§ It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding anything in Section four of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, it is illegal for an association of employers or traders acting in combination with the object of obtaining a higher price to withhold from the market supplies of foodstuffs, fuel, building materials, or other commodities in a manner designed or calculated to coerce or inflict hardship upon the community, and any person who acts in contravention of this Section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for giving me the benefit of the doubt. It is the only new Clause standing in the name of the Opposition, and it does give the Government a chance for its sincerity to be tested. The Attorney-General, in the course of the discussion on Clause 1, said that to include employers in Clause 1 on the same basis as trade unions of employés, would be inept and useless. That was his first statement. Later on he said he would meet the position and he did so, so far as his view went. We want to see whether the Government is really sincere in their attitude of trying to make the Bill apply equally to employers as well as employés. I am moving this Amendment on a sound basis, because there are plenty of legal precedents which show that the kind of associations of employers or traders, which are referred to in the new Clause, have been ruled to be combinations for the imposition of restrictive conditions and, therefore, 949 coming within the statutory conditions of the 1871 Act. When they are dealt with in litigation they are, in fact, treated under the law as trade unions. That being so, if the Government is really sincere in applying the Bill to associations, both of employés and employers, they will accept this Clause and see that there will be no attempt, by the withholding of supplies, to apply such coercion to the community as they endeavour to provide against in Clause 1.
It is no use hon. Members opposite talking about the dislocation of trade, the coercion of the community and similar phrases when referring to strike action by trade unions if at the same time they do not take any account of the injury done to various sections of the community by the operation of various traders' associations and employers' associations. From time to time the Government have been themselves coerced by the operation of these associations. Take, for example, the question of housing and the tremendous effect upon the cost of public housing and the extent to which new housing schemes could be put into operation but for the operation of these associations. When the Labour Government was in office in 1924, it discovered from the inquiries made, not by one of its own Committees but by the Committee appointed by the present Minister of Health in connection with the 1923 Act, that, unless they could get either some agreement with or some control of the associations which controlled the price of building materials, it would be almost hopeless to try and get a satisfactory result to the Labour Housing Act of 1924. I have been for some time the only Member of Parliament sitting upon that Committee. During the last two or three years there has been added to it the present Chairman, the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills). We are continuously up against the fact upon that Committee that there are close associations of traders who combine to control prices and who control prices by withholding supplies under threat to other traders in order to maintain prices and without any reference to the general interest of the community but rather with the considered view of coercing the community into accepting their conditions. If the action of a number of workers who strike for better 950 conditions may be said to be coercing the community, then that is exactly what these trade associations do when they withhold supplies. Take the case of a trade combine like the National Light Castings Association, which has been referred to again and again in this House. In nearly all the housing Debates we have had case after case in which supplies have actually been denied to builders' merchants because they were not prepared to charge as high a price as is laid down by that Association. However clear a case may be submitted by merchants that they are getting an adequate profit in the prices they want to ask the community, however they may be able to show that it is their own business acumen and the excellence of their own business management which enables them to work at a lower price, still they are not allowed to charge a lower price. The building ring says, "No, you must charge our prices, or we shall coerce you by withholding all supplies."
I want to cite a much more general case than that—one which affects a very large section of the community. During the Debate, both yesterday and to-day, frequent references have been made to the co-operative societies and their recent political position, and, in particular, the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last made some reference to co-operative societies, and I want to put the case of the tremendous co-operative community who are continually coerced by associations of this kind. I will give the case in special detail. There is an association which has been operating in this country for 30 years, called the Proprietary Articles Traders' Association. This close association controls, not a few commodities, but 8,000 commodities of all sorts and sizes, composed of all kinds and conditions of ingredients. Some of these are medicinal commodities of the poorest type, used most frequently by the poorest classes of the community as the readiest remedies to which they can rush for the moment. Other commodities controlled by the association are those which are needed most by nursing mothers—the milk foods required for infants.
Others of the commodities are not, perhaps, so important to the general community. You get, for instance, ladies' toilet requisites. I had a letter submitted to me by a co-operative society this morn 951 ing with a threat from a firm supplying what I think is called Pond's Face Cream, or something like that, that we are to have no more deliveries of Pond's Face Cream because we want to charge a certain price for it. For a large number of years that association has steadily pressed forward to prevent any supplies being delivered to any trader—and I will deal with traders first—who will sell the articles for lower prices than those which are considered to be the right prices by an association consisting of manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailer.
There may, of course, be something to be said for price-fixing sometimes, but when it comes to withholding supplies of articles, the prices of which I have been able to check from the detailed trade price-lists—the wholesale price-lists supplied only to the trade itself, and not to the public—when I find margins of profit on some articles as high as 50, 60 and 70 per cent. gross, and when articles are withheld from delivery to us unless we are prepared to charge those prices, then I say that, when articles like that are withheld on those grounds from a trading community like the co-operative societies, who cover, in their membership and in the family adherents of the movement, not merely the bare adult membership of 5¼ million people, but over 15 millions of the population, it constitutes an actual coercion of the community. It is coercing nearly half the population of England, Wales, and Scotland into paying, for commodities which are required for their daily subsistence, prices which are totally unjustified, and it is saying to that tremendous part of the community. "Unless you conform to our will, you will not get the goods von need."
Is not that as unjust and bad a method of coercion as that which has been argued to be a bad method of coercion by trade unions from the other side? It is, in fact, the free operation of a trade union from the other end of industry, a trade union of traders and employers exploiting the whole community unless the community will accept their particular terms. And they go much further. They lay conditions upon us which do not apply only to the maintenance of prices. Where we have agreed, under duress, to charge fixed maintained prices, the next step is to 952 come along and say: "Under no conditions, after you have completed your operations and presented a balance sheet to your members for a period of 12 months, must you give any discount from your accrued surplus from any part of your trade on any purchases of commodities supplied by our association." They put upon this co-operative community of nearly half the population the further condition: "If we supply you with our goods, you not only have to charge the price that we lay down as a fixed price for purchase, but you have to sign an agreement that you will add to that charge the amount of the co-operative dividend. which is given."
Therefore, they say to us, not only that we must charge a maintained price, which is very often far and away in excess of what is necessary, but that we shall then have the kind of dictatorship set up which hon. Members have complained about trade unions exercising, not only as to the prices we charge, but as to what we shall do with our profits when we have finished, and how we shall distribute the mutual surpluses of the co-operative societies. Is that coercion? Of course it is coercion.
It is coercion of exactly the same type that the Attorney-General has talked about during the other stages of the Bill, and, if the Government are really sincere in the matter, they cannot avoid accepting this new Clause and putting it in the Bill, making the Bill apply to employers' and traders' associations as they have made it apply to trade unions. Other cases have been mentioned in previous discussions on the Bill. I want to remind the Attorney-General of the millers' instances that were cited before the Royal Commission on Food Prices. Take the case of the millers who admitted that they refused to supply flour to the firm of Messrs. R. and D. Jones, of Cardiff, because that firm was actually committing the crime of selling bread to the poor at a price a little lower than the millers thought ought to be charged. Are the great millers' combines of the country who exercise coercion of that type—although, of course, they would be bound to be regarded as trade unions in a Court, based upon legal precedent—not to be included in the terms of a Bill of this kind, when punishments and penalties are laid down 953 for what is going to be made a crime under this Bill? I cannot for the life of me sue that the Government have any logical answer to the case for including unions of employers who act in this way to the detriment of the community in a Bill which they say is to deal with unfair treatment of the community by associations of workpeople. There are many other instances that I could cite, but others of my hon. Friends will want to say a word or two on the question; but I want to test frankly the sincerity of the Government to-night on this matter.
I do not want a Trade Union Bill at all I do want a Bill which will really protect the community of this country against exploitation of this kind by trade associations. I think it is rather a sorry thing that a country like ours should be so behind one of its own Dominions in a matter of this sort. I was in Ottawa for just one day last August, while I was touring with the Empire Parliamentary Delegation, and I met the Registrar of the Combines Investigation Department of the Dominion Government. In 1923 they passed a Combines Investigation Act, which lays down very heavy penalties for this very kind of coercion of the community. As an illustration of my argument, may I inform the Attorney-General, in case he does not know, as I cannot expect him to know these details of Canadian life. that the Act is working so well in checking this restraint on trade, this coercion of the community, that last year, when a combination of this kind in the fruit industry was inquired into, they were fined equally 40,000 dollars and sentenced to one day's imprisonment to make it a penal conviction. That very department, with the authority of the Minister, has been declaring in Canada that the organisation of which I have been speaking is an illegal organisation in the Dominion of Canada. It is true that the former Member of this house who was an instigator of the association, Sir William Glyn Jones, is seeking some appeal from the decision, but the lead given in the Dominion to this country in this matter might well be followed by this country. I wou'd prefer that the whole of the question should be adequately tackled by a Government which appealed to the country in 1924 on the basis that it was 954 going to tackle the question of prices as between producer and consumer. Yet they are going to dish up a Bill of this sort laying down penalties against coercion by workmen. You have no moral right to place it upon the Statute Book without including the employers who are equally or worse at fault.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I should have thought that the Attorney-General would have taken an early opportunity of answering the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). I see no anxiety on the part of any hon. Member on the Government Benches to rise and make any attempt at an answer, but I trust that, whatever happens, we will have a division to-night upon this new Clause, so that tie sincerity of the Members of the Committee will be tested on this vital and important question. I do not wish to attempt in any way to go over the ground that was covered very rapidly by my hon. Friend, but I direct the Attorney-General's attention to one remarkable case of attempting to coerce the community in which many hon. Members on his side of the House took an active part in 1924. I am not saying that they were wrong. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that in 1924 a great milk trust in London attempted to screw down the farmers' prices for milk. The farmers organised very effectively and made a levy of half-a-crown per gallon of milk. They organised a great picketing system and prepared to throw milk down the drain. They also organised the importation of cheese manufacturing plant. All this was publicly done, and in their own paper—in the "Farmer and Stock Breeder"— there were leading articles, "Picket London's Milk. Compel the Government to bring pressure to bear on this United Dairies Trust in London." Either the Trust or the farmers were wrong, but one side or the other were bringing pressure to bear on the Government of the day through the community and through the lives of the infants in London who were held as pawns in this battle. I trust that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will give the Committee to-night some adequate reason why in the opinion of the Government the Farmers' Union or the United Dairies Trust should have got off scot-free in a case of this kind 955 while every organisation of workers should be brought within the purview of this Bill.
It is not only the farmers. The subeditor of "The Statist" published a book a few months ago cataloguing many cases of price-fixing associations. There is no question whatever about the facts. An hon. Member whom I see in his place was quite recently asking questions about the operation of the shipping conference—how the shipping conference was actually charging higher rates upon British artificial silk than on foreign artificial silk. Is not that an attempt to coerce the community? Is not that an attempt to coerce the Government? Who are the British members of the, Shipping Conference who dare not hold their meetings in this country under the British flag, but must secretly go and hold their meetings on the Continent? Why should they not be brought within the scope of the Bill? Then there is the case of fish. Every day almost in life fish is thrown on the manure heap and into the sea to maintain prices. Why should these associations and all kinds of capitalist industries with the object of coercing the community not be brought within the Act? I trust we shall have an explantion as to whether the Government intend to bring them in the Bill.
§ Captain GARRO-JONES
Are we not to have any reply from the right hon. and learned Gentleman? I consider this one of the most important Clauses that has been moved, and, if the Attorney-General thinks that we on this side are prepared to withdraw the Clause as his own followers meekly did, he is making a mistake. It has been shown beyond any shadow of doubt that intimidation is rampant throughout the country by large associations. We have had specific instances. Unless you sell your bread at a, penny a loaf dearer—[Interruption]—we will not supply you with flour. That is the kind of intimidation carried out against these small traders. It is a very serious matter and causes the greatest apprehension in the minds of the people subjected to it. These bakers are told, "Unless you sell your bread dearer we will not supply you with flour, we will ruin you." That is only one example of this intimidation. The same 956 thing applies to the building trade and is keeping up the prices of houses in this country. The hon. Member for Dundee referred to the case of the shipbuilders' conference. That is one of the worst instances of intimidation. A certain new line of ships was instituted to carry goods from here to South Africa, and the shipbuilders' conference was afraid that the hitherto substantial rates for the carriage of goods were to be lowered. They promptly reduced their rates, not for the purpose of helping or encouraging the new line but to get rid of its competition. The new company's rate was 50s. per ton and the shipbuilders' conference reduced their rate something like 20s. per ton. I am not sure of the exact figure, but I am not exaggerating the proportion of the reduction.
The shipbuilders' conference were prepared to incur enormous losses in order to intimidate this new enterprise from daring to enter into competition with them. I want something to be done to protect minor traders from intimidation of this kind. The Attorney-General said, "We are determined to put a stop to the intimidation of trade unions," and if he is going to do that and yet allow this intimidation of small traders, he is guilty of rampant hypocrisy. This is a very serious matter, and I feel very deeply about it myself because very many cases of this sort of intimidation have come under my notice. The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) laughs; he frequently laughs at me in this House, and it always encourages me, because I think I have said something which he understands. If I have, I apologise to the rest of the House. If the Attorney-General lets these charges go by without telling the House that something is to be done to meet them, he ought to be ashamed to sit on that bench.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I am sure everybody has listened with admiration to the evident sincerity of the hon. Member who has just spoken and to his zeal for criminal reform. If he had listened to the speech of the Mover of the proposed new Clause he might have seen that he should apply it to a former member of his own party who was one of the founders of traders' associations. As regards the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), instead of 957 asking what the Government intended to do with this Clause, he asked the Government if they did not intend to accept it, apparently presuming for himself what the result would be. The answer to the question is given by his own colleague speaking immediately before him on this Clause. His own colleague in his speech said this question ought to be dealt with in a separate Bill, and he knows himself quite well thin is the type of matter that has been dealt with by the Board of Trade in a totally different connection, and it is only in that connection it can be properly treated. When I read the title of this Bill to amend the law in relation to trades disputes and trade unions, to regulate the position of civil servants and other servants of the Crown, and so forth, while I how to the ruling of the Chair, I was somewhat astonished at the generosity shown to the hon. Member in allowing him to bring forward this Clause. It is quite true, if we apply the same limitations to the Bill that we have applied to the Clauses brought forward by Members on this side of the House, this proposal quickly falls under the same ban. Similarly, this afternoon, in dealing with the proposal to insert in this Bill the Clause confined to, and appropriate to, certain essential industries, I stated on behalf of the Government that, so far as strikes were concerned, the Clause went outside the limits we set ourselves and that we wished to confine the operation of this Bill to the four main principles mentioned.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER
Does that mean that when the Government produced their original draft of the Bill their conception was that it was to apply only to trade unions of employés? There was no reference in the Bill to employers, and it was only by subsequent pressure that the Government had to make it apply to lock-outs as well as strikes. I am putting the point that these traders' associations come within case law and should be included.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
That is quite incorrect as far as Clause 4 of the Bill is concerned. It applies to employers just as much as to workmen. With regard to Clause 1, we were 958 perfectly ready to make the Bill deal with employers as well as workmen and we showed that we wished to do so. The maintenance of prices may be concerted by trade union employers and those employers who are not in the trade unions equally. For this reason and other reasons as well, we do not want the scope of the Bill to be extended to cover a matter which is quite certainly not germane. If the hon. Member wishes for a precise analogy to describe the maintenance of prices by some regulation, it is that of a trade union maintaining its wages by concerted action of its members. A single trade union on parity of reasoning should not be entitled to maintain their wages—to sell their labour—for a certain price. That is a precise analogy to the hon. Member's case. I hope, therefore, the Committee will not accept this Clause, and that they will just remember that it is owing to some sudden zeal on the part of the hon. Member that this matter has been brought forward. For two and a half years he might have tried to bring forward a Measure properly dealing with a subject of this kind.
§ Mr. ALEXANDER
In 1925 I introduced a Bill into this House specifically for this purpose. The right hon. Gentleman charges me with inaccuracy, but no doubt he will now admit that he is inaccurate.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
To the extent that I am inaccurate I beg the hon. Member's pardon. We are each of us inaccurate, but the inappositeness of this Clause in the present Bill is unaltered by that.
§ Mr. R. MORRISON
The Committee should pass a special vote of congratulation to the Minister of Labour for having come in almost on the last evening of the Committee stage of the Debate on this Bill. One would have expected that, in a Bill dealing with the working people of this country, the Minister of Labour would have played quite an important part, and yet his first appearance in this Debate is on the very last evening of the Committee stage. Now that he has come he merely intervenes to say that this needs a separate Bill. He twitted my hon. Friend just 959 now with the fact that this was newfound zeal. He was then called to withdraw. He said this needed a separate Bill, but he did not say that the Government were prepared to introduce a separate Bill. I, myself, and other Members have within the last month asked quite half-a-dozen questions of the President of the Board of Trade—some of them have been answered by the President and some by the Parliamentary Secretary—all bearing upon the Price Fixing Association, and in each case the answer has been that the Government did not intend to introduce legislation.
What is the inference that one draws from the reply of the Minister of Labour? His reply is that this needs a separate Bill. He makes no suggestion that the Government will introduce a separate Bill. The only inference that we can draw from that is that when it is a matter that affects the well-being of the working-people the Government are not prepared to do anything at all. The right hon. Gentleman used one illustration to show that there was no intention on the part of the Government to interfere with the rights of any body of men to resort to trade union action to try to fix their wages. Let me give an analogy to which this Clause would apply. In one of the Courts of this country, a fortnight or three weeks ago, Mr. Justice Astbury, whose name has been mentioned continually during the discussion of this Bill, gave a decision which has not attracted so much attention as his famous obiter dicta on the general strike. His decision was that a man who was endeavouring to sell cakes of soap at 5d. instead of the agreed price of 6d. should have an injunction against him to prevent him from selling cakes of soap at 5d., and that that man should he forced to sell soap at 6d. That is the latest decision of Mr. Justice Astbury. The Minister of Labour says that the Government have no intention of preventing a workman from selling his labour and from joining a trade union in order to get a higher price for his labour. Will he make it possible for the bricklayer who gets discharged from his job, and whose job is taken by another man at a lower price, to go into the Courts of this country and obtain an injunction to restrain his employer from employing men at lower 960 wages? That is the analogy. Why should a decision be given in a Court to prevent a shopkeeper from selling soap at 5d. a tablet and force him to sell it at 6d.?
Let me give another case that will appeal to hon. Members opposite. We have heard a great deal since Monday of this week about co-operative societies. I notice that one or two hon. Members on the other side have got so excited that they have written to the "Morning Post" about it. When a Member writes to the "Morning Post" he is in a bad way. One of the Members on the opposite side writes to the "Morning Post" this morning to say:Sir,—The decision of the co-operative societies to submit to the authority of the Socialist leaders in Russia"—[Interruption.] If there are any Members on the opposite side of the Committee who during the last few days have worked up such a tremendous interest in the well-being of the co-operative societies in this country, and who have not yet lost all sense of proportion, will they get down to this point? One of the most-popular infant foods in this country to-day is Glaxo. The firm of manufacturers which manufactures Glaxo will not supply it to co-operative societies and will not allow co-operative societies to get a supply of Glaxo unless they are prepared to sign an agreement, stating that not only will they sell it at the same price as other people but that they will not allow any dividend to their customers upon it. This Clause is directed to stopping abuses and tyranny of that description.
The Attorney-General has been at tremendous pains to give a detailed reply to all the new Clauses from his own side, but he has not a word to say in regard to this Clause. We might describe this as "The end of a perfect day." The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour first of all rejected an offer from the other side of conciliation machinery now he rejects an offer of a new Clause which would go some little way to restore the confidence of the mass of the people in this Bill. I noticed last week that the Attorney-General was called upon to speak at a great conference assembled in London, consisting of 300 delegates from the Workmen's Conservative Clubs. The right hon. Gentleman told those dele- 961 gates that they were in the front line of trenches in this great battle, and after that they were addressed by the Chairman of the Conservative Association, who is a distinguished Member of this House. But, instead of getting themselves into the state of indignation that the Attorney-General was anxious that they should get into—the sort of feeling that men in the front line trenches ought to feel if they are to carry their cause to success—they straight away proceeded to pass a resolution calling upon the Government to increase the hours during which intoxicating liquor could be sold.
§ Mr. MORRISON
I was going to submit that if all the rest of my speech was out of order, at any rate this part that deals with what the Conservative Working Men's Association calls the illegal withholding of supplies, was in order. I have no desire to pursue the very interesting subject of the attitude of the Conservative Working Men's Association in annual conference assembled towards the Trade Union Bill and the
§ relative importance they apparently attach to the Bill and to the extension of the hours in which intoxicating liquor can be supplied in clubs, but I think in view of the fact that we are now reaching the end of the Committee stage, it is somewhat of a calamity that this stage of the proceedings should find the Attorney-General, who has been so ready with his explanations all through, speechless. There are still 15 minutes left, and we should be obliged if he could either supply us with some reasons why this Clause cannot be accepted or tell us whether the Government are prepared to take any action or give any promise that they propose to deal with the menace. It is a menace. It has been extended recently to the grocery trade, covering a large number of articles. The right hon. Gentleman might as well finish the job he has carried on so laboriously and strenuously for so many days by telling us exactly why the Government are not prepared to accept this Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 248.965
|Division No. 178.]||AYES.||[10.18p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (Fife, West)||Fenby, T. D.||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Forrest, W.||March, S.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Gardner, J. P.||Maxton, James|
|Ammon, Charles George||Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Morris, R. H.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Gibbins, Joseph||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Baker, Walter||Gillett, George M.||Murnin, H.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Gosling, Harry||Naylor, T. E.|
|Barnes, A.||Greenall, T.||Oliver, George Harold|
|Batey, Joseph||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Palin, John Henry|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Groves, T.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Grundy, T. W.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton||Potts, John S.|
|Bromfield, William||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Bromley, J.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hardie, George D.||Riley, Ben|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Harney, E. A.||Ritson, J.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Rose, Frank H.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Clowes, S.||Hirst, G. H.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Scurr, John|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Compton, Joseph||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Connolly, M.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Cove, W. G.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smillie, Robert|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Kelly, W. T.||Snell, Harry|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Kennedy, T.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Dennison, R.||Kirkwood, D.||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Duncan, C.||Lawrence, Susan||Stamford, T. W.|
|Dunnico, H.||Lawson, John James||Stephen, Campbell|
|Edge, Sir William||Lee, F.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Lowth, T.||Sullivan, J.|
|England, Colonel A.||Lunn, William||Sutton, J. E.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Thurtle, Ernest||Wellock, Wilfred||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Tinker, John Joseph||Westwood, J.||Windsor, Walter|
|Townend, A. E.||Whiteley, W.|
|Viant, S. P.||Wiggins, William Martin||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Wallhead, Richard C.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Fermoy, Lord||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Fielden, E. B.||McLean, Major A.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Finburgh, S.||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Ford, Sir P. J.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John|
|Atkinson, C.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Maitland, sir Arthur D. Steel|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Fraser, Captain Ian||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Balniel, Lord||Fremantie, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||Merriman, F. B.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Barnett, Major sir Richard||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Ganzonl, Sir John||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Gates, Percy||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Berry, Sir George||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Murchison, Sir Kenneth|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Gower, Sir Robert||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Grace, John||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Grant, Sir J. A.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Grotrian, H. Brent||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Perring, Sir William George|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Burman, J, B.||Hammersley, S. S.||Pilcher, G.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Harland, A.||Preston, William|
|Campbell, E. T.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hartington, Marquess of||Radford, E. A.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ramsden, E.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Haslam, Henry C.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hawke, John Anthony||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Remer, J. R.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hennessy, Major sir G. R. J.||Remnant, Sir James|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Rentoul G. S.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)||Rhys Hon. C A. U.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hills, Major John Waller||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hilton, Cecil||Richardson, Sir p. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Russell, Alexander Wist (Tynemouth)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Rye, F. G|
|Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Cope, Major William||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Couper, J. B.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Savery, S. S.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)||Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Hume, Sir G. H||Sheffield. Sir Berkeley|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Huntur-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Skelton, A. N.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Huntingfield, Lord||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Hurst, Gerald B.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Jacob, A. E.||Spender-Clay Colonel H.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. G. F, (Will'sd'n, E.)|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Drewe, C.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Ellis, R. G.||Lougher, Lewis||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Elveden, Viscount||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Styles, Captain H. W.|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Tasker, R. Inigo.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)||Withers, John James|
|Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-||Watts, Dr. T.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Tinne, J. A.||Wells, S. R.||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Waddington, R.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Wallace, Captain D, E.||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)||Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)|
|Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Warrender, Sir Victor||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Captain Lord Stanley and Captain|
|Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Wise, Sir Fredric||Margesson.|