§ The preferential rates of duty specified in the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1919, shall not apply to goods consigned from and grown, produced, or manufactured in any territory in respect of which a mandate of the League of Nations is exercised by the government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions.—[Captain W. Benn.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause, which stands in my name, is intended to exclude from the ambit of the preferential system those territories which are the subject of a mandate granted under the Covenant of the League which is formed under the Peace Treaty. Our conviction as regards this is not necessarily our conviction as regards the general objection to preference but I think that it is possible that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who might be opposed to us on the general question of preference, would agree with us in reference to this Clause. Whatever may be thought of the desirability of setting up a system of preference which will include the whole Empire it is very undesirable to declare, in 2794 the way in which it is declared in the Bill, that the territories which come under our guardianship as mandated territories under the Peace Treaty are, for commercial and fiscal purposes, an integral part of our Empire. The reason is obvious. The Peace Treaty ostensibly treats the territories which we got from our late enemies not as they might be treated after former wars, but according to a new ideal, different from the ideal of previous peace treaties. In the case of former wars the idea was that at the end the victor took the spoils: those who conquered got what they could in the way of material benefit from the conquered. In this war the contention was that instead of pursuing the old policy, which after all is only part of the vicious circle and in turn will bring fresh wars, we should adopt as a new policy the conception of trusteeship. We do say there is a breach of the spirit which informed the terms of the Peace Treaty. That spirit was that these territories should not be treated merely as a material advantage to be exploited in the interests of the victors, but that under the League of Nations, which represented a supernational party, a trusteeship should be established and that the Power which became the trustee for one of these territories should treat the territory not merely as part of its resources, but in a fiduciary manner to be governed and ad- 2795 ministered in the interests of the people of the territory. It is obvious that certain very great advantages will flow from a strict adherence to the spirit and the letter of this new conception of international diplomacy. The first would be that we would get rid of all the friction that must come from economic jealousies.
The effect of our accepting the mandate for Mesopotamia was not primarily to put a material advantage into our pocket, but so to administer Mesopotamia in the interests of the Arabs living there as to make it a territory under the guardianship. of humanity. Then any feeling of jealousy or friction that might be engendered in the minds of our competitors would be very largely abolished. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, "This is only to enable them to have an advantage in our markets. Surely there is no harm in our opening our door preferentially to their products. It is not as if we were asking them to give us a benefit in their market." While on the surface that argument might be maintained we know that in fact we are opening our door only in order later to force them to open their door. It is no good saying that it is done voluntarily, because we know that in the case of our Crown colonies they have been invited to give us a preference in their markets. There is. not the least doubt that if we reject this clause we shall later on find that some inducement will be offered for us to have a benefit in their markets, and then the world will say justly that instead of maintaining the high ideals and the magnificent standards with which we entered into the conflict and for which the major sacrifices were made—most men were attracted by the higher things and few by the material benefits—we have departed from those ideals. I say, do not let us lower those ideals. It is a difficult, a new, a rocky and an upward path to tread, but we think that it should be trodden in the interest of humanity.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I have considerable sympathy with the ideals and objects behind this new clause. I think members of the Committee know there is no section of the Government of the League of Nations which is nearer to my heart than Article 22. On the carrying out faithfully of Article 22 I think a great deal depends for the future peace in Asia and the future 2796 development of Africa. That Article is one of the most important things in the Peace Treaty, and I hope that the Government will never forget the exact provisions of it. I am rather afraid that the way in which this new clause is drafted loses sight of the terms of Article 22. While it is obvious, in the case of Class B mandate, namely, the Central African colonies, that the system of the open door and any question of preference must necessarily be ruled out, and while it is still an open question in regard to Class A mandates, namely Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine, we have already had the matter rather decided for us in regard to Class C mandates both by the terms of Article 22. itself and still more by the action of the Mandates Commission in Paris late last summer. The action of the Mandates Commission seems to have been dictated. largely by General Smuts, and I think hon. Members who are keen on the League of Nations cannot accuse General Smuts of being behindhand in his zeal both for the conception of the mandatory system and for the League as a whole. The position is this, that in Class C Mandates the mandated territories are to be administered as integral parts of the Mandatory Powers' territory. Therefore, in the case notably of German South-west Africa, I do not see how we can press the Amendment. In that case, as soon as the mandate is finally approved, the territory will be administered as an integral part of the territory of the Union of South Africa. I do not think you could have preferential rates of duty in this country on articles coming from German South-west Africa and: and from the Union of South Africa. I think, in view of the action of the Mandates Commission and the terms of Article 22, if we give any preference to any products of the Union of South Africa, we must necessarily give the same preference to similar products of South West Africa. Therefore I do not think this new Clause could be pressed so as to apply to South West Africa or what was German New Guinea. But obviously, by the terms of Article 22, this Clause does apply. and I think must necessarily apply, to German East Africa and to Togoland and the Cameroons, for which we are going to be responsible. It is definitely laid down in Article 22 that it is to be a condition of the mandate that there are 2797 to be equal opportunities for trade and commerce to all members of the League: Therefore, any preferential arrangement in those three areas would necessarily be a contravention of Article 22. It is quite clear that giving a preference to those Colonies or those Colonies giving a preference to us would be contrary to the terms of the Berlin Congo Act.
What I think is most important is that we should know exactly where we stand in regard to a possible preference given to us by Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine. That brings in the question of France, and whatever France does Syria no doubt we shall do in Mesopotamia, and whatever we do in Mesopotamia no doubt France will do in Syria. Syria and Mesopotamia are on all fours. I think it is essential both from the point of view of the inerests of our own Colonies and the interests of the world that before we take any step to extend the preferential system in Mesopotamia we should quite clearly know what that involves as regard Syria. On its merits I am inclined to think that before the Arab State for which we are trustees is set up in Mesopotamia and can decide with its own voice on a question like preference to the British Empire or any other country, we should not commit that State. The recent announcement in Bagdad and Lord Curzon's speech on the 25th May make it clear that our policy in Mesopotamia, is to create an independent Arab sovereign State in course of time. Before we extend preference to that State we should have it clearly decided by the Free Assembly of that State and should not commit them here and now. I do not think this Clause is necessary provided that we get a clear declaration of policy in this matter from the Government. I should like to ask what is their policy in regard to a possible extension of preference to Mesopotamia.
§ Mr. R. McNEILL
I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend into the rather technical aspect of this question which he has submitted. I have no doubt that when these mandates are formulated, the Government will suit the policy of this country to the requirements of the Treaty. I should like to refer to the more general aspect of the case dealt with by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain W. Benn) who appeared while elaborating his 2798 arguments to show the most complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the Preference which he was attacking. He drew a contrast between the ideals of the recent War and the wars of other days, when belligerents were out for loot and to get material advantages for themselves. He implied, if he did not state it in terms, that this policy of Preference was a reversion to the older type of war, and implied that we were out for some material advantage or loot for ourselves. Surely the exact opposite is true. What we do here, provided it is in accordance with the terms of the Covenant of the Treaty, is to offer to those mandated territories the full advantage of British citizenship, and offering them more, probably, than we are under any obligation to do. My hon. and gallant Friend, speaking, apparently, on their behalf, actually objects or raised objection to this country extending to them benefits which are reserved for members of the British Empire, and which are not given to those who are outside of it and who are regarded as foreign nations. He wants us to say to these mandated territories, "You are to be in the position of outsiders, and that, although it is quite true we offer certain fiscal advantages to those who are within the Empire, yet although you are mandated territories you are not to be allowed in." In other words, if they had been annexed by the Treaty they would have had great fiscal advantages which they are to be deprived of because they are only in the inferior position of mandated territory. That appears to be a most untenable position for any Member of this House who professes to speak on behalf of those territories to take up.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman in defending his position tried to justify it by saying that in future it would mean that we should try to get an advantage out of them, and he used the expression that we should be forcing their door. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is able to see, however much he may dislike the question of Preference, that Preference is a derogation from customs duty. What he wants if he objects to these mandated territories being given preference, and what he insists upon apparently, is that they should be given the right to maintain a higher tariff. If they are induced, for their own advantage or for any other reason, to reduce 2799 their tariff in regard to certain articles for which they will get full consideration by preference in our markets, that is something which we are unrighteously forcing upon them. It is impossible for me to conceive of a more complete misunderstanding of what appears to me to be the true meaning of this preference. I have not given the study which my hon. and gallant Friend has given to it, and I do not know to what extent the technical power to grant or withhold preference is dealt with by the Treaty of Peace, but what I feel quite confident about in my own mind is that unless it is contrary to the Treaty of Peace, which I can hardly believe, to withhold from the mandated territories the preference which we are giving to the other members of our Empire, would be very rightly resented most hotly by those territories themselves, and that my hon. and gallant Friend is very far from doing them a friendly act when he moves this Clause in the Bill.
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken with the ingenuity which always characterises him, and anybody listening to his speech as he put it would, I admit, conclude without any further material knowledge that there was practically no answer to his case, but we have to examine the proposal and what it would really mean or might mean. The intention of the Government, I suppose, in regard to these mandated territories is nothing but quite friendly, but it is at the very commencement of these things that we must start, if we can, to examine what may happen. Take one of these mandated territories; what might happen is this, that they might be compelled to give, to their own detriment, a preference to other parts of the British Empire as compared with the rest of the world, as we are doing in this country at present, at a loss to ourselves of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a year. The case as put from the Government Bench is that that is trifling in view of the greater consolidation of the Empire that is got by it. From the point of view of those who hold that view that may be a quite legitimate transaction, and defensible. I do not agree with it, but I understand the argument, but it 2800 is not for us to impose that upon any mandated territory which is granted to us.
§ Mr. R. McNEILL
Do I understand, then, that what the right hon. Gentleman is apprehensive of is that the right of these mandated territories to impose a protective fiscal policy for their own advantage may be encroached upon?
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
Very likely what might happen is that they would be forced to give to a part or to the whole of the British Empire a preference which they would wish not to do. That is as well as I can put it. With regard to what the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said as to this proposal not really fitting in with the existing conditions, of course, if he has any suggestions to make by way of Amendment to the proposal before the Committee we shall be happy to consider it. He speaks with very considerable knowledge of the subject, and I suppose that what he really means by "C" mandates is the paragraph at the bottom of page 16 of the Covenant which refers toterritories such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population or their small size — can be best administered under the laws of the mandatory as integral portions of its territory.I quite admit that there is considerable force in what the hon. Gentleman says, and any Amendment which would meet that point, of course, we should be very happy to fall in with. Coming back, however, to the point of principle upon which this Clause is moved, as a result of the discussion which took place on this question last year this Clause was put in. I suppose if we had left it alone we should not have had that Clause in the Act at all, and it was well to have had the discussion, because we began clearing up the ground as we went along, and we know now to some extent where we are in any future transactions that may take place. The first Clause of Article 22 is what our whole case is really founded upon, namely:To those Colonies and Territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them, and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there 2801 should be applied the principle that the wellbeing and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.Those are very striking words, showing that the intention of the framers of the Act was that every possible means should be taken to avoid any reasonable ground of suspicion and that a Power taking a mandate should deal with the subject matter mandated to them with the most meticulous regard to their interests, and it was because of that that we raised the debate last year and that we have raised it again to-day. I urge again, as I did last year, that the Government should make some statutory alteration in the law as it at present stands so that we should remove from the mind of any reasonable person any ground of suspicion that we have under the Act now on the Statute Books taken powers which might be used by us to the detriment of the territory a mandate for which we may have accepted.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin)
The subject we are discussing is not a very simple one, and I think it is possible that Members of this Committee may not be very clear about the position as it now stands. I feel that my hon. Friend, the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) has raised points which really do not arise. If this Clause were to be passed by the Committee, the result would be that we should lay down in a statute, irrespective of whatever powers might be conferred upon us when the terms of the respective mandates were agreed upon, that we should in no circumstances be allowed to offer preference to those mandated territories. That, of course, is perfectly clear. It is a resolution which I should expect to be supported from the other side, but it is a resolution that cannot be supported by my friends on this side. I think also that, perhaps, the Committee do not realise that the second Schedule of the Finance Act of last year is the Schedule which contains the terms of preference, and under Section 8 of the Finance Act itself those terms of preference are to be given to all the countries in the British Empire. Then in that Section come a proviso specifying that,Where any territory becomes a territory under His Majesty's protection, or is a territory in respect of which a mandate 2802 of the League of Nations is exercised by the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, direct that that territory shall be included within the definition of the British Empire for the purposes of this Section.That means that the terms contained in the Second Schedule only become applicable when the Government for the time being have received the terms of the mandate, and, on finding that the terms of the mandate for this or that territory allow of preference, then they may—not "shall"—by Order in Council give that preference. That insures, by the time the Order in Council has to lie before this House, that an opportunity is given to raise the matter, and to debate it in this House. It seems to me that, except for hon. Members who naturally desire to challenge this question as a matter of political principle as far as the principles of the League of Nations hold good, to discuss this matter now is premature. We made every provision in the Finance Act of last year, when we debated the matter at some length, that the hand of the Government would be free when the terms of the mandate were known. The terms of the mandate are not yet known, and I say that the time to make an alteration of this nature, if ever such an alteration be desirable, is not yet.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Mr. SEDDON
I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, that this is a very complicated question, and we have got to be very careful what steps we take in dealing with it; but, so far as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Clause is concerned, I wish to congratulate him on his very persuasive speech, which struck a very high note. I hope his attitude is not only based on his signal success last night. I join with him entirely that it would be a grave danger to the peace of the world if the idea were to get abroad that we are looking upon mandates as precursors to absorbing those countries in the British Empire, and, while the terms of the Clause might be open to amendment, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman who followed him, I do press upon the Government the necessity of dealing with this, not merely sympathetically, but taking the widest view, because it would be a world tragedy if any country were to imbibe the idea that at the back of our minds there rests 2803 ulterior motives, and that we are looking upon these mandatory countries as part of a future addition to the British Empire. Therefore, as strongly as I possibly can, I urge upon the Government, if they cannot have these words, that they will reconsider a form of words that will remove the possibility of suspicion that we are looking for additions to our Empire while helping these people.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to meet him halfway in the admirable sentiments he has just expressed. It is presumption, no doubt, on my part to say so, but it is particularly delightful to hear sentiments of the sort he has just expressed from the benches opposite. Of course, in this matter we have to be very careful what we say. Our words will not only appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but they may be repeated in half a dozen Chambers in Europe, and may be used against us. May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will have a great voice in this very important matter, to forgive me if I ask him to look at this for a moment through the eyes of French or Italian statesmen? I am going to try to put to him what they are thinking and saying now. These distinguished foreign statesmen are saying that during the war, they, in France and Italy, had vulnerable land frontiers which they had to defend. It was very hard on that account that the work of conquering the territories of Turkey and Africa fell to us and called for the use of a good many troops. Naturally the country whose army has occupied those territories is invited to undertake the mandate, and if we are to differentiate against French or Italian merchants, I think the French and Italian statesmen will be able to make a very just protest, and, unfortunately, it is the case that there are many grounds of friction already between the Allies who fought so valiantly together. I think it would be becoming, and most valuable, if the Government at the moment would accept this proposal. It may be necessary, of course, to modify it in the next Finance Bill, but not one of the terms of the mandate have been laid on the table of this House. Accusation has been made against us in different parts of the world that we are pursuing a policy of grab in the Peace settlement. and I think it 2804 would do an immense amount to rehabilitate our reputation for disinterestedness and high motives in the War if the Government could really accept this Clause.
It has been pointed out that there would be a real difficulty in the case of Samoa, which has been practically incorporated in the territories of Australia for administrative purposes, and of German South West Africa, which will be absorbed, for all administrative purposes, by the Union of South Africa, and therefore it would be extremely difficult for us to give a preference to certain manufactured goods from Australia or South Africa, and refuse to give them to German South West Africa or Samoa. I cannot see that difficulty at all. I see no more objection in the case of German South West Africa, even although it is administered by officials sent from Pretoria, than in the case of preference given to French West Africa. I think the difficulty has been exaggerated by both hon. Members who have raised this point. I do not think it should prevent us from passing this Clause, and I believe the passing of it would be of the greatest assistance to the Prime Minister and his colleagues at Spa. It would really be a gesture almost of nobility if we were to say that in the fiscal arrangements and preferences with our Colonies and others the mandated territories, which we are taking over as a sacred trust for civilisation, will not be included, and that the merchant of any nationality, any creed, any colour, will have just the same chance to buy and trade as has the British merchant.
There is one comment I should like to make on the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Baldwin) which seemed to me to be admirable and almost conclusive, except on one point. As I understand the position it is that you cannot extend preference to any mandatory territory without an Order-in-Council. That is a very satisfactory position. Does it mean the House will have a chance of discussing it? That other point seemed to me to be left in doubt, and if we could have an assurance from the Chancellor on that point, I am inclined to think it would remove the necessity for passing this Clause. The position in regard to the mandates, I understand from what the Prime 2805 Minister has said, is as follows: The League of Nations has nothing to say as to who is to be the mandatory power. That is settled by the Supreme Council, but I understand the terms of the mandate are to be communicated to the League of Nations for their approval. The question I desire to put is: Will this question of extended preferential treatment in relation to the mandated territory be one of the terms of the mandate submitted to the League of Nations? If the right hon. Gentleman can give us that assurance I think that, coupled with the fact that preference
§ cannot be extended to the mandatory territory without an Order-in-Council, would remove the necessity for this Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 148.2807
|Division No. 221]||AYES.||[2 l0 p.m.|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Grundy, T. W.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hallas, Eldred||Robertson, John|
|Brace, Rt. Hon. William||Hayday, Arthur||Rose, Frank H.|
|Briant, Frank||Hinds, John||Seddon, J. A.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Johnstone, Joseph||Sexton, James|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Kiley, James D.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lyle-Samuel, Alexander||Spencer, George A.|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Wignall, James|
|Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Mills, John Edmund||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Morgan, Major D. Watts|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||O'Grady, Captain James||Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Tyson|
|Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.||Dawes, James Arthur||King, Commander Henry Douglas|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Dockrell, Sir Maurice||Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)|
|Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.||Donald, Thompson||Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)|
|Atkey, A. R.||Edgar, Clifford B.||Lloyd, George Butler|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath)||Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.|
|Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley||Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Barnes Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)||Fell, Sir Arthur||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Lorden, John William|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Flannery, Sir James Fortescue||Lyle, C. E. Leonard|
|Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)||Ford, Patrick Johnston||M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.||Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)|
|Blair, Reginald||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Goff, Sir R. Park||Macleod, J. Mackintosh|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Grant, James A.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Brassey, Major H. L. C.||Green, Albert (Derby)||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Mitchell, William Lane|
|Briggs, Harold||Greig, Colonel James William||Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.|
|Bruton, Sir James||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon W. E.||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Mount, William Arthur|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)||Murchison, C. K.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)||Neal, Arthur|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Casey, T. W.||Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)||Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)|
|Cautley, Henry S.||Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)||Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert||Hopkins, John W. W.||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)||Howard, Major S. G.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender||Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)||Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward F.||Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.||Remnant, Sir James|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Hurd, Percy A.||Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.|
|Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole||Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George||Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)|
|Steel, Major S. Strang||Waring, Major Walter||Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Stewart, Gershom||Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.||Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)|
|Sturrock, J. Leng||Watson, Captain John Bertrand||Woolcock, William James U.|
|Sugden, W. H.||Whitla, Sir William||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.||Wild, Sir Ernest Edward||Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)|
|Sutherland, Sir William||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Taylor, J.||Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert||Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.|
|Thorpe, Captain John Henry||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)||Wilson, Lieut.-Col. Sir M. (B. Green)|