HC Deb 28 June 1927 vol 208 cc309-25
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Amendments on the Paper to this Clause will increase the charge and are therefore not in Order.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The main object of this Clause is to increase the duty upon wines. We on this side do not, propose to controvert the main object of the Clause, but in addition to the general increase in tax it also perpetuates and extends the principle of Imperial Preference by making a special allowance on Empire wines, and it is in regard to that aspect of it that some of us desire to say a word. This Imperial Preference dates from the time of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who proposed to establish an Imperial Zollverein and this preference on wine is in fact part of that original scheme. It was pointed out from the beginning that there were two great objections to an Imperial Zollverein. In the first place the Dominions were not prepared to open their ports to us, and in the second place it was realised by many people that it was not desirable to try to cement the ties of blood relationship by business bargains. From that point of view, in our opinion these taxes are objectionable and we consider firstly that the ties that bind us to the Dominions are sentimental tics, and in the second place so far as the Dominions benefit us through the preference they concede, and we quite acknowledge that they do, the right method by which we can reciprocate is not by altering our fiscal system but by giving the Dominions various advantages which are natural to our method of conducting our trade and industry and our general life. We consider that the best reciprocal action we can take is to continue the defence of the shores of the Dominions and continue the very valuable assistance we give them through allowing them to float their loans with special advantages in our markets.

These duties on wines, spirits and liquors are primarily revenue taxes, and it stands to reason that, any suggestion that part of the Wine Duty should be remitted in the case of wines coming from the Dominions, must be in itself a loss to our revenue. The consumer pays the additional tax. The revenue does not reap the whole of the benefit but a part that the consumer pays goes to the Colonial producer. It is open to the Chancellor to argue that though there is this loophole by which the revenue does not get the whole of what the consumer pays, nevertheless it is worth while because going, as it does, to the Colonial producer, we get a quid pro quo in the preference that is given to us. I have already attempted to show that there are other forms of quid pro quo that we might give more suited to our system than this preference that we are asked to extend in this Clause, but in addition to that I want to stress the point that there is some doubt at present whether the various Dominions, and particularly Australia, which this wine preference is largely intended to benefit, are prepared to give us a quid pro quo in the actual form of preference in that country. It is true that, from the beginning, Australia and other parts of the British Empire have frankly stated that they were Protectionist. They have frankly said, "We are not going to admit your wares free of duty but it is our permanent policy to impose a certain amount of duty in order to make good the high conditions of labour and the other high costs that we have in our country." There is a certain amount that can be said for that moderate Protectionist policy.

But in Australia there is a move to-day to do a great deal more than that. In particular in the case of hosiery an attempt is being made to impose duties which are not by any means of that reasonable protective kind. They amount to 50 or 60, 70 and sometimes over 100 per cent. of the cost in this country. In hosiery the Australians, by these new forms of taxation, by charging in addition to an ad valorem duty a duty of 1s. on cotton goods and half a crown on woollen and silk goods per individual garment in the case of knitted underwear, are taking action of a prohibitive character against British trade. The point we want to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. If, throwing over what we believe the sound methods of relationship between the home country and the Dominions, we are going to have this bargaining system of Preference, setting the preference that we give them against the preference that they give to our goods, are you assured that you are getting a good bargain? We do not like the matter of bargaining between blood relations. We think it is an unsound and unsatisfactory principle. But if you are going to bargain, at least we demand that your bargain should be a good one, and when we find that in the Dominions, particularly Australia, such examples of a high tariff against this country, with a small Preference it is true against other countries, but so large a tariff as to be in fact a prohibition against goods coining from this country, we say to the Chancellor, "Is it not time you discussed these things with the Dominions on the ground that unless they can meet us we ought not further to extend our Preference to them," and it is for that reason that I have raised this point on this Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL

The hon. Gentleman deprecated a bargain or agreement of this kind between the Mother Country and the Dominions, and spoke of the difficulties which arise when such bargains take place. We have never bargained about our preference. There is only a very limited field, in accordance with the pledges which have been given, in which preferences can be afforded. We offered, voluntarily, to the Imperial Conference in 1917 to give preference to the Dominions on all commodities in respect of which duties were imposed or might hereafter be imposed by the British Parliament for its own purposes. We made a promise that we would give that preference to the Dominions, but our list of duties is a very small one compared with the whole volume of trade. We made that promise and undertaking, not as a matter of bargaining but out of the sincere gratitude and affection which we felt towards those Dominions who at that moment had sent armies thousands of miles across the sea to fight in the line in France and elsewhere. We are proud to carry on that policy, which, imposed and sanctioned by Parliament, automatically gives these preferences, making no bargain and seeking for no return. On the other side, there is a great desire to develop their own industries and manufactures under protective tariffs, but, apart from that, there is a great desire to buy as much produce as possible from Great Britain.

Although it is true that the duties are so high in some cases in Australia as to be very nearly prohibitive on certain articles, yet, over the whole range of the Australian tariff, very considerable preferences are afforded to British goods, with the result that about the best customer of this country is the British subject resident in Australia. There is I think no individual who takes so largely from us of our goods as the Australian, and, therefore, I think, it is very much better that we should occupy ourselves in counting up the advantages rather than in trying to balance one side of the case against the other. We should do the best we can for each other according to our various systems.

There is no doubt that the concession given on these Wine Duties has been gratefully received in Australia. It has undoubtedly brought assistance to the Australian wine cultivators, a proportion of whom, at any rate, are ex-service men. I was very glad indeed to take a step this year, following on the one we took in 1925. It has had the effect of encouraging the consumption of Australian wines in this country. This has been shown by a notable increase. Apparently these wines are extremely popular, and a new taste is being cultivated among the public. The consumption of these wines is very considerable and the preference affects the revenue in this respect, and it is an integral part of the general policy which we have been pursuing and to which we have set ourselves ever since 1917. It is far better that this policy should be developed, not on the basis of bargaining and hard and fast agreements. Preferences which are given as the result of commercial treaties—as it were, hard and fast agreements—are what I have always called locked bargains. If by any chance there was any reversal of policy at the termination of this Parliament to take off the duties through which these preferences were granted—if these preferences were part of a hard and fast bargain very serious tension might arise. Whereas, if they are given freely on both sides—both doing the best they can for each other—there can be no question of the hands of Parliament being tied in any way, and, at the same time, the currents of inter-Imperial trade flow more steadily in the right direction and that good will on which we must continually rely in our Empire receives a certain fostering assistance.

Mr. MORRIS

The right hon. Gentleman says that the preferences given are not the result of any bargaining between the Mother Country and the Dominions, and that may very well be true. But if this preference be given, as he says, in order to mark the appreciation on the part of the Mother Country of the services rendered by the Dominions during the War, then it becomes highly important that that mark of appreciation is given in such a way that if any rater Government by its action reverses the policy of the right hon. Gentleman—and some parties would certainly be pledged to do so—it is not interpreted by the Dominions as meaning that that appreciation no longer exists. This might be the cause of bitter feeling on the part of the Dominions, who might, on their part, charge the Mother Country with a breach of faith. Surely, the Mother Country ought not to express its appreciation by a policy which is not adhered to by other parties of the State. This is a very false policy. It may very well be that these duties may have to be retained in order to maintain this bond of affection. It is a fallacy of the preference case altogether, that in order to maintain the preference you have to maintain the preference duties. I confess I fall between two allegiances as far as these particular duties are concerned. I have no objection to any duties that increase the price of wines and spirits. If they have the effect of doing so, I have no objection to that result. On the other hand, it is bound to have the effect later on, not of facilitating that good will between tae Mother Country but of increasing—if later on another party came into power and there was a reversal of this particular policy—the difficulty. For this reason, I am opposed to the proposal, and regret that these duties have been imposed to give this advantage to the Dominions.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I was wondering, when the right hon. Gentleman referred to the popularity of the importation of Australian wines, whether he had reflected on the other side of the "popularity" picture. I read in the evening papers to-night that a baronet received six months' imprisonment, and that the Judge told him that if he went in for any more of this drinking he might be rendering himself liable for murder. That raises the question to which the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) referred. It is frequently put forward by those who represent the temperance aspect of this question, that they do not object to the imposition of these increased duties on wines if they mean an increased price of the article. I do not follow that line of reasoning at all. If there is anything in the case presented from temperance platforms against the use of intoxicating liquors it means that their production and importation involve national disaster. To talk of binding our Imperial interests together by an agency which necessarily involves national disaster is preposterous, especially from the point of view of the Conservative party, which should be out for the conservation of the best interests of the people. Any revenue which you exact from this prolific source of revenue, no matter what amount comes to the national Exchequer, is, in my opinion, a dead loss in the highest sense of the term.

This trade or industry is one of the mightiest financial powers in the Conservative party. It has the Conservative party tightly in its grip. They will have to break that grip, and other political parties will have to break that grip. Many men who have stood at that Box as Chancellors of the Exchequer have declared that it would be comparatively easy to find all the requisite revenue which might be involved by giving up the revenue which is now derived from intoxicating liquor. Such a policy would give a tremendous impetus to the country at large; it would be one of the most substantial contributions that could be made to the present industrial depression and to the provision of more employment. A bottle of wine is broken on a ship when she is launched. It is used at various times in our everyday life. It is used at the marriage ceremony, and it may be used at the funeral ceremony. Almost inevitably disaster follows in its train. How can any man, speaking with any sense of deep-seated moral responsibility, talk in the way the right hon. Gentleman has about the increasing popularity of an insidious agency which cannot be introduced into the House of Commons without a licence, or into the House or Lords, or into the Lord's House, without involving that trouble which is laid down explicitly by the declaration: Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Mr. VARLEY

I am not animated by the scruples which trouble the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour); mine is a purely business point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking a narrow survey. He talks with that benign magnanimity which characterised his utterances for a continuation of this preference, but he leaves out of account altogether any question of reciprocity. The hon. Member for Leicester West (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said something about the origin of preference. I am not sufficiently au fait with the beginnings of preference, but I have always understood, looking at it from the British point of view, that there was something unwritten whereby we had a right to expect reciprocity. We have been told that we are getting a quid pro quo for anything we do, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer happened to come from the particular district that I do, in which a considerable body of trade is threatened by the action of the Dominions, he would probably consider in any continuation of the policy of Imperial Preference some steps whereby he could bring to the notice of the Dominions the serious effect of their policy upon the idea of Empire. I hope, as a result of the few words that have been said to-night, that we shall be able to bring to the notice of the Dominion Parliaments the consideration that as Imperial Preference is not founded on a business bargain it cannot be indefinitely continued if we are to expect a continuation of the policy which animates them.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) pointed out one or two considerations which should be kept in view in discussing this matter of preference. I should not have said a single word at all in this Debate but for the line of argument which was, as I think, unfortunately adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman indicated quite clearly that there would be some ingratitude, in the light of the sacrifices made by the Dominions and Colonies during the War, unless this particular policy was pursued and maintained. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) in reply to that said that if any party later in the day in this country, for perfectly sound reasons, wanted to go back on this policy, that the argument regarding wartime gratitude would be remedied. It is important that we should have on record exactly what we think of a matter of this kind. No one on this side of the House would for a single moment minimise the sacrifices made by any section of the people, wherever they were found, during the War. While we pay the highest tribute to them, it is just as important to make it clear that, in our judgment, if this policy is to be defended at all, it must be on a strictly economic basis. I do not mean in a narrow or niggardly way at all, but on an economic basis which nevertheless contains a considerable element of generosity to the Dominions and Colonies.

We on this side are, broadly and generally, opposed to tariffism in any shape or form, and, speaking for myself, I am rather inclined to favour Preference as against tariffs, because Preference involves a modification of the tariff system. It involves a reduction of the duties on certain classes of articles, and on that ground it may he defended. But by far the better way in which to state this case from the point of view of the Colonies and Dominions is, in the first place, to relate it to an effort to cultivate what we should call the economic field within the Empire; a problem which excites less division of opinion to-day in this House than at any time in our experience; and, in the second place, to relate this policy to what is being attempted by the Imperial Economic Committee, and particularly at the present time by the Empire Marketing Board. That is a very much better basis for a proposition of this description, and, accordingly, I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in the argument relating to war-time conditions, with all their hectic and artificial influences, and sought to lay that down as some kind of permanent basis for this proposition. It can never be anything of the kind, and while we on this side of the Committee are not without sympathy, and will not fail in gratitude for the sacrifices made by the Dominions, do not let us land ourselves into a form of false argument upon what is a very simple and plain economic proposition. I think it is our duty to have that on record to-night for the purposes of any Debate which may emerge in the House of Commons when, in the near future, another Government, presumably of our persuasion, is on the other side of the Table.

Mr. McNEILL

I wish to add a very few words to those which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He thought it was necessary to record the opinion of himself and his friends that there should be no element in this preference system of gratitude. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I understood him to say that it should rest entirely on an economic basis, altogether apart from what we may call the emotional basis. He blamed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having introduced that element in defence of the system. The party opposite have already given as clear notice as is possible to give, that if they get an opportunity they intend to do away with the system of preference which we stabilised last year. Therefore, it was hardly necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to add to the warning already given. I entirely agree with him that the main basis upon which a system of preference should rest is purely an economic one and, as he knows very well, the party to which I belong, many years before the War, advocated a system of preference or rather of reciprocity to the preference which had already been given by the Dominions and Colonies, on a purely economic basis. We hold very strongly that, apart from any sentimental reasons, a system of preference is calculated better than any other policy we can pursue to develop inter-Imperial trade, especially having regard to the fact which is so often insisted upon that infinitely the best markets for this country in proportion to population are already the Dominions and that the prospects which they hold out are infinitely greater and more favourable to British trade than those of any other form of overseas trade.

Therefore, we can accept the idea that the economic basis is the more important one, but we altogether decline to exclude the other. I did not hear my right hon. Friend's statement on the matter—I was not here at the moment—but I take it from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that my right hon. Friend defended the policy which we are pursuing on the ground of the great services rendered to the Empire by the Dominions. These, he thought, called for some acknowledgment in this respect as in others. I entirely endorse that view in addition to the economic view. It is true that the Dominions for many years past have been giving us a preference for which they have got no reciprocity, and I think, apart from all other views, that the great services which they rendered call for some acknowledgment and, even if it had been necessary, for some sacrifice on our part to meet them in this respect. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put upon record that we accept that point of view and that we intend to make the preference system a stable one as far as we can do so. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks that the warning he has given will commend him and his party to Dominion opinion—I do not know whether he attaches much importance to it or not—I think he is very much mistaken. What he has said, dissociating himself entirely from the point of view of my right hon. Friend, is not, I think, likely to endear his party to opinion in the Dominions or other parts of the Empire.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I am sorry to intervene again, but I cannot leave the Debate on the note on which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has concluded his speech. I think I made it perfectly plain that we on this side had the very warmest admiration for the sacrifice made by the Dominions and Colonies and we shall continue to have that admiration but I went on to develop a point, which, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman himself accepts, namely, that we must rest this matter very largely upon an economic basis because here you are dealing, not with a mere few lines in an Act of Parliament, but with proposals which have a profound influence upon business operations in this country. May I say just a word or two in reply to the right hon. Gentleman on the mere point of our recognition of War-time sacrifices by other parts of the Empire. Even if there were no question of preference at all, we make many contributions in other directions and, not least, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, in the sphere of finance. In point of fact the market in this country has within recent times done a great deal for overseas Empire finance and I could go on to cite many other cases in which the people of this country are making contributions. They are not saying very much about it. They are doing it, partly as a duty and partly because they desire to do it. I must, however, correct at once the impression which would be left by the last few sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. They do not, as I am sure he will agree on reflection, accurately represent our view on this side of the House and we must now put that fact beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Miss WILKINSON

We on this side of the House are accustomed to the methods of Debate employed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has left his colleague to "carry on." No one sticks harder to the hard economic facts than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he has those facts on his side, and no one is more capable of throwing in a peroration, or some kind of sentimental appeal, with his tongue in his cheek, and then leaving the matter for other people to criticise when he has gone, than is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I, therefore, suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew perfectly well when he made that statement, that this preference which we are giving to the Dominions is no mere generous gesture made because of the deaths of the Dominion and Colonial soldiers in the War. No one knows better than he that it was not so. I am sure he would not insult our Dominions by suggesting that such magnificent sacrifices as were made by these lads who fought at Anzac and Gallipoli, were to be met by some pettifogging duty on wines. They are dead, and they died for an ideal. Are we going to suggest that a pettifogging thing like this, in which neither they nor their families are concerned, which is obviously a bargain, intended as a bargain and never anything else but a market bargain, between two sets of hard-fisted capitalists, is going to be in any sense the reward or recompense for what those boys did during the War? The Chancellor of the Exchequer insults the intelligence of the House of Commons if he imagines that that is the sort of thing we are going to do.

We know, as everybody knows who has followed the discussions at the Imperial Conference or met any of the delegates, that the economic discussions there are as much a question of bargaining as any other kind of market bargaining. In this ease, as has always happened in the relations of this country with the Dominions or in our foreign policy, it is not our industrialists but our financiers who are in control. The people who wish to make the London market a favourable venue for floating loans to the Dominions are prepared to sacrifice any of our industrial interests in order to keep the London market as the favourable market for the flotation of Dominion loans. That is exactly what has happened with regard to this preference on wines. Certain of our industries are in very low water indeed. Formerly they had large markets in the Dominions and Colonies, but those markets are now practically closed by prohibitive tariffs. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley) represent districts where two of those industries are carried on. The hosiery industry in particular is affected. The Australian tariff, particularly that against every kind of ladies' garment and every kind of knitted fabric, has practically closed that market to this country. It matters nothing that a slight preference is given to us as against America, for example. Compared with the high tariff, the preference is so slight as to mean nothing in practice. The Australian market is practically closed to those goods, except the very highest qualities of them, and the very finest kinds, which cannot be manufactured in Australia. Australians with money are prepared to pay the duty in order to have the finest qualities of English goods—though the French compete with us there—but on the cheaper classes of goods, which give the largest amount of employment, especially to women workers, the tariff is prohibitive.

If there was anything in this coming together of the Dominions and ourselves, this question of the extraordinarily high tariff against hosiery might be brought up at one of those love talks. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary says we have to look forward to the future, to a time when we shall get this new, warm homely feeling between the Dominions and ourselves—that if we leave it all to their good will, and say nothing about it, that as a result of these preferences a homely feeling will grow up which will bring about a lessening of these tariffs.

Mr. McNEILL

I did not say anything of the sort, though I have not the least objection to the hon. Lady crediting me with those sentiments.

Division No. 221.] AYES. [9.1 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Buchan, John Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James Dalkeith, Earl of
Albery, Irving James Bullock, Captain M. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Burman, J. B. Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Burton, Colonel H. W. Davies, Dr. Vernon
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Butler, Sir Geoffrey Dawson, Sir Philip
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Butt, Sir Alfred Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Apsley, Lord Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W Campbell, E. T. Drewe, C.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W Cassels, J. D. Eden, Captain Anthony
Atholl, Duchess of Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Edmondson, Major A. J.
Atkinson, C. Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Ellis, R. G.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Chapman, Sir S. Elveden, Viscount
Balniel, Lord Chilcott, Sir Warden England, Colonel A.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Christie, J. A. Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Everard, W. Lindsay
Bennett, A. J. Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Berry, Sir George Clarry, Reginald George Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Betterton, Henry B. Clayton, G. C. Finburgh, S.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cobb, Sir Cyril Ford, Sir P. J.
Boothby, R. J. G. Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cooper, A. Duff Forrest W.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Cope, Major William Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Brass, Captain W. Couper, J. B. Fraser, Captain Ian
Briscoe, Richard George Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Ganzonl, Sir John
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend) Gates, Percy
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Miss WILKINSON

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was not quoting his exact words. What I meant to imply was that that was the line of the right hon. Gentleman's argument—that, looking to the future, we could feel certain that as the result of these preferences trade between the Dominions and ourselves would he increasing. So far as our experience goes, the exact opposite is happening. The Australians are developing their industries and raising tariffs, and are becoming more and more concerned to keep out as far as possible the imports from this country and other countries which compete with their own infant industries. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman is keenly interested in providing employment in this country, and is keenly interested in the workers of this country who, after all, put his Government into office, he would do a very good stroke of business for them if he would make it very clear, when next this question comes up for discussion, that if there are going to be preferences—I do not care for these preferences at all—there should be a quid pro quo in the shape of a reduction of the very high tariffs of the Dominions.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 111.

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Lougher, Lewis Sandeman, N. Stewart
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Gower, Sir Robert Lumley, L. R. Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Grace, John Lynn, Sir R. J. Savory, S. S.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Greene, W. P. Crawford McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E) McLean, Major A. Shepperson, E. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Macmillan, Captain H. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Grotrian, H. Brent. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen'aUniv., Belfst.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol. N.) Makins, Brigadier-General E. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Gunston, Captain D. W. Malone, Major P. B. Smith, R. W, (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hammersley, S. S. Margesson, Captain D. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hanbury, C. Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Harland, A. Meyer, Sir Frank Sprot, Sir Alexander
Harrison, G. J. C. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Hartington, Marquess of Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Haslam, Henry C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hawke, John Anthony Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Moreing, Captain A. H. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle) Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Templeton, W. P.
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Murchison, Sir Kenneth Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Neville, Sir Reginald J. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Hills, Major John Waller O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Tinne, J. A.
Hilton, Cecil O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Holt, Captain H. P. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Pennefather, Sir John Wallace, Captain D. E.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Hopkins, J. W. W. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K. Perring, Sir William George Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N) Pilcher, G. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Hume, Sir G. H. Preston, William Wells, S. R.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Price, Major C. W. M. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Huntingfield, Lord Radford, E. A. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Raine, Sir Walter Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Jacob, A. E. Rawson, Sir Cooper Wingsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Rees, Sir Beddoe Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Jephcott, A. R. Reid, D. D. (County Down) Wise, Sir Fredric
Jones G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Remer, J. R. Withers, John James
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Rentout, G. S. Womersley, W J.
Kindersley, Major G. M. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgwater)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas Rice, Sir Frederick Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woorwich, W.).
Knox, Sir Alfred Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Lamb, J. O. Ropner, Major L. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Russell, Alexander West-(Tynemouth)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Rye, F. G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Long, Major Eric Salmon, Major I. Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.
Looker, Herbert William Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Penny.
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Lunn, William
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Mackinder, W.
Ammon, Charles George Groves, T. MacLaren, Andrew
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Grundy, T. W. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Baker, Walter Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) March, S.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hall G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Barnes, A. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Mosley, Oswald
Batey, Joseph Harris, Percy A. Murnin, H.
Bondfield, Margaret Hayday, Arthur Naylor, T. E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hayes, John Henry Palin, John Henry
Broad, F. A. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Ponsonby, Arthur
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hirst, G. H. Potts, John S.
Buchanan, G. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Riley, Ben
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Hora-Bellsha, Leslie Ritson, J.
Charleton, H. C. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Clowes, S. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)
Cluse, W. S. John, William (Rhondda, West) Rose, Frank H.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Scurr, John
Connolly, M. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Day, Colonel Harry Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Dennison, R. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smillie, Robert
Dunnico, H, Kelly, W. T. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Kennedy, T. Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)
Gardner, J. P. Kirkwood. D. Snell, Harry
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Lansbury, George Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gibbins, Joseph Lawrence, Susan Stamford, T. W.
Gillett, George M. Lee, F. Stephen, Campbell
Gosling, Harry Lindley, F. W. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lowth, T. Sullivan, Joseph
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow) Welsh, J. C. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Thurtle, Ernest Whiteley, W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Townend, A. E. Wiggins, William Martin Windsor, Walter
Varley, Frank B. Wilkinson, Ellen C. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Viant, S. P. Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Williams, David (Swansea, East) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) Mr. Briant and Mr. Morris.