- ber of children who are likely to be in the schools, making it £5,375,000 to £5,500,000. It will also be seen in the Financial Memorandum that the rate of grant generally applicable under the special grant is 60 per cent. of the expenditure. Apart from maintenance allowances, the Exchequer is to provide 84 per cent. of the cost of raising the school age. In a full year, the Exchequer will bear 70 per cent. of the total additional cost. I hope that the House will pass the Resolution sanctioning the expenditure on maintenance grants, which two out of the three parties are pledged by their election promises to give.

I rise to oppose this Resolution, and I must say, in the first place, how disappointed I am at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman does not anticipate carrying this Resolution. Otherwise, I think he would have paid far more attention to explaining it, and, at any rate, to advocating the good qualities in the proposal. I feel a great disappointment, also, in the fact that he was not able to give us anything like a correct estimate of the amount which will be required. We were told just now that in 1932–33 he expects that the cost will be something like £3,750,000 in grants, and he said that in later years it may be anything between £5,375,000 and £5,500,000. I ask the Committee to consider this. Here we are taking a leap in the dark, absolutely not knowing where we are going. We must ask ourselves two questions: first, is it really worth while to spend this money in this way; and, secondly, can the nation really afford it? As far as I am concerned, I am going to argue from the point as to whether it is really worth while. The question as to whether the country can afford it is a very important one, and although many of us do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, who stated last year, in a debate in this House, that a nation can afford anything that it wants, at the same time, if it could be proved to me, at any rate, that it was really worth while to spend this money in this way, then, perhaps, I should be inclined to support it.

Let us examine our position. The estimated annual charge upon the Exchequer in respect to this education is £4,350,000, of which £2,100,000 is for other expenditure in connection with the raising of the school age, and £2,250,000 for these maintenance allowances—that was the first estimate; now we are told that it is actually more. There will be an additional charge on the rates of something like £1,900,000. Thus you get a sum of nearly £7,000,000 which will have to be provided for this particular Measure. Let us examine what we spend on education. In 1913, we spent £25,500,000 on 6,000,000 children at a cost of £4 5s. per child per year. At present money values that would be £6 17s. We will take £6 17s. as a basis. To-day we are educating 5,500,000 children at a cost of £61,500,000, or £11 3s. per child per year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cheer that. Personally, I am all in favour of progressive education.

The hon. Member says "for my children." Let me inform him that I myself was educated at a Board school, and never went to a public school or even a secondary school, but, as far as my children are concerned, not because of the cost, but because I believed it was the soundest ground-work for education, I sent them bath to an elementary school to start with.

Where all the clever boys finish, at the secondary school, and where your children can finish if they are clever enough to pass the examination. [Interruption.] Let us for a moment look at the question of taxation in the country, dealing with the point as to whether the country can really afford this extra charge. At Sheffield, on 26th September, Mr. Hewitson Nelson, Vice-President of the Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors, speaking on national expenditure, said that it had increased about four and a-half times since 1913–14. It was then £195,000,000, and it is now £870,000,000, and within reach of approximately £15 per head of the population. [Interruption.]

If the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) wishes to raise a point of Order, he ought to do it in a proper way. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is quite in order in referring to the expenditure already being incurred on education.

You gave the Ruling very definitely that nothing could be discussed on this but maintenance grants, and the hon. Member is discussing the whole cost of education, pre-War and now. It is quite out of order.

I gave my ruling that only maintenance grants could be discussed, but it is in order for the hon. Member to say that the cost is so much already that nothing more should be given.

If the hon. Gentleman is allowed to discuss this question in relation to the total amount spent nationally on education, as that cannot be divorced from expenditure on the. Army and the Navy, shall we be allowed also to dicuss that?

We are dealing with a matter of education, and it is quite in order to say that the expenditure is so much, that it is enough now, and that we ought not to add anything more. That is all, I understand, the hon. Member is doing.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that Ruling. I was seeking to prove to the Committee that the expenditure at the present time on national services is so heavy that we cannot afford any further burdens. I think I am entitled to quote the figures so that hon. Members may know exactly what they are voting for to-night. In 1913–14 the national expenditure was £195,000,000. To-day it is £870,000,000, an increased by £5 9s. 1d. per head, and local rates by £2 5s. 4d. per head. The gentleman whose name I have mentioned used these words:

"These figures were having a paralysing influence on the trade and commerce of the country and a deterrent influence upon the savings of the nation."
When we consider the expenditure on other social services—which has been in most cases rightly made—we find that it has been multiplied six times since 1911. It will be clear to the Committee, there fore, that there is a very heavy burden upon industry at the present moment, and that it is a question whether industry can stand any further burden. Let us now come to the question whether it is really worth while. Why have these maintenance allowances been introduced into the Bill? The reason is quite evident. Statements have been made by hon. Members in speeches outside the House. They knew that the Bill would not be acceptable to the parents and the children if it were not for these maintenance grants. We have proof of that, inasmuch as there are certain areas in the country that have adopted the system of continuance from 14 to 15 years of age. They have, however, been free to grant exemptions to parents when such exemptions were desired. What has been the experience? In East Suffolk, out of 1,839 children only 339 remained at school. In Plymouth, I am told, out of 1,459 children only 306 remained at school. In Cornwall, out of 3,228 children only 250 remained at school. That proves beyond a shadow of doubt that, as far as the parents are concerned, they are not at all desirous of leaving their children at school.

The hon. Member is not entitled to shout across the Floor of the House that the statement of an hon. Member is a lie. I ask him to withdraw his words.

I am sure the hon. Member will see that he is not observing the ordinary courtesy of debate by calling across the Floor of the House to another hon. Member that his expression of opinion is a lie. Does the hon. Gentleman comply with my request that he should withdraw the word?

If he withdraws the slander on working-class parents, I will withdraw what I said, but not unless.

In this House Members are entitled to express opinions. I must now ask the hon. Member to withdraw from the House seeing that he has not withdrawn his expression. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not going to withdraw? Under those conditions, I shall have to apply Standing Order No. 18 and report the matter to Mr. Speaker.

The CHAIRMAN then left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

I have, with great regret, to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that under Standing Order No. 18, I have

Division No. 5.]


[4.23 p.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)Cluse, W. S.Gunston, Captain D. W.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. ChristopherClynes, Rt. Hon. John R.Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.Colfox, Major William PhilipHall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Albery, Irving JamesColville, Major D. J.Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ammon, Charles GeorgeConway, Sir W. MartinHall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Arnott, JohnCourtauld, Major J. S.Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Astor, ViscountessCourthope, Colonel Sir G. L.Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Atholl, Duchess ofCowan, D. M.Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Attlee, Clement RichardCranborne, ViscountHammersley, S. S.
Ayles, WalterCrichton-Stuart, Lord C.Hanbury, C.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.Crookshank, Capt. H. C.Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)Harris, Percy A.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir PhilipHartington, Marquess of
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)Dalkeith, Earl ofHartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir GodfreyHarvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Bellaire, Commander CarlyonDalton, HughHayday, Arthur
Bellamy, AlbertDavies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)Hayes, John Henry
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Benson, G.Denman, Hon. R. D.Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Bentham, Dr. EthelDuckworth, G. A. V.Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Birchall, Major Sir John DearmanDugdale, Capt. T. L.Hopkin, Daniel
Blindell, JamesDuncan, CharlesHore-Belisha, Leslie.
Bourne, Captain Robert CroftEde, James ChuterHorne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.Eden, Captain AnthonyHoward-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Brecken, B.Edmondson, Major A. J.Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Brass, Captain Sir WilliamEdmunds, J. E.Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Briscoe, Richard GeorgeElmley, ViscountHurd, Percy A.
Broad, Francis AlfredErskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)Everard, W. LindsayIsaacs, George
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)Falle, Sir Bertram G.Iveagh, Countess of
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)Ferguson, Sir JohnJenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Buchan, JohnFison, F. G. ClaveringJones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)
Burgess, F. G.Foot, IsaacJones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Burton, Colonel H. W.Ford, Sir P. J.Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Butler, R. A.Ganzoni, Sir JohnJones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Cadogan, Major Hon. EdwardGault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew HamiltonKedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Cameron, A. G.George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)Kennedy, Thomas
Campbell, E. T.George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Cape, ThomasGillett, George M.Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir JohnLambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Castle Stewart, Earl ofGlassey, A. E.Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)Glyn, Major R. G. C.Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.Gossling, A. G.Lathan, G.
Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)Lawrence, Susan
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)Granville, E.Lawson, John James
Charleton, H. C.Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.Leach, W.
Chater, DanielGray, MilnerLee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Christie, J. A.Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Church, Major A. G.Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. JohnLewis, Oswald (Colchester)

had to name the hon. Member for the Shettleston Division of Glasgow (Mr. McGovern) for disregarding the authority of the Chair, and that, when called upon to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the sitting, the hon. Member refused to do so.

I have to name to the House Mr. McGovern, the hon. Member for the Shettleston Division of Glasgow, for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

I beg to move, "That Mr. McGovern, the hon. Member for the Shettleston Division of Glasgow, be suspended from the service of the House."

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 40.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)Perry, S. F.Snell, Harry
Llewellin, Major J. J.Peters, Dr. Sidney JohnSnowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. GodfreyPethick-Lawrence, F. W.Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.Phillips, Dr. MarionSpender-Clay, Colonel H.
Lowth, ThomasPleton-Turbervill, EdithStamford, Thomas W.
Lunn, WilliamPole, Major D. G.Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Lymington, ViscountPrice, M. P.Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
McConnell, Sir JosephPybus, Percy JohnSueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)Ramsay, T. B. WilsonTaylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)Reid, David D. (County Down)Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)Reynolds, Col. Sir JamesThomson, Sir F.
McElwee, A.Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
McEntee, V. LRiley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)Thurtle, Ernest
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)Tinker, John Joseph
MacNeill-Weir, L.Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)Tinne, J. A.
Macquisten, F. A.Romeril, H. G.Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.Rosbotham, D. S. T.Todd, Capt. A. J.
Mansfield, W.Ross, Major Ronald D.Toole, Joseph
Margesson, Captain H. D.Rothschild, J. deTownend, A. E.
Markham, S. F.Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.Train, J.
Marshall, FredRussell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Middleton, G.Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)Turton, Robert Hugh
Millar, J. D.Salmon, Major I.Vaughan, D. J.
Mills, J. E.Salter, Dr. AlfredVaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Milner, Major J.Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)Viant, S. P.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)Wallace, H. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.Sandeman, Sir N. StewartWard, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Morris, Rhys HopkinsSanders, W. S.Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)Sawyer, G. F.Warrender, Sir Victor
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)Scott, JamesWaterhouse, Captain Charles
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)Scurr, JohnWatkins, F. C.
Mort, D. L.Shakespeare, Geoffrey HWayland, Sir William A.
Muirhead, A. J.Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)Wells, Sydney R.
Nathan, Major H. L.Shepperson, Sir Ernest WhittomeWhite, H. G.
Naylor, T. E.Shillaker, J. F.Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnWilliams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
O'Connor, T. J.Skelton, A. N.Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Oldfield, J. R.Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)Womersley, W. J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. WilliamSmith, Frank (Nuneaton)Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Palin, John HenrySmith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Paling, WilfridSmith, Rennie (Penistone)Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Palmer, E. T.Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Peake, Capt. OsbertSmith, W. R. (Norwich)


Penny, Sir GeorgeSmith-Carington, Neville W.Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)Smithers, WaldronEdwards.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.Sandham, E.
Batey, JosephKelly, W. T.Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Bromley, J.Law, A. (Rossendale)Sherwood, G. H.
Brooke, W.Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)Simmons, C. J.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)Sorensen, R.
Buchanan, G.Lees, J.Stephen, Campbell
Cove, William G.Lloyd, C. EllisSutton, J. E.
Daggar, GeorgeMac Laren, AndrewTillett, Ben
Grundy, Thomas W.McShane, John JamesWallhead, Richard C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)Maxton, JamesWilkinson, Ellen C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)Muff, G.Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)Potts, John S.Wise, E. F.
John, William (Rhondda, West)Raynes, W. R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)Rowson, Guy


Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Kinley.

In accordance with the decision of the House, I must order the hon. Member for Shettleston to leave the House immediately.

The hon. Member for Shettleston withdrew accordingly.