The noble Lord will no doubt appreciate the fact that I hold my Free Trade convictions as sincerely as he holds his Protectionist convictions and nothing has arisen in the course of these Debates which has led me to modify the convictions I had before the discussion commenced. We are told that this marks a change in our fiscal policy. I can only contrast what is happening now with what happened when the great fiscal revolution was carried through some 80 or 90 years ago, a revolution carried through by famous men who rose to the height of their great argument. I contrast those proceedings with what is now taking place in reversal of that policy. [Interruption.] Look back to those famous Debates lasting for nearly a generation in which some of the most celebrated men of this country were won over against their predilections and training to the policy of Free Trade and contrast them with the proceedings we have witnessed in the progress of this Measure through the House.
I have now only time, in accordance with historic precedents of this House, to put on record on behalf of my friends and myself our protest against this Measure. I make that protest in association with what has been said by the Home Secretary whose speech I unreservedly and unrepentantly support. [Interruption.] We have no part or lot in this Measure. We recognise that it means the breaking of many ties with those whom we have been associated in this House. I have here no complaints to make against my Liberal colleagues, but I am entitled to say that they do not speak for organised Liberalism outside this House, nor do they speak for the great body of Free Trade opinion. [Interruption.] There are many who laugh at me now who if it had wit been for the support of Free Traders in their constituencies would never have got within a hundred miles of Palace Yard. [Interruption.]
In regard to the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade, he used the argument that the policy of the Government and the policy of the Home Secretary, if examined carefully and analytically, were almost indistinguishable. If
anyone else but the President of the Board of Trade had used that argument I should have said it was sophistry. Burke in his "Thoughts on the present Discontents," said:
Whilst no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet, on the whole, light and darkness were tolerably distinguishable.
The President of the Board of Trade said that this policy was not permanent. We accept that. We desire to put it definitely on record that this policy is not permanent. The right hon. Gentleman, however, suggested that after a few years, we may on considering the weight of argument and counter-argument, advantage and disadvantage reverse the policy. No one knows better than the President of the Board of Trade the difficulties we shall have to meet. If you once put on a tariff it does not become a matter of argument in getting free, but of fighting the vested interests which have been created, and the experience of the world is that once a country has taken to tariffs it has had to sweat blood before it can get rid of them.
The first test of any Measure is its effect upon the poor and those who are nearest the poverty line. We oppose this Measure on very simple grounds. We are against this Bill because it taxes food and because food taxes are taxes according to the needs and not according to the means. We oppose it because it will raise the cost of living to the poorest of our people. It will increase indirect taxation as compared with direct taxation. It. will tax raw materials, and therefore increase the cost of production, thus limiting our competitive powers in foreign markets, and causing increased unemployment. We oppose it because it looks in the wrong direction. It looks in the direction of national independence and national self-sufficiency. [Interruption.] It looks in the direction of national self-sufficiency, and against this doctrine of isolation we put what we believe to be the only basis of the wellbeing and the peace of the world, and that is interdependence and international co-operation. [Interruption.]
I have only a few moments to say this to hon. Members: After all, the power is with you. You are a very big majority. The sentence is going to fall upon Free Trade, and I want upon this occasion, in a few words, to say that Free Trade, even if it were a prisoner, has a right to speak for itself. [Interruption.] We shall at any rate make this lf, because of the interruption, I were prevented from making that statement here, it would not assuage feeling outside. For 80 years Free Trade has placed us among the foremost nations of the world. It has made available for the people of this little crowded island all the resources of five Continents and the supplies of the whole world. It has enabled us to build up the biggest mercantile marine in the world—[Interruption.] Finally, in the time of the nation's greatest trial, during the War, Free Trade stood us in great stead and empowered us to carry our burdens, and not only ours but the burdens of our Protectionist allies as well. It has established for our workers the highest standard of living; it has given us clean politics; and it has enabled us, I think better than any other country in the world, to sustain and survive the shock and distress of the economic disaster through which the nations have had to pass. I make that claim for Free Trade. It is quite certain, of course, that I am speaking against the great majority in the House. I can only express my regret that in the year of grace 1932, when we are celebrating the centenary of the great emancipating Measure, the Reform Act, we are now passing a Bill which, I think, will again place upon us ancient shackles and put upon our shoulders a yoke that neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.
I seem suddenly to have stepped into the middle of a domestic quarrel. I hope that the combatants will for one moment listen to an argument against a policy which I oppose from the other side of the House. It. seems to us that, as the Debate has progressed upon this Bill, both in Committee and on Report, more and more there has been developed the divergencies which in fact exist in the National party—divergencies which are all due to a policy which has not been thought out. The Home Secretary himself, who was one of the Cabinet Committee which investigated this problem, went into the Lobby against the Government because he was of opinion that no proper inquiry had been held into the matter. We feel that, apart altogether from the merits of this policy, it is a policy that has been pitch-forked on to the country without the proper inquiry or investigation that was promised.
Indeed the whole temper of the House has been that of people engaged in what one might call the "catch-as-catch-can" method of tariffs. Hon. Members rising one after another have been anxious on behalf of their constituents to have either excluded or included particular trades in which some particular vested interests can be shown. It seems to me to indicate no science except the science of opportunism. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, I thought rather naively, it is really, after all, only a matter of expediency. It seems to us that the whole of this policy is mere expediency as regards particular trades. It is, in fact, the last desperate throw of the gambler. If it fails as we believe it will the National party, whether Liberal or Conservative have no other policy to put in its place.
We have been accused during this Debate of having no alternative ourselves. I think that everybody who has the intelligence to read the "Daily Herald" must appreciate that we have a policy whether hon. Members agree with it or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you not put it forward?"] If the hon. Member will take the opportunity of attending meetings in other places where there is more time, he can always hear it. The Lord President of the Council himself, when he was on this side of the House, and when he was, perhaps, in two minds as to a tariff policy, has often said that it was not the duty of the Opposition to put forward policies but to criticise. But I take this opportunity of pointing out the fundamental difference upon which our opposition to this Measure is based. It is based upon a fundamental difference of view as to the economic policy which should lie behind industry and finance.
The economics of capitalism depend, according to those who put forward that view, upon the earning of large profits by individuals in order that those profits may be re-invested in industry and that capital may thus flow into industry for reconstruction or for the setting up of new industries. That is to say the division of the earnings of industry must be so made that there is a sufficient surplus for those who have capital, after spending all they require, to be able to re-invest what is left in industry. That is the reason why under the present Bill the working class are to bear a greater burden of taxation because, as has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, industry cannot afford the present heavy direct taxation. Those who believe in the capitalist, theory believe that that taxation takes away too much of the profits of the capitalist and does not allow him sufficient to re-invest in industry. For exactly the same reason the Bill aims at putting up the prices at which commodities are sold in this country, in order that there may be a larger margin for the manufacturer and the capitalist in this country in the way of profits.
We shall wait to see if this country is to be an exception to the rule that in protected countries wage levels are low. [HON. MEMBERS: "America!"] The hon. Member who says "What about America?" knows quite well that conditions in America and in Europe are completely different. We believe it is this uneven distribution of the receipts of industry between the producers and capital that will be rendered more uneven by the imposition of tariffs and that that very inequality is creating at the present time the lack of consuming power from which the world is suffering. The whole argument, as we see it, behind the policy of the present Bill is to reduce the standard of the workers and increase the standard of profits. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The hon. Member who says "No," I am sure, cannot really mean it, because I know he will agree with me that, according to his theory, it is essential to have a sufficiently large margin of profit in order to provide capital for industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has that got to do with it?"] It has to do with it to this extent, that it is said by all capitalists that industry is suffering because there is not the necessary capital forthcoming for the purposes of industrial recorganisation and reform, and to achieve that they desire to increase profits in order that there may be more available. [An HON. MEMBER: "And wages‡"] The hon. Member who says "And wages" will appreciate that when two people have to share a sum of money, you cannot increase both their shares.
We disagree fundamentally with that theory of economics, and we believe that the time has come when both the finances and the industries of this country must be put upon a footing of State control and State regulation. One hon. Member opposite said to-day that he appreciated the point of view that you could either have complete individual control of industry or complete social control, and I am glad there was one Member in the House who did appreciate that point of view. We take the point that you have got to have complete social control of industry and not complete individual control of industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Room 13?"] I am sorry that I have not the time to answer all the interruptions, but I must allow the Chancellor time for his speech. We believe that it is wrong so to try to work the system of capitalism that you have to rely upon the whim of private enterprise to supply the fresh capital for your industries, or that you have to entice that fresh capital by the offer either of Protection or of large profits before you can draw it into industry.
If the State is made responsible for the supply of capital, it can then organise that supply so that it is available where it is wanted in the best interests, not of one section of the community, not of one single business in a section, but, of the community as a whole; and until that is done we believe that mere tinkering with Free Trade or with Tariff Reform is going to be of no value whatsoever in redeeming the position of this country or any other in the trade of the world. After all, although this particular Measure may give a fillip to some industry here or there, may lead to apparent prosperity in one particular isolated spot, I should have thought that by now it was past doubt that any clog of this sort put upon international trade was bound in the long run to decrease the consuming power of the world.
Let me read a passage which is quoted in this month's "Monthly Letter" of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, a passage which comes from a report which is signed by more than 200 distinguished
economists all over the world. [Laughter.] I was waiting for that laughter. Let me give one or two names in Great Britain so that hon. Members may laugh again. There are Sir Arthur Balfour, Lord Bradbury, Mr. Goodenough, Mr. Montagu Norman, Mr. Walter Leaf, and many others of the same character. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the date?"] It is 1926. [Laughter.] If hon. Members think that the whole theory of world trade changes between 1926 and 1931, I am sorry for them. They said this:
Too many States, in pursuit of false ideals of national interest, have imperilled their own welfare and lost sight of the common interests of the world by basing their commercial relations on the economic folly which treats all trading as a form of war. There can be no recovery in Europe till politicians in all territories, old and new, realise that trade is not war, but a process of exchange, that in time of peace our neighbours are our customers, and that their prosperity is a condition of our own wellbeing. If we check their dealings, their power to pay their debts diminishes and their power to purchase our goods is reduced.
That was why these distinguished economists desired to make it abundantly clear that the imposition of import duties by a country could do nothing to help the trade of that country.
Let me put one more point to the House. One of the many arguments which is put behind this Bill is the desire to increase production here or in the Colonies, but nobody has yet told us from whence, from the point of view of the world, the consumption is coming for these commodities. Let me take the case which occurred last night, that of hemp. Hemp has hitherto been imported from the Philippines to this country. It is suggested that by means of this tariff we can grow sisal and replace it. What is to happen to the hemp growers?
I do not mind where it comes from, but last night we were told by the experts that it comes from the Philippines. It does not matter for my argument. What is to happen to the growers of hemp? They form, after all, a potential market for our manufactured goods. Take any article you like that is imported into this country; if you cut off the supply and create a, new one, when already it is admitted that throughout the world there is an excess of raw materials and commodities of all kinds, you are not going to cure the trouble of under-consumption by increasing production still further. That is one of the reasons why we believe that this Measure cannot in the least tackle the real difficulties with which we and the world are faced, and that until this country decides that the system of private enterprise under which it is at present working has become out of date and unable to cope with the present situation in world trade, it will fail to find a solution. When the country has got sick, as it will, of this Government and of the tariffs and of the increase in the cost of food and the cost of living, it will turn Again to the sound principles of Socialism.
No greater contrast could be imagined than that between the two speeches to which we have just listened. The first was a last, passionate, despairing cry from one who is convinced that he has seen the end of Free Trade. I shall make no further allusion to that speech, but. I turn at once to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). That was not the speech of a Free Trader, it was the speech of a man whose alternative to Protection is said to be Socialism, but who sees in this Bill an opportunity for repeating once more all the efforts he has made on previous occasions to stir up class animosity and to suggest that a. Measure brought in with the support and approval of representatives of all parties in this State—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—has as its underlying motive only the desire to make profits for the capitalists and to lower the standards and wages of the working people. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us a quotation from an article which, he says, was signed by a number of economists in 1926. What is the use of quoting 1926 in 1932? So far as I could judge from the ex- tracts that he read to us, there was nothing in that document to which any of us would take exception, but, so far from being Free Traders to-day, many of those who then signed that document have realised that in the changed conditions since 1926 it is absolutely necessary, if this country is to regain its prosperity, that it should also regain its freedom to control its own affairs.
Anybody who has followed the discussions on this Bill from the beginning must, I think, have been impressed by one thing above all others, and that is the extraordinary ease and smoothness with which it has passed through all its stages. I have had some considerable experience in piloting large, and in some cases controversial, Bills through this House, but I have never seen any case where a Bill that was even comparable to this in magnitude has gone through with so little opposition and with so much general agreement from all parties in the House. [Laughter.] I hear hon. Members opposite laughing. They say they are only small in numbers, and that is perfectly true, and I do not underrate that factor in the situation; but I could not help observing, as I sat here day after day, that the proportion of the party opposite who were present, small as that party is, was even smaller. For the first time since this Bill appeared the benches behind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are filled. For many hours I have seen only two or three Members there and I could not help being forced to the conclusion that, whatever they might say in the vehemence of their opposition to us, at heart they are profoundly thankful that the subject is going to be taken out of the field of controversy, and that they feel that in their official policy they are out of harmony with the real sentiments which most of them hold.
That is not surprising, because every British working man is at heart a Protectionist. He has been brought up, he has been trained, to believe that in this naughty world his best chance of obtaining the standards of life to which he attaches such importance is to get some protection against the competition of workers in other countries who either do not attach the same importance to or have not been able to attain to the standards which he has got here.
All these weary years he has seen his standard of life gradually being lowered and in danger, and threatened by depression. He said to himself: "Well, the party who said that they could represent me have had their trial and they have failed utterly and completely. I will try the other solution. It has been adopted in principle by my own trade union for generations past." It is absolutely useless for hon. Members to go on trying to rattle the dry bones of forgotten controversies on this subject. I would like to remind them of the oft-quoted pronouncement of Abraham Lincoln on the general art of fooling the people:
You may fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
[interruption.] They will not succeed, because the people of his country have fully realised that the Government have set their mind to helping them, that they have already saved them from the miseries that were endured by Germany and Austria in 1923, and that they are going to protect their standard in the only way they can be protected, by the Measure which is before the House tonight. We know very well that the greatest efforts will be made by the party opposite to represent that this is a threat to the cost of living and to the wages of the people. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not scruple last night to try to twist words which I had used, out of their natural meaning, to make them mean something which they were never intended to mean and which the hon. and learned Genleman must have known they did not mean.
The hon. and learned Gentleman used his forensic ingenuity, not only to read out a passage from the OFFICIAL REPORT, but to make his own comments upon it. This is the passage from the speech of mine:
If we cast our minds back again to 12 months ago, what farmer in February of last year could possibly have expected that to-day he would see given to him not only a certain 10 per cent., but also a possible
additional duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February 1932; col. 1602, Vol. 261.]
Was it not perfectly clear to the House at the time that what I was saying was that the farmer was being given a certain 10 per cent., plus an additional duty. That is not what the hon. and learned Gentleman read in it. He read in it that I was promising the farmer a certain 10 per cent. increase in the price of his articles.
I have explained that on another occasion. On this occasion I will say that the hon. and learned Gentleman deliberately put a false construction —[Interruption]— on what I said. I want to say this further. It is widely recognised, not only in this country, but elsewhere, that the only way in which the return of world prosperity can come is by a rise in the price of primary commodities, and, in my opinion, that rise will not now long be delayed. After it comes, we must expect that in due course it will be followed by a rise in the retail prices of commodities, and, therefore, we have in front of us a coming rise in prices. Although I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite will seek to attribute that rise to the operation of this Measure—[HON. MEMDERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I say that the people of this country will understand that we have carefully designed this Measure to take care that the cost of living does not rise to a greater extent than the figures which have been endured without serious hardship during the last 18 months or two years; but we have at the same time, by taking measures to increase employment, put our working people into a position to stand the coming rise.
The Bill has not undergone any very considerable changes since it first made its appearance in this House, but I think that, so far as it has been altered, the alterations have been to the good, and the Bill is now a better one than when it was first introduced. I should like to say a word or two about the alterations that have been made. I think that the most important is the fact that additional powers and responsibilities have been cast upon the Advisory Committee. If I recollect aright, I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that the success or failure of the Bill would depend very largely upon the action of the Advisory Committee, and certainly, if that was so then, it is still more so now, since we have added to their responsibilities and their duties. The fact, however, that the Committee will have the task of deciding to recommend, not merely additions to the Free List, but also subtractions from the Free List, has enabled us to make very considerable additions to the articles which will come in free of duty. I am well aware that the additions have not pleased everybody, and that there are hon. Members who would have liked to see further additions which are not today to be found in the Bill. On the whole, however, I believe that the list as it stands to-day approximates very nearly to the general sense of the House, and the fact that it is not a permanent and rigid provision, but that the list can in future be added to or subtracted from after careful examination of all the necessary data by the Advisory Committee, has, I am sure, removed many anxieties, and has made hon. Members feel that, if mistakes have indeed been committed, it is not too late to redress them in the future.
There are two points on which I would like to say a word, because I am aware that they have been insufficiently discussed in the course of the passage of the Bill through Committee and Report. The first is the presence of newsprint upon the Free List. The position about newsprint is that there is a considerable import from Empire countries, there is a much larger manufacture at home, and there is a comparatively small import from foreign countries. The capacity of the home mills is considerably greater than their present output, and I have no doubt that they could supply the whole of what now comes from abroad. If we looked at these facts alone, I think there is no doubt that the newsprint would not have found its way into the Free List, but this is one of the cases where other considerations came in besides purely economic ones. We have the fact that there are in the country a large number of newspapers, commonly called independent newspapers, because they do not belong to one of the great proprietary combines, which made strong representations to us that newsprint should be allowed in free. Their view was that the prices which they have to pay for newsprint were regulated very largely by the fact that there was this comparatively small foreign import into this country, and they represented to us that if a duty were put on these foreign imports they would be at the mercy of the home-producing mills and that in their position, when they were finding it extremely difficult to maintain their independence, that independence might be lost to them altogether.
I am not saying that those fears are well-founded. What I do say is that we did attach very great importance to the preservation of the independence of a large number of newspapers through the country, that we did not wish to do anything hastily which might imperil that independence, and we thought, therefore, it was better that this matter should not be finally decided by the House but that it should be left to the committee, after a certain amount of experience and after going into the question thoroughly, to make to the Government in due course whatever recommendations appeared to them wise. That was the reason why newsprint, which was mentioned as the only manufactured article included in the list, was left in what might appear to the House an anomalous position.
There is another point which was not adequately discussed in Committee, and on which the Amendments were unfortunately out of order on the Report stage. That has reference to the Clause which deals with shipbuilding. I know many of my hon. Friends have felt that there was inadequate explanation as to why the shipbuilding industry was put in this exceptional position, so different from that of other industries. There, again, we had to consider that the industry was in an exceptional position as compared with other industries. Not only is it in a state of unparalleled depression, but it is an industry which is continuously in competition on the high seas with vessels from other countries which are frequently subsidised or assisted by their respective Governments in one way or another. Furthermore, we had to consider that our shipbuilding yards, which had such great and glorious days in the past, and which are now almost empty and deserted, have to fight their way against shipyards of foreign countries which have the benefit of such freedom as we propose to give them in the Bill. Hon. Members may well say that even so, why take this particular method of giving them the relief or freedom which we desire to give them? Because it was administratively convenient. It would have been a very much more difficult matter if we had had to distinguish between some goods and other goods which were coming into the shipbuilding yards, and the method we adopted in the Bill was found to be much simpler and to give less trouble both to the Department and to the industry.
I only want to say, further, that if it had been in order to discuss on the Report stage the Amendment which is upon the Paper, under which the freedom of any particular articles required for the purposes of shipbuilding yards was to be reviewed by the committee, I should not have been at all unwilling to consider some such proposal. It was not possible, but I want to say this now. The Government, of course, do not mean that this privileged position should be in any way abused by the shipbuilding yards, and I am sure they have no intention of doing anything of the kind, because even now they buy between 90 and 100 per cent. of their materials from British sources. But, of course, the position will be very carefully watched, and, if there should come to the notice of the Government
The verdict that is going to be pronounced upon the Bill will not be pronounced to-night. The ultimate judgment upon this Measure will be the one that will be pronounced after experience of its working. We can hardly expect that so great a change as this, covering such a vast field, can he effected in a short time without here and there making a mistake, but on the whole I can say that we have implanted in the Bill itself the machinery by which those mistakes can be corrected, and I believe, when experience has been gained, the ultimate judgment will he that this was a practical working Measure, carefully designed to effect its purpose and, on the whole, successful in its working. When some day the historian comes to set on record his view of the events of February, 1932, I believe he will point to that date as one of the landmarks in the strange eventful history of our race. I believe he will applaud and admire the courage and the foresight of this country in shaking herself free from her past troubles, and in taking up a new career hand in hand with the sister countries of the Empire, the central figure of a great economic confederation wide enough and strong enough to stand any shocks from which it may have to suffer in the future.
|Division No. 90.]||AYES.||[11.0 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Beaumont. M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Browne, Captain A. C.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.||Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley||Buchan, John|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles||Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.|
|Albery, Irving James||Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Bullock, Captain Malcolm|
|Alexander, Sir William||Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Burghley, Lord|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)||Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)||Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)||Burnett, John George|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Blaker, Sir Reginald||Burton, Colonel Henry Waiter|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Blinded, James||Butt, Sir Alfred|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Boothby, Robert John Graham||Cadogan, Hon. Edward|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Borodale, Viscount||Caine, G. R. Hall-|
|Apsley, Lord||Bossom, A. C.||Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe||Boulton, W. W.||Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton||Caporn, Arthur Cecil|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Carver, Major William H.|
|Atkinson, Cyril||Boyce, H. Leslie||Cassels, James Dale|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald||Castlereagh, Viscount|
|Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)||Bracken, Brendan||Castle Stewart, Earl|
|Balniel, Lord||Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell||Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Broadbent, Colonel John||Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)|
|Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Chalmers, John Rutherford|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-|
|Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)||Gower, Sir Robert||Llewellin, Major John J.|
|Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Lloyd, Geoffrey|
|Chotzner, Alfred James||Granville, Edgar||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)|
|Christie, James Archibald||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)|
|Clarke, Frank||Graves, Marjorie||Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)|
|Clayton, Dr. George C.||Greene, William P. C.||Loder, Captain J. de Vere|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Grimston, R. V.||Lymington, Viscount|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Lyons, Abraham Montagu|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)|
|Colville, Major David John||Gunston, Captain D. W.||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Guy, J. C. Morrison||McCorquodale, M. S.|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Cooke, Douglas||Hales, Harold K.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Copeland, Ida||Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)||McEwen, J. H. F.|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||McKie, John Hamilton|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Hanbury, Cecil||McLean, Major Alan|
|Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Hanley, Dennis A.||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)|
|Craven-Ellis William||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Macmillan, Maurice Harold|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Harbord, Arthur||Magnay, Thomas|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Hartington, Marquess of||Maitland, Adam|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)||Hartland, George A.||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.|
|Croom-Johnson, R. p.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Marjoribanks, Edward|
|Cross, R. H.||Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)||Marsden, Commander Arthur|
|Crossley, A. C.||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Martin, Thomas B.|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John|
|Davison, Sir William Henry||Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)||Meller, Richard James|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hepworth, Joseph||Millar, Sir James Duncan|
|Denville, Alfred||Hillman, Dr. George B.||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Dickie, John p.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Milne, Charles|
|Dixey, Arthur C. N.||Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)||Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-|
|Dixon, Ht. Hon. Herbert||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)|
|Donner, P. W.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Doran, Edward||Hornby, Frank||Mitcheson, G. G.|
|Dower, Captain A. V. G.||Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)|
|Drewe, Cedric||Horobin, Ian M.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Duckworth, George A. V.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Howard, Tom Forrest||Morgan, Robert H.|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)|
|Dunglass, Lord||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Eady, George H.||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Morrison, William Shephard|
|Eales, John Frederick||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Moss, Captain H. J.|
|Eastwood, John Francis||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Muirhead, Major A. J.|
|Eden, Robert Anthony||Hurd, Percy A.||Munro, Patrick|
|Edge, Sir William||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.|
|Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Iveagh, Countess of||Newton, Sir Douglas George C.|
|Ellis, Robert Geoffrey||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Nicholson, O. w. (Westminster)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Jennings, Roland||Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Normand, Wilfrid Guild|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||North, Captain Edward T.|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Nunn, William|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||O'Connor, Terence James|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||O'Donovan, Dr. William James|
|Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Ker, J. Campbell||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Kerr, Hamilton W.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Kimball, Lawrence||Ormiston, Thomas|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Kirkpatrick, William M.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.|
|Fermoy, Lord||Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.||Palmer, Francis Noel|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Knobworth, Viscount||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Fleming, Edward Lascelles||Knight, Holford||Peake, Captain Osbert|
|Ford, Sir Patrick J.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Pearson, William G.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Peat, Charles U.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Penny, Sir George|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||Latham, Sir Herbert Paul||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Galbraith, James Francis Wallace||Law, Sir Alfred||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)||Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton||Leckie, J. A.||Potter, John|
|Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Leech, Dr. J. W.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Leigh, Sir John||Procter, Major Henry Adam|
|Glossop, C. W. H.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Purbrick, R.|
|Gluckstein, Louis Hallo||Levy, Thomas||Pybus, Percy John|
|Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.||Lewis, Oswald||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Goff, Sir Park||Liddall, Walter S.||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)|
|Goldie, Noel B.||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)|
|Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Ramsbotham, Herwald||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Ramsden, E.||Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)||Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)|
|Rankin, Robert||Skelton, Archibald Noel||Touche, Gordon Cosmo|
|Ratcliffe, Arthur||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)||Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Remer, John H.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Rentoul, Sir. Gervais S.||Smithers, Waldron||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Renwick, Major Gustav A.||Somervell, Donald Bradley||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip||Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)||Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)|
|Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)||Warrender, Sir victor A. G.|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Soper, Richard||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Robinson, John Roland||Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E,||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-|
|Ropner, Colonel L.||Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.||Wells, Sydney Richard|
|Rosbotham, S. T.||Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Ross, Ronald D.||Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Runge, Norah Cecil||Stones, James||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Russett, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Storey, Samuel||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Stourton, Hon. John J.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)||Strauss, Edward A.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Salmon, Major Isidore||Strickland, Captain W. F.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Salt, Edward W.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart||Womersley, Walter James|
|Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart||Summersby, Charles H,||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley|
|Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard||Sutcliffe, Harold||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|Savery, Samuel Servington||Templeton, William P.|
|Scone, Lord||Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Selley, Harry R.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)||Captain Margesson and Mr.|
|Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Thompson, Luke||Shakespeare.|
|Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Adams, D. M. (poplar, South)||Harris, Sir Percy||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hicks, Ernest George||Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, George Henry||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Bernays, Robert||Holdsworth, Herbert||Owen, Major Goronwy|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Hopkinson, Austin||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Buchanan, George||Janner, Barnett||Price, Gabriel|
|Cape, Thomas||Jenkins, Sir William||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||John, William||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Curry, A. C.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Daggar, George||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Thorne, William James|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Lawson, John James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Leonard, William||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David|
|Edwards, Charles||Logan, David Gilbert||White, Henry Graham|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Lunn, William||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||McEntee, Valentine L.||Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||McGovern, John||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||McKeag, William|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan|
|Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Graham.|