I beg to move,
That the Resolution to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the Committee, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between consideration in Committee and on Report of such a Resolution, and that more than one stage of any Bill ordered to be brought in upon such Resolution may be proceeded with at any Sitting, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance.
In moving this Motion, which stands in the name of the Prime Minister, I shall do so at no great length as there is really not very much to say about it. The House will be aware that the President of the Board of Trade announced yesterday, in the course of the Debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, that he was going to introduce a Bill to deal with abnormal importations, and that he hoped to proceed with it with all speed, and so to arrange that it should become law this week. That was the undertaking which he gave to the House, and it is to implement that undertaking that I am moving the Motion which stands in the name of the Prime Minister.
I understand that the Opposition are going to move an Amendment. I thought that they would have accepted this Motion without discussion, because all through the Debate on the Address they kept asking the Government, "What are you going to do?" and "Why do you not do something, and do it quickly?" We were so impressed with what they said, that we arranged for the Bill at once, and now we are going to get it through quickly. Doubtless we shall hear by and by what their objection to it is, but I think that I can answer the objection which was made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who is fixing me with his eye at the moment. Let us grant, for the sake of argument—and certainly it is the fact—that, in the view of the vast majority of the House, the speedy passage of this Bill is desirable on every ground. If that be so, we have to remember that if there were no Resolution, six parliamentary days at least would be consumed in the passage of this short Bill, because, as is known to all Members of this House, Resolutions in Ways and Means must be proceeded with stage by stage on different days, and Bills based on Resolutions arising out of Committee of Ways and Means, in the same way, can only proceed one stage on each separate day. It is obvious that if this Bill is to become law at the end of this week, it must leave this House on Thursday, and that gives three days instead of six for the passage of the Bill.
The Government gave serious consideration—and this, I believe, is where the point of the hon. Member below the Gangway comes in—as to how they should divide the time, and they decided that the fairest method would be to get rid of the Financial Resolution to-day, in one day, leaving two days for the Bill. That means that to-morrow can be taken up with the Second Reading. I have seen since Question Time that a few copies of the Bill shall be in the Vote Office to-night at 11 o'clock if the Resolution be passed at 11 o'clock, but for the Debate on the Second Reading there is ample, time, if the Bill is circulated to-morrow, for anyone to make his speech on Second Reading, because everyone knows what the principle of the Bill is, as it was explained clearly and fully by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday.
The important point from the Opposition point of view, is that we have arranged for the Second Reading and the subsequent stages of the Bill on the next pay. That will give ample time for hon. Members to study the Bill, and, if they think fit to put down Amendments for discussion on Thursday. I have explained what the procedure would have been had there been no motion. I observe that, in the view of the vast majority of this House, speed is of the essence of the contract, but there are some people who are not of that view, and they will doubtless make their voices heard. In these circumstances, I will not anticipate the Amendment which the Opposition are going to move. I do not think that I need say anything further as to the necessity for this motion, and I will leave it to the President of the Board of Trade to make that point clear to the House if that be necessary, after the Amendment has been moved.
I beg to move in line 1, to leave out from the word
"That." to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House is of opinion that no case has been submitted for setting aside its long-established practice relating to financial business, which was designed and has proved to be necessary in the interests of the taxpayer and of the rights and privileges of this House.
I think it will be admitted by every hon. Member who has had any experience in this House that the procedure brought forward in the Motion which the Lord President of the Council has just moved is really a revolution in our constitutional procedure. It will be very difficult for anyone to find a precedent for the proposals which are being put forward to-day. If we were living in a state of war such a Motion might be necessary. If we were dealing with a real emergency which could not be overcome except by great speed, I think everyone here would agree that we should hold up the usual procedure.
It is the right of every citizen to know, when new taxation is proposed, the reason why that course is being taken. The House should be made fully aware of the nature of the taxes which, are going to be proposed. All these matters should be fully considered by every Member of the House. There ought to be no question that when taxes are imposed the rights of this House, and of the people outside, ought to be fully safeguarded in every possible way. That is one function of this House which has been upheld again and again against every kind of opposition. There has never been in the history of Great Britain any subject about which the House of Commons has been more jealous than the imposition of taxes. No one can claim that we shall not be imposing fresh taxation through the action of the Board of Trade, if the proposals which we are now considering go through. For these reasons, we on these benches are against the whole of this procedure, and we believe that the House of Commons, if it passes this Motion, will be abdicating for the first time in its experience during a long period of years, its chief function, and will be handing over the right of imposing taxation to a public Department.
It is not my intention now to attempt to discuss the whole of the questions involved in the Motion. I am not sure that I should be in order in trying to do so, but I would, in passing, like to say that this is not merely a question of dealing with dumping. I notice in the Press and in the speeches of hon. Members of this House it appears to be thought that what is now proposed is a great effort to stop the importation into this country of what are called dumped goods. What, in effect, you will do by the adoption of this Motion will be to give to the Board of Trade the power to say what sort of articles shall be permanently taxed at the port of entry. About that there cannot be any possible doubt, because the President of the Board of Trade himself said yesterday that he was not going to discuss dumping, and he stated that the legislation which he proposed to introduce was forestalling legislation. If you are going to forestall something, you must be going to do something.
The point I am making is that, in handing over to the Board of Trade this power, you are saying to that Department: "Choose what articles are to be excluded or heavily taxed, and we will safeguard your action by passing this legislation." The House of Commons has no right to give to any Government Department the power to say what particular articles shall or shall not be taxed at the port of entry. That is something which has never been done at any time in the history of this country. Whenever I have listened to the Lord President of the Council speaking upon Safeguarding, he has always said that you must have an inquiry in the first instance in order to be quite sure of the effects of everything connected with any proposition put before Parliament.
To-day we are not being asked to do anything of the kind, and we are simply being requested to give the Board of Trade a blank cheque to start a series of tariffs. I contend that that is such a revolutionary proposal that even a Tory House of Commons ought not to consider it. I should have thought that there would have been some other hon. Members of this House ready to stand up in defence of the ancient rights of this Assembly and declare that there ought not to be any taxation without the previous consent of the House of Commons. The idea that three months after the imposition of the taxation this House may suspend such proposals, is only playing the fool. This House has always been entrusted with the right of imposing taxation, but we are being asked to-day to give up that right, and to hand it over to the President of the Board of Trade and his Department.
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask for your guidance. I want to ask whether this Motion, which has been moved, does not contain really two Motions and should be divided into two parts. The Standing Orders of this House have laid down certain procedure in connection with finance. The question I ask is whether the proper procedure to be followed should be that there ought to be a Motion moved that the Standing Orders be set aside or altered, instead of moving a Motion claiming the procedure which is now proposed. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have any power-to safeguard this House from an alteration of the Standing Orders being made in this fashion, instead of by a Motion altering the Standing Orders, in order to enable the Government to proceed with a Measure of this kind. The point I wish to put is that there is no need for any Standing Orders at all, because a Government with a large majority can set aside the Standing Orders at any time. I submit that the Motion we are discussing is challengable on the ground that the alteration of a Standing Order can only be made by a Motion altering that Standing Order.
I understand that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) puts to me two separate points. The first point is as to whether this Motion should not be divided into two. It certainly might have been divided into two, but I have already put it as one. An Amendment has been moved to the whole Motion, and that has also been put to the House. If the hon. Member had drawn my attention to the point sooner, I would, with the consent of the House, have put the Motion in two portions.
The practice in the past has been to wait until the vote was being taken, and then to raise an objection. As a rule, the objection is not made until the actual Question is being put to the House. I want to know whether you intend to put this Motion as a whole. or whether it is not really two Motions on which hon. Members have a right to vote. I want to know whether in future that practice is to be altered. My second point is that the Government have come along with a Motion claiming this procedure without first passing a Motion setting aside the Standing Orders of the House dealing with taxes.
If my memory serves me, the past practice has been that, when there has been any such Motion on the Paper, I have had notice that it was going to be suggested that the Motion should be put in separate parts. I think the hon. Member has put his question too late,, whatever may have been the practice in the past. The hon. Member asks me whether it is in the interests of the House that I should exercise some authority in safeguarding the rights of the House as regards the suspension of the Standing Orders. As a matter of fact, this particular Motion does not interfere with any Standing Order. It does propose to alter what has become the regular practice of the House, but no Standing Order is interfered with in any way. I might call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that it is very frequently the action of the House to suspend a Standing Order. As regards myself, I do my best to preserve the rights and privileges of this House. The question of suspending the Standing Order rests with the House, and it is for the House to do it, or not, as it thinks fit, and it does not rest with me.
I only want, in a very few words, to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment to withdraw it, if only for the benefit of his own party. I do not know if he likes the thought of the Labour party acquiring the description of the champion of the tax escapers. I remember that in 1929 and 1930 we were engaged, as supporters of the Government, in devising methods by which people should not be able to escape taxation—[Interruption.] I am not referring to Land Tax, but to Income Tax, or, rather Super-tax. Now, however, as their first act in this Session, the Labour party propose an Amendment that can only have the effect of enabling persons to escape the payment of taxes. That is the sole effect of their Amendment. If that is the description that they like to acquire for themselves, I can only say that I am very sorry. Clearly, the intention of this procedure is to prevent people from importing, without paying tax, that which the Bouse desires should pay tax—
This is a procedure devised to prevent these goods from coming in without paying tax, on the assumption that the House will ultimately—[Interruption.] It is on that assumption. Object to the assumption if you like, but do not object to the procedure which is necessary in order to make these goods pay tax, or, rather, to prevent goods from being imported without paying the tax that we all want them to pay. The right hon. Gentleman observed that this was to be permanent taxation, but, of course, these Resolutions have nothing to do with permanent taxation. They are very carefully confined to a limited period, and, if the taxes are not made permanent, then the whole of this procedure drops. [Interruption.] That is the Resolution, and the Bill must follow the Resolution; you cannot escape that. I repeat that the only effect of this Amendment would be to enable people to escape paying taxes, surd that is not an Amendment that I can support.
The Leader of the Opposition is particularly anxious to vindicate the rights and privileges of this House. I say that the duty of this House, as soon as possible after it has assembled, is to give effect to the feeling of the people of the country which has been expressed in the mandate given to Parliament, and, if ever any expression of the opinion of the people following upon a General Election has been cogent and definite, it is the recent expression of opinion that we should deal at the earliest possible moment with this question of the destruction of our home market by foreign competition. An essential element of this procedure is to give effect to the will of the country in the earliest possible period of time, and all the talk of the Leader of the Opposition about being so anxious to preserve the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country is as nothing compared with the interest of the people outside that this Measure shall be given legislative force at the earliest possible point of time. Therefore, I hope that all this humbug that has been talked on the Opposition side of the House will be dropped, if only for shame's sake. They have gone through a General Election in which they have been wiped off the slate. All their shouting about democracy and the rights of democracy means nothing to them; it is a question of obstruction in the way of the will of the people being given effect to by the House of Commons.
The hon. Member is anxious that the legislation involved should go through the House without being subjected to the ordinary process of examination which he and his colleagues have always insisted on giving to every Measure that has come before this House in the past. I am very interested in the touching faith that the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues have developed in the President of the Board of Trade. If I were a Conservative sitting on that side of the House, and if I were asked to support a Measure introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, I should want about a month in which to examine it in detail, just to see the precise way in which the right hon. Gentleman was going to "Do us in." This faith and confidence in the President of the Board of Trade is not, I hope, going to be disappointed and destroyed, but, if ever there was a case for the House of Commons insisting on its rights in this matter, this is the case in point. A week ago the Government had no intention of introducing this Measure. It is true that they got a general mandate from the electors to do something in the matter of the restriction of imports or the regulation of the import trade. Undoubtedly there was a mandate of that description. But a week ago the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues had not interpreted what that mandate meant, and each of the responsible spokesmen of the Government spoke in terms of postponing a decision until the matter had been fully examined and inquired into and investigated slowly and carefully. There was to be no rush; the legislation was to be absolutely holeproof; it was going to be done very carefully.
I agree that that should be so, because I am quite satisfied that the reason why this country has not departed from its Free Trade basis in the last 25 years during which the matter has been one of political controversy, and during which several Governments have been in office who had the power and mandate to alter the fiscal basis of the country, has not been for lack of a mandate, has not been for lack of public opinion against the foreigner's trade in this country, but has always been because of the tremendous practical difficulties. Let it be remembered that, if these Measures are put into operation in any whole-hearted way, they are going to ruin a whole lot of business men who voted for the National Government. The President of the Board of Trade knows that; a certain number of Conservative Members know it; the particular person concerned does not know it yet, but he will know it in the course of a week or two, and then the reactions and repercussions will start. If this country has determined that now is the time when it is going to depart from its Free Trade basis, now is the time when the matter should be thought out, so that the application of this new trade method should bring about the minimum of disturbance, for you must remember that your general trade is not in such a state just now that you can deliberately adopt measures that are going to kill certain industries and businesses in this country, and are only going to have a very problematical effect in restoring others.
A week ago that was the Government's intention. The strongest Government of Parliamentary history met a week ago to take time to think this matter out carefully. Then came the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), whose rushing tactics I know from experience—from his attempt to deny to a certain part of the Opposition even one seat in this Chamber. He brought up his cohorts at all hours of the morning in attempts to rush myself and my three or four colleagues out of their appropriate and proper place in the House, and he is also rushing up his cohorts against the Prime Minister and this strong Government. He blows the bugle, they march round the Jericho, and the walls fall. The House met to take time to think this matter out, but the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, that great hive of industry and commerce, says, "My boarding-house landladies will not wait until the Government have thought it out." Again, from Eastbourne—another great industrial centre—there are deputations, there are interviews, there are promises, there are statements in the House, and there is legislation: and the party sitting behind the Government, who last week agreed that there should be time to think this legislation out and make full inquiry, walks in to-day and says, "Go ahead, Government; do whatever you like; we are prepared to support this bit of legislation for Protection, produced primarily by that great protagonist of Free Trade, the President of the Board of Trade; and our confidence in you is so strong that we are prepared to give it to you before we have seen it." That is the most shocking bit of slipshod public work that ever was done.
You went before the electors only a few weeks ago and said, "We are the people who are going to run the affairs of the country prudently and carefully. We are going to have none of the wild, extravagant Socialist schemes of the late Government"—what a travesty of the facts!—"we are going to have prudence and care in the administration of the nations resources, and the legislation that we are going to introduce is going to be examined carefully by responsible men." Here are the responsible men who have arrived in the House now telling the country that, for the purpose of a bit of legislation which was not contemplated a week ago, which has been rushed on the Government by a few extremists, which was not even mentioned in the King's Speech, and which we have not seen, they are prepared to suspend all the established practices of the British House of Commons that have existed from the time of Cromwell and Hampden. Where is the hon. Gentleman who always tells us about Cromwell and Hampden, and our glorious liberties that our ancestors won? And the principal apologist for this was, a month ago, a Labour Member. Now Liberals, Tories and Labour Members say, "Never mind the House of Commons; we have got to stop the dumpers; we have got to stop dumping"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is the measure of great enthusiasm and no intelligence. I, for one, will give my most hearty support to this Resolution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—or, rather, Amendment—[Interruption.] I made a slip of the tongue; thank Heaven I have not made a slip of the brain. I regard this as an unwarranted interference with the established practices of the House, in the interests of a proposal which has no urgency about it, and which may lead to the most terrible consequences to the trade and industry of this country.
The hon. Member seems to think that the President of the Board of Trade, directly he gets his Resolution passed, is going to put on an enormous number of taxes and without thinking about it at all prevent all sorts of things from coming in. That is not what we are asking for. What we are asking for in the Resolution is to give power to the right hon. Gentleman to do this when the time arises. We want the power because in certain cases there are abnormal importations at present. It means that he will have the power to prevent certain things coming in which are upsetting our balance of trade. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) said the only effect of this was that it was going to prevent people from escaping taxes. I do not agree with him. I think the effect of it will be to prevent us from getting to a position where our balance of trade gets so bad that the value of the pound may decrease very considerably. That is even more important than the point that the hon. Member made. But that is not the only effect it is going to have. The Leader of the Opposition seems to be in the same position now as he was before the Election. He seems to think there is no crisis, but the electors have realised that there is a crisis. He says we are asking for a blank cheque. That is exactly what the Prime Minister asked for at the General Election and got by an overwhelming majority. I hope we shall get the same blank cheque with an overwhelming majority in the House.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) complains of rushed legislation. My point of view is that it is not the legislation that is being rushed but imports that are being rushed, and that is the real need for this legislation at such short notice before we rise for the Christmas Recess. It is needed in view of the stream which has come in recently, a stream which could not have been known of 10 days or a fortnight ago. The figures given by the President of the Board of Trade referred to the imports of the first 10 days of November, when they had not reached our shores. It is not, therefore, quite fair to complain of it as rushed legislation and say the Government ought to have brought it into the King's Speech, when the imports had not in many cases left the Continental ports when the King's Speech was prepared. The hon. Member made a facetious allusion to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). He spoke of that town as a hive of industry. I should say those happy resorts are the hive of those who have been successful in industry. This very afternoon I have been at a Chamber of Commerce gathering in my constituency when I was given for 4d. a knife made in Germany. The gentleman who imported it said it could very well stand an import duty of 100 per cent. and even then it would only cost 8d. That is the point of view of those who retail these commodities which come over at very low rates of exchange. They think we can quite well add 50 or 100 per cent. to the price, and it would still be low. It would obviously be extremely foolish on our part to allow the House to adjourn for some weeks, foreign countries knowing that tariffs will be put on in January or February, without giving the President of the Board of Trade power, if he thinks it right, to put on anything up to 100 per cent. in the way of duties, and I welcome the proposal.
Some of our late colleagues have told us they have been converted within a month from the doctrines they used to preach to a new conception of national policy. We on this side have never pretended either to be Free Traders or Protectionists. We are democrats in politics and Socialists in economics and, because we are democrats, we accept the decision of the people as given at the ballot box, but the people were never told during the election by any party that, in the event of the other side of the House getting a majority, they were going to introduce legislation of this character. There is not a single Member who can say that he got on a public platform and proposed to give to any individual Minister the light to supersede the rights of the House of Commons. There is no Minister on that Front Bench who ever made such a declaration during the whole course of the election. You are not legislating for the immediate present. You are laying down a precedent for the future. The whirligig of time brings its revenges. You are in a big majority. We may be in a big majority to-morrow. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] When you wake up. Will you agree to the idea that, if we get power, we can say to one of our Ministers, "You will have power to levy any kind of taxation that you like?" Would you allow power to do exactly what you like administratively without the House of Commons having a chance to discuss the rights and wrongs of the situation? We are asked in advance to give one Minister of the Crown the right to supersede Parliament itself. That is a revolutionary proposition.
Being an Irishman, perhaps I am rather dense, but, if I understand the English language at all, it means that the right hon. Gentleman gets the right to select from a whole series of articles contained within the schedules of the Board of Trade and to levy a tax up to 100 per cent. Some people may be lawyers. Thank God I am not. This quibbling about the meaning of the words in the Resolution leaves me absolutely cold, but I can see the ordinary common sense of it. What is the intention of bringing it forward if it is not to do what hon. Members want done, and to do it at once? They cannot wait. Everyone who represents a dockside constituency knows that what is happening now always happens at this period of the year. Goods are coming in to a greater extent than at ordinary times. Yet this period has been picked out as an example of what is generally going on. I am not in favour of dumping. I am against it. I should like to prohibit the introduction of goods produced under unfair conditions in other countries.
I am not going to vote for this Motion. I will not give any one man the power to become a dictator in the economic work of the country. I would not vote for it if I never gave another vote. It is giving power to one man who is not the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would not ask for it. He is not here. We do not know where he is, though we know where he was. He is a lost leader. Some of us are not orthodox Free Traders. We do not believe in the doctrine of competition, external or internal, but Parliament ought to preserve its rights, and we who are sent here ought to have control over the national finances, because that is what we are getting to the bottom of. Power to impose taxation has always been the prerogative of this House. That power is being taken away and handed over to one man who is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I am referring to the whole principle of the Resolution. It gives to the Department presided over by the President of the Board of Trade the right to select articles to be taxed and, if it does not give the right of taxation, I do not know what it means. It means not only taxing the article but taxing the people who buy it, because the consumer will have to pay the tax. We all know that. If the Resolution does not confer upon the Minister the right to impose taxation, what is the enthusiasm amongst the supporters of the Government about? It is their object to tax the foreigner and to make the foreigner pay. Was not that the story? Our trade should not be interfered with by unfair competition. There might be agreement about that, but here you are saying for the first time in the financial history of the country that you are going to give an individual Minister the right to select articles to be taxed, and at the finish the working class will be the main sufferers. Therefore, we are opposing the Resolution from the constitutional and also from the economic standpoint.
I think we are travelling rather wide of the Resolution. It is merely a question of procedure. The question is merely whether the practice of Parliament of allowing an interval between the Committee and Report stages of a Resolution should be adhered to. This practice has grown up as the result of years of experience in the endeavour to protect the taxpayer and to give him a reasonable chance of making his views heard and felt through his representatives in the House of Commons. A case, of course, has been made out for a departure from this long accustomed practice. We understand that the matter is urgent and that actions are being taken by interested parties and delay may be disastrous. Speed is essential. If the Resolution is passed and if we embark, as a result, on a policy of full-blooded tariffs in one form or another, it will be necessary for this procedure to be continued not only in the present emergency but when we come to consider the Budget of the year. We know that the policy of forestalling goes on even in this country under a revenue tariff. Forestalling always goes on on a large scale where tariffs are part of the revenue system of the country, but I say as a Tory in this matter, as a constitutionalist, that Members should view with scrutiny, and even with suspicion, the speeding-up of our financial Measures. There is no greater custodian of the practices of the House than the President of the Board of Trade. It came as a surprise to me to find him introducing and recommending this revolutionary provision, but I would say to him as an old friend that such a form of procedure is inevitable if you embark upon a tariff policy. As soon as the world knows that these new duties will be imposed, these practices will be continued. I remember after the McKenna Duties were taken off, and, when it was understood that they were to be reimposed, the River Thames was black with barges containing motor cars with the object of forestalling the reimposition of these duties. I am afraid I am a conservative in this matter. I follow the old procedure of the Mother of Parliaments, which has been followed in nearly every Parliament in the world. It is followed in our Dominions, and, I understand, it is even being followed in America. There should be proper intervals for consideration between the formulation of proposals to alter the system of taxation and their imposition by Parliament. Traders, business men and manufacturers will be subject to the danger of new taxation within a week, with no power of protest, no power of petition, no power of objection and no opportunity to come into contact with Members of Parliament. This is a dangerous practice, and as a good conservative, a believer in our constitutional practices and a student of the Constitution of this country, I shall feel bound to vote against the proposed innovation.
It fills me with astonishment to hoar speeches made by hon. and right hon. Members of the Labour party in which they appear to desire to do everything that possibly can to prolong the time when this country will be flooded with imports of foreign manufactured goods. Every day that is wasted in stopping excessive importations is prolonging very considerably the time during which a great number of our people will be kept out of work, instead of finding employment. It is a very common mistake of the party opposite to suppose that what the unemployed want is assistance when they are out of work, and I think that their time might be better occupied in doing everything possible to secure employment for those people at their own jobs. Here is their opportunity. One would think that if they were really anxious to give the unemployed an opportunity of working at their own jobs, they would do everything they possibly could to-day to facilitate the passing of this Measure and stop the importation of foreign goods at the earliest possible moment. There is one point which I want them to bear in mind. There are other reasons which make delay dangerous. In critical times you require exceptional methods. There is the extreme importance of balancing our trade and of obtaining the balance of our Budget, but scarcely less important is the desirability of providing work for our unemployed. I must stress the point, that every day's delay in stopping excessive imports coming into this country means the continuation of the time during which many of our own people will be out of work. I hope that hon. Members opposite will give the matter their full consideration.
The Leader of the Opposition just now said that for once he was in favour of the taxpayer. For a long time I have heard him speak in favour of putting more burdens upon the taxpayer. I have never heard him say anything in favour of the taxpayer until to-day. It was not until I thought the matter over and wondered what was in his mind that I discovered the reason for this new-found sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman for the taxpayer. It was because of the fact that the taxpayers would be foreigners and not British subjects. That was the real reason of his sympathy for the taxpayers.
I should like to see duties put on at the earliest possible moment. Nothing would have induced me to object if the proceedings of the last four days had been cut down to one day. The emergency Measure could then have been brought on three or four days ago. Apart from that, there is one point with regard to the procedure in this matter which, I think, some Conservative Member ought to lay down very clearly in the House of Commons. I have been in the House for a considerable time, and although I do not pretend to be an expert on the Procedure of the House, it is absolutely essential in the interests of the private Members of the House that there should be the fullest possible discussion before any taxes are levied.
The Motion, as framed to-day, is one for which I intend to vote, but I shall do so with great reluctance. I will point out the reason. If we are going to have the Committee and the Report stages of the imposition of the duties on the same day, it will be impossible for those who represent various interests in the country to get into touch with those outside interests. That is a point which ought to be remembered. As was said earlier in the day, hon. Members are in this House primarily to protect the taxpayers of the country. I do not often find myself in agreement with Members of the Opposition. Even on this occasion, I am not in full agreement, because they are only in favour of the foreign taxpayer. I am in favour of hitting the foreigner whenever I get a chance. I know that hon. Members sitting below me have not yet quite recovered, so I will not rub it in any more.
I and a great many members of my party were pledged to support the Government from the national point of view. Although as Conservative Members we have a better method of dealing with this matter than through the issue of orders by the Board of Trade, the main object is to get things done, and that is why I shall support the Motion. That it should be done in rather an autocratic way and in a way which most Conservatives would not necessarily like is obvious. When you have also Liberal and Socialist Members of a Government they are far more autocratic than we Conservatives could be, and we have to accept their autocratic rule on certain occasions. This is an occasion upon which I am making a personal sacrifice of my own feelings in order to get something done. There is a consideration which is far more important on this occasion, namely, that every day the evil is getting worse, and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller), whom many of us are glad to see back again, has indicated, with unemployment so menacing, we cannot always stop over the niceties of Parliamentary procedure. For that reason, I think we can support the Motion to-day. But I should like to lay it down very clearly —and I believe that a very large number of the Members of the House of Commons, particularly the older Members, feel as I do—that this procedure should not be used as a precedent in any way. It is being done because there is an emergency. In the interests of the average private Member I make this protest, and suggest that we accept the Motion because of the need of the country, and because expedition is absolutely essential in the national welfare.
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) rather interests me. He tells us that he and a num- ber of his party do not desire a Motion of this kind to be pushed through, and that the Liberal Members of the Cabinet and the Liberal party in the House generally compelled him and his friends to do things which they did not want to do. I understood that the Conservative parly had such a large majority in the House that even if all the Simonite-Liberals, the Samuelite-Liberals and all the ex-Labour men, and all the real Labour men were on the Opposition side, the Conservatives would still be in a majority and able to carry out their will in the House. It is no use fooling about this matter. It is the will of the Conservative party, the Liberal party and those ex-Labour men who are supporting the present Government that this thing should go through quickly. Every tyrant in history has always excused his actions on the ground that they were necessary at the time, and so it is with the tyrants in this case. They are in a majority. They are in a position to impose their will. They intend to impose their will, but they know that in imposing their will they are doing something which is not right, and they are compelled to make excuses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Nearly every speaker who has spoken from the other side has made excuses. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay that it is the foreigner who is going to pay these taxes. Is it? If it be so, it is something of which I have always been ignorant.
Of course, I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out that you allowed a remark by the hon. Member for Torquay to which I was going to make reply. However, if you say that I am not to be permitted to make a reply, of course, I accept your ruling. The hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), who has now left the House, produced a pocket-knife, and I may be permitted to make some remarks about the statement he made?
Of course, I accept your Ruling, but I thought that when a remark was made by an hon. Member with regard to the foreigner paying taxes I should be allowed to make some remarks on the same subject.
I accept your Ruling. May I put one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade? After all, the passing of this Motion is the prelude of something, and before any Member is asked to cast his vote either for or against it, he is entitled to ask what is coming after. I put it to you that, not having the Bill in front of us, we can only ask questions and seek information. There is no Bill in front of us, and no information that is definite. Our votes will undoubtedly be influenced by the discussion which takes place here. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion gave us no information whatever in regard to the Resolution except with reference to the point as to why six days, the normal time given to a Resolution of this character, are now being reduced to three. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether any inquiry is to be made in regard to the goods that are coming into the country, and which he will find it necessary to stop coming in by means of a tariff. Is any inquiry to be made as to the conditions under which these goods are manufactured in the country of origin?
That has nothing to do with the Resolution before the House. The question is whether the Committee and the Report stage of these Money Resolutions should take place on the same day, and two days taken for the remaining stages of the Bill.
I was led into a mistake, perhaps, by following speakers who had referred to those things and whom you did not pull up. Therefore, I thought that I might follow them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I think I can conduct my own case.
I was about to say that I accept your Ruling and that I reserve my arguments until a later opportunity. I want to add my protest to the protests already made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) and other hon. Members on this side of the House, including the hon. Member for Torquay who, although a Conservative, appears to have some suspicion whether or not he is doing the right thing. I doubt if there is one hon. Member who can say definitely that he or she is doing the right thing in supporting a revolutionary Measure of this kind, and taking away the privileges of the House of Commons and of its individual Members. I must express my surprise that many Members of this House who during the last Parliament were always taking opportunity to defend the privilege of the House, are now, because it suits their own purposes and the purposes of their party, to sink all the opinions that they expressed so frequently and well in past Parliaments, and to give to the National Government certain privileges at the expense of the rights of the ordinary Member of this House and of Parliament itself.
I desire in a few sentences to meet the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Since the right hon. Gentleman spoke the discussion has taken a very wide scope. It began by the picturesque irrelevancies of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and a number of hon. Members have been led into matters which are not strictly within the scope of the Resolution before us.
With very great respect, Sir, you have misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that it was that circumstance, the undue enlargement of the discussion, which caused you to call certain hon. Members to order. I want to avoid the difficulties into which some of the preceding speakers were drawn. In a few sentences I desire to address the House, within the Rules of Order, in my own way. I wish to meet the legitimate complaint made by the Leader of the Opposition in moving the Amendment. He complains that the procedure contemplated is a serious departure from the ordinary procedure of this House. That is so. There is not one hon. Member who can deny that, but what the right hon. Gentleman overlooks is that this procedure is directed to an emergency and that it is so framed as to curtail its operations to that emergency. The emergency to which the Resolution and the Amendment are directed is the emergency on which the will of the country was taken.
Some complaint is made that this procedure is unauthorised by the will of the country. I am most anxious to keep within the narrow ambit of the Motion before the House, and I desire merely to say that observations have been made in regard to Free Trade and Tariff Reform which, in my submission, with all due respect, are not directly raised by the Motion or the Amendment. I am entirely unconcerned by those matters. I found my own attitude on the commission which I received from my electors, a commission which I understand was received by scores and hundreds of Members of this House in common with myself. That commission was this. In view of the financial situation facing the country, an economic situation of an unparalleled character, and it being necessary to redress a very serious adverse balance of trade, and it being possible to do that either by contracting imports or stimulating exports, it became necessary to seek the will of the country as to whether the Government should be authorised to adopt some special procedure to deal with that situation. On the commission received from the country this procedure has been devised.
No one would challenge the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade in these matters. He has been forced, as he confessed to the House yesterday, to adopt this procedure. That procedure some of us outlined during the election, and it is no surprise to us to see it produced. It was the obvious procedure to be adopted. The procedure is emergency procedure. It is restricted to six months. The orders made must be reviewed by this House for 28 days. I do not profess to be an authority on the procedure of this House, but supposing the Board of Trade, under this Resolution, issued an order which was not acceptable to the House, surely it would be possible under the rules of the House for a review of that order to be undertaken. Therefore, I submit, with very great respect that, unparalleled as this departure is, it is a departure which is necessitated by the special circumstances of the time, a departure which is restricted in its operation, a departure which can be reviewed under the ordinary rules of the House and, finally, a departure which it was the will of the country should be undertaken.
The substance of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member is that we are in a state of emergency. I wonder why we had a General Election, if we are to act in accordance with emergency. Prior to the Dissolution there was a majority for the Government of from 50 to 80 upon every issue that came before the House, even on teachers' cuts and on the question of unemployment. The National Government at that time had a sufficient majority to have done precisely what they liked. I presume that the imports that are to be taxed under this Resolution, when the Bill has gone through Parliament, were then coming into the country. Are we to assume that the emergency has arisen during the last few days and that it therefore becomes essential for the usual six days time to be reduced to three days to meet something which could have been done before if the emergency existed during the last five or six weeks? This House is to permit a precedent to be created that will enable the President of the Board of Trade to obtain authority to do whatever he likes during the next six months. It is true that at the end of six months certain orders have to be placed upon the Table. One can well understand the enthusiasm of the supporters of the National Government,
Once this Resolution has gone through and the Bill comes in and Parliamentary time has been curtailed from the normal six days to three days, a precedent will have been created, and the President of the Board of Trade will have authority to tax anything that he may deem it advisable to tax in the interests of the country. That is the precedent that is being created. As the Opposition we vehemently protest against that, and that, the rights of private Members, regardless of their political predilections, should be taken from them in this way. I am amazed that people who presume to have Radical thoughts should permit this thing to go through. The late National Government had a sufficient majority to do all that they desired, yet they threw the country into a General Election, at enormous expense, in order to have greater numbers returned to impose upon the country that which is to be done by way of a precedent, imposed in the Bill that is to follow this Resolution. On behalf of my party and in accord with the Leader of the Opposition, I protest most vehemently, and I claim that in the Division we ought to have support of all Radical thought.
Is there really an emergency at all? [Laughter.] I gather from that demonstration that the House thinks there is an emergency. In that case, why was not this Measure mentioned in the King's Speech? The Government apparently regarded this Measure as of so little immediate importance that they did not put it in the King's Speech. Then the emergency arises. The emergency is not the salvation of our trade, but the placating of the Conservative part of the Government.
|Division No. 4.]||AYES.||[5.30 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Albery, Irving James||Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)||Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Anstruther-Gray, W. J.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Horobin, Ian M.|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Denville, Alfred||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Atholl, (Duchess Sutton)||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Howard, Tom Forrest|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Dickie, John P.||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.|
|Bailey, Eric Alfred George||Donner, P. W.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.||Dower, Captain A. V. G.||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)|
|Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.||Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Hume, Sir George Hopwood|
|Balniel, Lord||Duggan, Hubert John||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)|
|Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey||Dunglass, Lord||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Bateman, A. L.||Eady, George H.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Eales, John Frederick||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)||Eastwood, John Francis||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir JR.(Montr'se)|
|Belt, Sir Alfred L.||Eden, Robert Anthony||Hutchison, William D.(Essex, Romf'd)|
|Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley||Edge, Sir William||Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Bernays, Robert||Ednam, Viscount||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)|
|Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.|
|Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)||Elmley, Viscount||Janner, Barnett|
|Blaker, Sir Reginald||Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Jesson, Major Thomas E.|
|Blindell, James||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)|
|Boothby, Robert John Graham||Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)|
|Borodale, Viscount.||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, s.)||Ker, J. Campbell|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Kerr, Hamilton W.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Flanagan, W. H.||Kirkpatrick, William M.|
|Bracken, Brendan||Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.|
|Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Knight, Holford|
|Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Fraser, Captain Ian||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton|
|Briant, Frank||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Fuller, Captain A. E. G.||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Galbraith, James Francis Wallace||Law, Sir Alfred|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)||Ganzoni, Sir John||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Gillett, Sir George M.||Leech, Dr. J. W.|
|Buchan, John||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lees-Jones, John|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Gledhill, Gilbert||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.|
|Burghley, Lord||Glossop, C. W. H.||Levy, Thomas|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Lindsay, Noel Ker|
|Burnett, John George||Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.||Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick|
|Burton, Colonel Henry Walter||Goff, Sir Park||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gower, Sir Robert||Lockwood, Capt J. H. (Shipley)|
|Caine, G. R. Hall||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Loder, Captain J. de Vere|
|Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.|
|Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)||Graves, Marjorie||Lymington, Viscount|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Lyons, Abraham Montagu|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Greene, William P. C.||Mabane, William|
|Carver, Major William H.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)|
|Casseil, James Dale||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)|
|Castle Stewart, Earl||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||McConnell, Sir Joseph|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||McCorquodale, M. S.|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Gunston, Captain D. W,||MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Cayzer, Ma|. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Guy, J. C. Morrison||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)||Hales, Harold K.||McEwen, J. H. F.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||McKeag, William|
|Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||McKie, John Hamilton|
|Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)||McLean, Major Alan|
|Chotzner, Alfred James||Hammersley, Samuel S.||Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)|
|Christie, James Archibald||Hanbury, Cecil||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)|
|Clarke, Frank||Hanley, Dennis A.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Macquisten, Frederick Alexander|
|Clayton, Dr. George C.||Harbord, Arthur||Magnay, Thomas|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hartington, Marquess of||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hartland, George A.||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot|
|Colville, Major David John||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.|
|Cooke, James D.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Marjoribanks, Edward|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Marsden, Commander Arthur|
|Copeland, Ida||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford;||Martin, Thomas B.|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur F.||Millar, James Duncan|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hepworth, Joseph||Mills, Sir Frederick|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Herbert, George (Rotherham)||Milne, Charles|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Hillman, Dr. George B.||Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-|
|Cross, R. H.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)|
|Crossley, A. C.||Holdsworth, Herbert||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Molson, A. Harold Eisdale|
|Curry, A. C.||Hornby, Frank||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Davison, Sir William Henry||Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)|
|Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.||Stuart-Crichton, Lord C.|
|Moss, Captain H. J.||Robinson, John Roland||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Munro, Patrick||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.|
|Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Summersby, Charles H.|
|Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)|
|Newton, Sir Douglas George C.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Templeton, William P.|
|Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)||Rothschild, James L. de||Thom, Lieut.-Colonel John Glbb|
|Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|North, Captain Edward T.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)|
|Nunn, William||Runge, Norah Cecil||Thomas. Major J. B. (King's Norton)|
|O'Connor, Terence James||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.||Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)||Thompson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Palmer, Francis Noel||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Patrick, Colin M.||Salmon, Major Isidore||Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|Peake, Captain Osbert||Salt, Edward W.||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Pearson, William G.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Percy, Lord Eustace||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Train, John|
|Perkins. Walter R. D.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Petherick, M.||Savery, Samuel Servington||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Scone, Lord||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsoy)|
|Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)||Selley, Harry R.||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Pickering, Ernest H.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada||Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Pike, Cecil F.||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Watt, Captain George Steven H.|
|Potter, John||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin||Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Power, Sir John Cecil||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Purbrick, R.||Skelton, Archibald Noel||White, Henry Graham|
|Pybus, Percy John||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Raikes, Hector Victor Alpin||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)||Smithers, Waldron||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Somervell, Donald Bradley||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Ramsbotham, Herswald||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Ramsden. E.||Soper, Richard||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Rankin, Robert||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.||Womersley, Walter James|
|Ratcllffe, Arthur||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Rathbone, Eleanor||Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Wood, Major M McKenzie (Banff)|
|Rea, Walter Russell||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Stevenson, James|
|Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Stones, James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Remer, John R.||Storey, Samuel||Sir George Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.|
|Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.||Stourton, John J.|
|Renwick, Major Gustav A.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||McGovern, John|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Grenfell, David Roes (Glamorgan)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Batey, Joseph||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Maxton, James|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Grundy. Thomas W.||Milner, Major James|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Owen, Major Goronwy|
|Buchanan, George||Hicks, Ernest George||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Cape, Thomas||Hirst, George Henry||Price, Gabriel|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Jenkins, Sir William||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Cove, William G.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David|
|Daggar, George||Kirkwood, David||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lawson, John James||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)||Leonard, William||Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)|
|Edwards, Charles||Logan, David Gilbert||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Lunn, William|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Macdonald. Gordon (Ince)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)||McEntee, Valentine L.||Mr. John and Mr. Groves.|
Main Question put, and agreed to.
That the Resolution to be proposed in Committee of Ways and Means may be considered this day as soon as it is reported from the Committee, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the
interval between consideration in Committee and on Report of such a Resolution, and that more than one stage of any Bill ordered to be brought in upon such Resolution may be proceeded with at any Sitting, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of a Bill relating to Finance.