I beg to move, in page 4, line 9, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that the expiry of this Act shall not affect the previous operation thereof or of any order made thereunder, or any obligation or liability previously incurred under this Act or any such Order in respect of any duty of Customs, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, or the taking of any steps, or the institution or carrying on of any proceedings to determine the amount of any such duty or enforce any such obligation or liability.
We desire to add these words at the end of the Clause because, if we left the Bill as originally drafted, it would mean that all unpaid duties on the expiration of the Act would remain irrecoverable. It would have remained open to any importer to leave over the payment of duties until the expiration of the Act, and thus it would have been impossible to recover the unpaid duties. That would have been grossly unfair to those who had met their obligations during the six months. There would, too, have been no possibility of having recourse to a referee at the expiration of the six months, and
I am not at all sure that, if proceedings were going on when the clock struck at the end of six months, they would be in order. I regret that this was not noticed at the time, and that it should be necessary at this stage to move the Amendment, but I would point out that there is provision of this kind in other temporary Acts, as, for instance, in the Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Act of this Session. It also appears in one other of the emergency Acts, and the Committee will realise that it is a reasonable provision.
It has been pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) that the Bill has rather a clumsy title, and I thought he might like to consider adopting an earlier practice under which Bills were more closely identified with their authors. There was the Michael Angelo Taylor Act, and the Customs duties which are so well known by the title of the McKenna Duties. May I suggest that this should be called the Walter Runciman Act, thus identifying his name with abnormal importations.
I realise that a constitutional point is involved in the Amendment to this Clause which I have put on the Paper, but I would like to raise the question of the exclusion of the Isle of Man from the operations of the Bill. If the Isle of Man is not included there is a great danger of evasions of the law, which may cause serious embarrassment to the Government. I would refer the President of the Board of Trade to the Act of 1765, which he will remember, which gives power to the Imperial Government to intimate to the Isle of Man the Customs duties which the Imperial Government wish to be enforced upon that self-governing Dominion. If the Isle of Man is excluded that may increase employment in my country by restoring the old smuggling system which was in vogue years ago, but, at the same time, it may do a great deal of damage to this country, and I suggest, therefore, that Sub-section (2) should be eliminated. Duties may be put upon many articles, such as surgical instruments, clocks and watches, which could easily be smuggled into this country in handbags. The Isle of Man depends very largely upon its industry of catering for visitors, and up to now we have had no customs duties between the Isle of Man and this country, and it would be against the interests of the Isle of Man to be excluded from the operations of this Measure.
The hon. Member is now trespassing on a matter on which it is within the competence of the Tynwald to say what they may choose to do. It affects the inhabitants of the Isle of Man, and not ourselves.
I think I am right in saying that the position of the Tynwald is that they may impose, abolish, or vary—I think those are the words of the Act—any Customs duty, but the initiative must come from the Imperial Government, or should come from the Imperial Government may I say? Up to now that has not been the case, but, strictly speaking, I think the Act of 1765, which dealt with Customs duties, is within the memory of my right hon. Friend, and under that Act the initiative should come from this country. I foresee that if Customs duties are to be imposed, and we are to follow that precedent, the Isle of Man should be permanently excluded. I hope that in what is being done the Government are carrying with them the Government of the Isle of Man in order that there will be no confusion in the future.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) desires to have the Isle of Man included or excluded from this Bill, or whether he wishes the Isle of Man to be flooded with foreign goods. It appears to me that the Government desire to flood the Isle of Man with foreign goods, and I think that is a scandal. Practically what is being done by this Bill is that the Government are cutting the Isle of Man out of the British Empire, and that is an outrage in relation to a country which has such brilliant traditions, literary and otherwise, as the Isle of Man.
I thought the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) had come to this House as an apostle of Manx liberty, and I was much surprised to find that, instead of appearing in that guise, he came forward to surrender the keys of his national fortress. In this Bill we have been careful and solicitous to preserve the insular privileges of the Isle of Man, and such relics of self-government, formal though they be, that the Isle of Man still possesses; but my hon. Friend comes here from that Island and complains that we have not taken those privileges away. I sympathise with him very much. In form, at any rate, Customs duties are imposed by the Tynwald before they are imposed in this House, 'and any goods which come into the Isle of Man in transit for this country will pay in British ports the full duty that may be imposed by any Orders that the President of the Board of Trade may put into operation in accordance with these powers. While the Isle of Man may, in the exercise of its self-governing rights, allow itself to be flooded with any kind of commodity in the interim, this country will see that it is not used as a dumping ground for those goods, but that the British public will be protected, whatever may be decided by the Tynwald.
I thought that probably the right hon. Gentleman was going to say a few words in order to speed the Bill towards another place. I hope I have not, by intervening, stopped him from doing so. I want to say that we propose to divide on the Third Reading of this Bill. We have not put down another Amendment, because we have already stated our objections in an Amendment which has been voted upon. We propose to vote against the Third Reading, and I would like to make a few remarks on the Bill itself. First of all, I should like to say a word to new Members. It will not be necessary in the case of old Members, but there is a large number of new Members who may think that, in opposing this Bill to the extent that we have opposed it, we were rather standing out against the declared will of an overwhelming majority.
I was very much amused when I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain)—for whom everybody has great respect—rather rebuking us for the line we have taken. My mind went back to the days of the 1906 Parliament when the Tory party had received quite as bad a thrashing as we received at the last election, and were faced with a very big majority. The right hon. Gentleman himself, the late Lord Balfour and the late Mr. Bonar Law and others kept up an incessant campaign from these benches declaring all the time that the mandate which Ministers at that time declared they had received was no mandate at all, but had been got under false pretences, and, therefore, that those who were in opposition, and who had suffered from these false pretences, had the right to strip the mask from them on every conceivable occasion. I remember the late Lord Birkenhead gaining his reputation with the display of oratorical fireworks that he used to give us from these benches.
It is not my purpose to pursue that except to assure the new Members that we are only acting on the lines of tradition and succession to right hon. Gentlemen opposite who belong to the Tory party. In that matter we are as good Tories as they are. I would like also to say with regard to the Amendments, that even though hon. Members in this House may very strongly dissent from a Measure, as we do from this, it is the duty of the Opposition to try to improve that Measure to the best of their ability. Any fair-minded person will say that on each Amendment we have moved to-night—and the fact that they were taken by the Chair is proof that they were Amendments of substance—we had a case to put up, and, although we lost every one of the Amendments, that does not at all take away from the fact that in our judgment the Amendments would very considerably have improved a very bad Bill.
Having said that, I want to say a few words as to our general position, as far as I can within the Rules of Order. I understand that this Bill is put forward to meet a great national emergency. We dissent altogether from the view that the great national emergency which exists today is one that can be even tickled by the Bill which is now going to get a Third Reading. It was said by a writer in reference to some other proposals in connection with another country that a certain proposition was a pill to cure an earthquake. This Bill might be described in that fashion. I do not believe that in his heart the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this Bill will have the least effect on the great financial crisis through which the world is passing, and, even if he does, he knows perfectly well that most financial authorities dissent altogether from the view that with the passing of the Gold Standard a Bill of this kind would assist trade and industry in the way he has been telling us in the past couple of days. The difficulties with which this Bill is designed to deal are difficulties concerned with the distribution of goods in the world. The problem that we and all the nations of the world have to solve is what to do with the enormous productive power which mankind possesses. Until this House and other bodies which have to deal with great economic problems face that fact, we shall not make any progress at all.
I have been very struck sitting here these few days that Parliament has met with the earnestness of many of the speeches of new Members. I do not deny for a moment that they hold their principles as dearly as anyone on these benches, but I cannot understand how anyone can imagine that the restriction of imports and the restriction of the volume of trade between nations and between individuals can deal with the situation with which we are faced. When in this Bill you are told that you are to deal with forestalling by something that the right hon. Gentleman is going to propose in the way of tariffs, is it not the fact that every country which has tariffs is in exactly the same plight as ourselves, only worse? I am not a person who would be wedded either to Free Trade, to tariffs, or to any system. I would support anything that I believe would do even the least good to the mass of the people who need something to be done for them. It is not that at all. I cannot understand why America and France, on the Gold Standard, with plenty of gold, tremendous natural resources and high tariff walls, have the millions of unemployed that they have. The figures in France are going up. So far as it is known, unemployment is increasing quite out of all relationship to the gold wealth, the tariff wealth, and the natural wealth of the country.
I beg every Member who has come here wanting to do something on behalf of the masses who have trusted them to consider with us whether it is not time that we sat down to discover how mankind, and ourselves first, instead of restricting things, should spread abundance abroad. I wish, when the Bill is through, the Government and the House would settle down to consider how we can reorganise the industries of the country. I want them reorganised under public control and public ownership. You, perhaps, want to do it some other way. The one thing we want to secure is that, in that reorganisation and the increased productivity which will come from it, the masses shall share in the increase. There is only one way by which that can be done. As the productive power increases through the use of machinery and better organisation, the workers ought to have higher wages and shorter hours of labour. There is no other way of doing it. If we had the power, that is what we would do.
Our fight against the Bill is because we believe that that would be the more excellent way. We are fond of our country and love our country as much as anybody else in this House. We believe that we are at the crisis of our fate as a great country. We do not believe that you can go on on these lines of trying to put a ring round us and separating us from other people. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that we claim the right to do in our own country what we think to be right. Of course, no man lives to himself; no nation can live to itself. That is a law which somehow or other has come into the world, and today it is more true than it ever has been in the history of mankind. I do not believe that this nation of ours or the world of capitalism can go on unless we tackle the problem which faces us, that every day our productive power increases and every day machinery and organisation turn out an abundance of commodities, man is less wanted in the business of production. This Bill will do nothing to cure that, nothing at all. I appeal to new Members who have made their speeches to-night to think once more of the problem and of how they are going to bring abundance to the service of mankind. We believe that life ought to be organised on the basis of services and that the more wealth there is in the world the higher should be the standard of life for the whole of the community. It is because we believe that this Bill, instead of doing that, will crush people still deeper down that we shall vote against the Third Reading.
Anyone who has sat through the discussions on this Bill in its earlier stage or in the Committee stage must have realised how fully the House has co-operated in framing the Bill which now is to take legislative form. We have had delivered here during the last few days a long series of maiden speeches. New points of view have been put to the House in a new way and with new vigour. If I may be allowed to say of the official Opposition, they have also contributed their part in our discussions without any evidence of obstruction. I would express the gratitude of the Government for that fact. I would like also to add that the whole sittings appear to me to have been within the best traditions of our ancient House. Now we have come to the last stage here, and with great rapidity have passed this Bill through all its various stages. It will go to the Upper House to-night; it will be unaltered there for the Parliament Act takes good care of that. It will receive the Royal Assent to-morrow. It will be put into operation. There will be no time lost in using the powers which have been conferred.
Do not be in a hurry. They will come in due course. The only objection that has been taken to this Bill in principle by the right hon. Gentleman opposite is that it is a regulating Bill. We claim the right to regulate our own affairs. It is a little surprising to hear the Socialists objecting to regulations. The whole method and process of the Socialist State is that we should live under a complete code of regulations. We, on the other hand, have incorporated it into this Bill, although it is only one step, and perhaps only a small step, to deal with the whole problem of taking command of our own destiny. We trust that, having done that, we shall now be able to give freer play to our national recuperative capacity.
I do not wish to delay the House at this late hour, when we have other business to do. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speed, the unprecedented speed, with which he has piloted this first-class Measure through the House. I hope the Measure will be put very speedily into operation. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to begin thinking about what he is going to do next, when the rare and refreshing fruits that this country has hoped to achieve as the result of Measures of this description are not forthcoming. Very high expectations have been raised in the country by the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House. People voted at the General Election for speedy prosperity. I advise the Government to start now, bending their attention to consider how they are going to produce this prosperity. I am perfectly satisfied that these Measures, so far from taking the nation out of the crisis, are going to accentuate the crisis. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and with the Government, that it is one of the first duties of a State to concern itself with the control and regulation of its import and export trade. It is a primary duty of a State. I have never accepted the individualistic view of trade that has been held up this week by the President of the Board of Trade. I think it is preposterous to allow your national destinies to be entirely at the mercy of the unregulated trading operations of individuals pursuing the end of personal profit, and no one of them having regard to the general welfare of the nation as a whole.
Regulation of our external trade is a primary function of the State. The tariff method of attempting to regulate is the worst. It gives us the worst of both worlds. It leaves private trade still intact. It leaves the motive still personal gain. The general welfare of the State is not the concern of any of the individuals who are carrying on that trade, and all that is done by the State, in this form of regulation, is to interpose between two individual traders, in this country and in some other country, a State bar which may or may not work for the national weal. I think that it will not work for the national weal, and that the old Free Trade argument is sound, to this extent, that imports and exports ultimately must balance themselves, and, if you are reducing imports, then surely and certainly, and to a proportionate amount, you reduce exports. I do not pretend to be able to say how it will happen, but I do believe that the net, primary result of this type of legislation, which we are passing to-day with such speed, will be to reduce the general standard of life of the whole mass of our people at a time, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition so ably states, when general world conditions ought to be raising the standards of life of the people to a higher level than ever they were before. I wish the Measure Godspeed. The sooner it is passed, the sooner it is in operation and the sooner the nation feels its practical effects, the sooner will there be a public demonstration of its futility and a demand from the mass of the people for those fundamental changes which will have to be made before we are on our feet again.
As an ardent Protectionist and supporter of this policy, I welcome this opportunity of giving my approval to a Bill which is only a first step towards that change in our fiscal policy for which the Government has received so clear a mandate from the great mass of the electors, a mandate to restrict the importation of foreign goods. It is also an earnest of the intention of the Government to carry into operation at the earliest possible moment that change. This is only the first step out of which must come a full protective policy for our industries. The hon. Member for Bridgeton is perturbed because he thinks the standard of living of the people will be in jeopardy of being lowered, but I would remind him of the cases of those industries which have already received a measure of Protection. In their case there has been increased employment, of which I am sure the hon. Member approves, whilst the imports have been lessened and the exports increased. It has not decreased exports. In addition, it has increased the wages of the people who are employed. [Interruption.] That is a fact. There is the case of translucent pottery and lace, where wages went up. This is the only policy which will protect the standard of living of the workers.
I regret that the scope of the Bill is so small. It is restricted to articles in Class III. If we are to bring prosperity to the people of this country, to restrict imports and give all industries a chance, there must be protection, not only for articles in Class III but for agriculture as well as other industries. A tariff is not only introduced to restrict imports or bring in revenue. The real object of a tariff is to increase the production of the industries of the country, and I cannot understand how any hon. Member can object to a policy which has that as its object; an object which has been achieved wherever the policy has been tried. So far as our
|Division No. 14.]||AYES.||[11.17 p.m.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.|
|Albery, Irving James||Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Birchall, Major Sir John Denman|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Balniel, Lord||Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)|
|Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Blindell, James|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey||Borodale, Viscount|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Bateman, A. L.||Bossom, A. C.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Boulton, W. W.|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton|
|Apsley, Lord||Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)||Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.|
|Aske, Sir William Robert||Belt, Sir Alfred L.||Boyce, H. Leslie|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe||Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley||Bracken, Brendan|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Bernays, Robert||Briant, Frank|
It is a question of restricting imports and increasing exports, and that is why I mentioned the question of the export trade. I am glad that in the Bill the Empire is to have complete preference, that is to say, that the goods coming from the Empire are to come in free. I accept that as a first step towards a great inter-Imperial policy. This is the first step in Empire Free Trade. I am delighted that this gesture has been made to our Dominions before the Imperial Conference. It will do much good, I am sure, throughout the Empire. I only hope that the articles which come under Class III may in some measure be articles produced in the Empire. I welcome the Bill as a first step. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade, who has not given a definition of "abnormal imports," will be able to interpret those words to cover as wide a range of articles as possible— as wide as the name of the Bill. This is our first step, and out of this first step must inevitably come the full measure of Protection which the industries of this country so urgently desire.
|Briscoe, Richard George||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Morrison, William Shephard|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Muirhead, Major A. J.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Munro, Patrick|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Hanley, Dennis A.||Nail, Sir Joseph|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.|
|Burghley, Lord||Hartland, George A.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)|
|Burnett, John George||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Normand, Wilfrid Guild|
|Butler, Richard Austen||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Nunn, William|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||O'Donovan, Dr. William James|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Caine, G. R. Hall||Herbert, George (Rotherham)||Ormiston, Thomas|
|Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)||Hillman, Dr. George B.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.|
|Campbell, Rear-Adml. G, (Burnley)||Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Palmer, Francis Noel|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Holdsworth, Herbert||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)||Peake, Captain Osbert|
|Castle Stewart, Earl||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Pearson, William G.|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Peat, Charles U.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hornby, Frank||Penny, Sir George|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Horsbrugh, Florence||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Howard, Tom Forrest||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Petherick, M|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Chotzner, Alfred James||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Pickering, Ernest H.|
|Clayton, Dr. George C.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hutchison, W, D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Pike, Cecil F.|
|Colville, Major David John||Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.||Potter, John|
|Cooke, James D.||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wands worth, C.)||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||James, Wing-Corn, A. W. H.||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Copeland, Ida||Jamieson, Douglas||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Jennings, Roland||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Ramsbotham, Herswald|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Ramsden, E.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Ker, J. Campbell||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Kirkpatrick, William M.||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Cross, R. H.||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.||Remer, John R.|
|Crossley, A. C.||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C C.||Law, Sir Alfred||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)|
|Davison, Sir William Henry||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Robinson, John Roland|
|Denville, Alfred||Leckie, J. A.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Dickie, John P.||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Dormer, P. W.||Lees-Jones, John||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Dower, Captain A. V. G.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Rothschild, James L. de|
|Drewe, Cedric||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Levy, Thomas||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Liddall, Walter S.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest||Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)|
|Dunglass, Lord||Lieweilln, Major John J.||Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)|
|Eales, John Frederick||Lleweilyn-Jones, Frederick||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo|
|Eastwood, John Francis||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Salmon, Major Isidore|
|Eden, Robert Anthony||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)||Salt, Edward W.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Loder, Captain J. de Vera||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Ellis, Robert Geoffrey||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Eillston, Captain George Sampson||Mabane, William||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Elmley, Viscount||MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Emmoll, Charles E. G. C.||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||McCorquodale, M. S.||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard||MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)||Scone, Lord|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Selley, Harry R.|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)||McEwen, J. H. F.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||McKeag, William||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||McKie, John Hamilton||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)||Skelton, Archibald Noel|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E||Magnay, Thomas||Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)|
|Fuller, Captain A. E. G.||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Gibson, Charles Granville||Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.||Somervell, Donald Bradley|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Martin, Thomas B.||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)|
|Glossop, C. W. H.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.||Soper, Richard|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Millar, James Duncan||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.|
|Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.||Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Goldie, Noel B.||Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Molson, A. Harold Eisdale||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)|
|Graves, Marjorie||Moreing, Adrian C.||Stones, James|
|Greene, William P. C.||Morgan, Robert H.||Storey, Samuel|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)||Stourton, John J.|
|Strauss, Edward A.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Strickland, Captain W. F.||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Sutcliffe, Harold||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n, S.)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)||Womersley, Walter James|
|Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Thompson, Luke||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.||Wragg, Herbert|
|Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles||Watt, Captain George Steven H.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Thorp, Linton Theodore||Wells, Sydney Richard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)||Weymouth, Viscount||Major G. Davies and Major McKenzie Wood.|
|Touche, Gordon Cosmo||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Maxton, James|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hicks, Ernest George||Milner, Major James|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Hirst, George Henry||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Buchanan, George||Jenkins, Sir William||Price, Gabriel|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Cove, William G.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Thorne, William James|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Kirkwood, David||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Daggar, George||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Lawson, John James||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Leonard, William||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)||Logan, David Gilbert||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Edwards, Charles||Lunn, William|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||McEntee, Valentine L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||McGovern, John||Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|