HC Deb 30 June 1931 vol 254 cc1121-39

Section eight of the Finance Act, 1925, shall have effect as if the following table of preferential reductions of customs duties in case of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin were substituted for Part I of the Third Schedule to the first Act:

Article. Amount of Preferential Reduction.
s. d.
Sugar which, when tested by the polariscope, indicates a polarisation exceeding 99 degrees 7 3.0
Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98 but not exceeding 99 degrees 9 2.8
Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 76 degrees 3 3.0
Sugar of a polarisation—
76 and not exceeding 77 degrees 3 4.2
77 and not exceeding 78degrees 3 5.5
78 and not exceeding 79degrees 3 6.8
79 and not exceeding 80degrees 3 8.1
80 and not exceeding 81degrees 3 9.4
31 and not exceeding 82degrees 3 10.7
82 and not exceeding 83degrees 4 0.0
83 and not exceeding 84degrees 4 1.4
84 and not exceeding 85degrees 4 2.9
85 and not exceeding 86degrees 4 4.3
86 and not exceeding 87degrees 4 5.8
87 and not exceeding 88degrees 4 6.4
88 and not exceeding 89degrees 4 8.1
89 and not exceeding 90degrees 4 11.0
90 and not exceeding 91degrees 5 0.9
91 and not exceeding 92degrees 5 2.9
92 and not exceeding 93degrees 5 4.8
93 and not exceeding 94degrees 5 6.7
94 and not exceeding 95degrees 5 7.7
95 and not exceeding 96degrees 5 10.7
96 and not exceeding 97degrees 6 0.6
97 and not exceeding 98degrees 6 2.6
Molasses (except when cleared for use by a licensed distiller in the manufacture of spirits) and invert sugar and all other sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be completely tested by

Article. Amount of Preferential Reduction.
the polariscope and on which duty is not specially charged by reference to the other provisions of this part of this Schedule:— s. d.
If containing 70 per cent. or more of sweetening matter- 5 6.3
If containing less than 70 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter- 3 11.7
If containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter 1 11.1
The amount of sweetening matter to be taken to be the total amount of cane, invert, and other sugar contained in the article, as determined by analysis in manner directed by the Commissioners.
Solid 5 6.3
Liquid 3 11.7 Oz.
Saccharin (including substances of a like nature or use) 2 9/"

—[Mr. Amery.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause looks rather formidable in print, but it is, in fact, a very simple one. It provides for an extension of the existing preference at approximately 2s. 4d. per cwt., or one farthing a pound, in respect of sugar with a polarisation between 96 and 97 degrees. The various figures have been worked out on the proportions existing in the present scale, and so as to preserve the present relative positions of refiners and producers of beet sugar in this country. I attach no special importance to the precise details of the figures, and only ask the Financial Secretary to accept the principle I am advocating. The primary reason why this new Clause is submitted is, of course, the position of our sugar-growing Colonies. It would not be necessary, even if it were in order, for me to, speak at length on Report upon the seriousness of the plight in which the West Indies and Mauritius in particular, find themselves in to-day. Their situation was set forth very earnestly by Lord Olivier and Sir Francis Watts in the reports they presented to the Government. These have been dwelt upon in Debate on more than one occasion, and I need not now do more than remind the House of the danger to the whole social fabric and the whole fabric of government in the Colonies arising out of the fall in sugar prices. That fall is due not so much to the superior efficiency of other sugar growers as to the policy of other countries in fostering their own home market and pushing the surplus of sugar, at slaughter prices, upon the so-called world market, or rather, as I should call it the residual or dumping market.

Both Lord Olivier and Sir Francis Watts have made it clear that the West Indies and Mauritius have produced efficiently. If not the most efficient producers in the world, they at any rate produce sugar at a lower price than at least two-thirds of the sugar-producing countries. But to the markets in which that two-thirds is sold they have no access. Their only market is this country and, thanks to the preference, Canada, and there they have to compete with the surplus of all the other countries. It seems to me that the position of these smaller units in the British Empire is one of particular difficulty, especially those units which are dependent upon a single crop. They enjoy none of that compensation which in a larger Colony or in a Dominion is derived from the existence of other industries, from the existence of a substantial home market, and of a revenue which can, from internal sources, help a struggling element in the community to survive. Their whole existence is staked upon one crop, and they have none of the reserves behind them which would enable them to carry on the very life of their community if the single crop fails.

6.0 p.m.

There is a peculiar responsibility on this country and on this House not to allow these smaller units of the British Empire to go under. It is our policy, and on the whole a sound policy, to treat each unit of the Empire, great and small, as a unit by itself, to encourage it to stand on its own feet, to live by itself, for itself, to get the whole advantage of all its revenues, and to feel that it is in no sense being exploited for the benefit of the Mother Country. But there is also the other side. Where these units cannot stand by themselves there is a real responsibility on this country, a responsibility towards colonies which other countries recognise to a much greater extent than we do; and it is certainly unfortunate that at the present moment the West Indies can contrast the disaster which has overtaken them and the destruction of everything in their society, with the abounding prosperity of Porto Rico or of Martinique next door. Mauritius is in a similar plight compared with Réunion or Madagascar. Those things are not altogether satisfactory to a great Imperial nation. We have, of course, recognised our responsibility, and in a measure the Government have made recognition of this principle in certain proposals which have been placed before us during the past few weeks. We have had Supplementary Estimates put before us to help the situation in the West Indies. We have been discussing during the last week or two proposals for a guaranteed loan to Mauritius. That is a recognition of our responsibility, but in its form it was inadequate and unsatisfactory, and it is in fact a dole and not something which is going to put the people of these colonies on their feet. The object should be to help them to sell what they produce, and that at the present moment is the only problem before us. Let us by all means help them to lay the foundations for a more diversified production in future years. It is impossible for any great change to take place within the next few years, but the essential thing is that we should help them with the disposal of the product by which they live. Lord Olivier put forward a Socialist proposal, namely, the large scale purchase of their output, but he also suggested as an easier immediate alternative the extension of the sugar preference.

Let me say here in regard to such an extension that I cannot see that what I am proposing conflicts with any principle held by those who sit on the Treasury Bench, The principle of responsibility for our Colonies when in distress has already been admitted in the proposals which have been placed before the House within the last few-weeks. There is the other principle of granting preference wherever we have a duty. This has been admitted by the present Government, and its continuance in respect of sugar was one of the few satisfactory outcomes of the last Imperial Conference. Therefore, I cannot see that an increase in that principle of giving a preference on sugar to carry out effectively an admitted responsibility for our West Indian and other sugar Colonies can be in any sense a step which is in principle objectionable to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In regard to the amount of the preference it will be within the recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Lord Olivier recommended that the preference should be augmented to an amount equal to the amount granted by Canada, i.e. 4s 8d. per cwt. My suggestion is 6s. per cwt., and I have made it greater for several reasons. In the first place, the maximum suggested by Lord Olivier is not adequate to put the industry on a satisfactory basis and enable it to increase its efficiency and secure reasonable conditions of labour and life for the workers in the Colonies.

My second reason is that if the preference is increased somewhat above the Canadian preference, it will be a very real encouragement to the Government in Canada, which has already shown it self so helpful towards the West Indies in the past, to match our increase of preference by a further increase on their part. But whether they do that or not, an increase of preference on our part would make it more certain that the Canadian preference would be passed on to the producers, and not intercepted by the refiners. The figure which I have selected is one which would also cover the beet sugar position, and put it in exactly the same position as it is at this moment, with the small supplementary subsidy decided upon a few months ago. It is not necessary to point out that as far as sugar beet is concerned, no addi- tional cost is involved, because this extra preference would naturally take the place of a corresponding amount of subsidy. I have stated the case from the point of view of our responsibility towards the sugar growing Colonies, but I think that a very good case could also be made out from the point of view of the necessities of our own trade. These Colonies, and the sugar growing Dominions, are amongst our most important customers, and the importance of their custom is largely affected by the preference which they give. Some of the West Indian Colonies give a preference of 25 per cent., some 33 per cent. and others 50 per cent., and these preferences have an important effect on British trade. If we are unable to help them we cannot expect that preference to be continued indefinitely. On the other hand, if we help them that preference will ensure that we shall get our share in their growth and prosperity.

In the case of the Dominions, the preference is also a matter of no small importance. Take South Africa. The actual preference on sugar machinery there is not very large—I think it is in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent.—but I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that South African sugar growers have quite consistently, ever since the preference was stabilised in this country, made it their policy, without regard to difference of tenders, to buy all their sugar machinery from this country, and their purchases have run into many hundreds of thousands of pounds within the last few years. I believe it is the case that a very small increase in the output of the South African sugar industry would necessitate a complete renewal of the equipment of their factories, involving very substantial orders for machinery, the whole of which would come to this country.

There is another element in the situation to which we are all very much alive at the moment, and that is the exchange situation. We know to our cost what we have suffered as exporters owing to the position of the Australian exchange. Not only has the Australian capacity to buy weakened, but the Commonwealth has found itself compelled by the difficulties of the exchange situation to put heavy additional duties upon British goods, though it still gives a preference to British goods, in order to prevent its people buying in the present condition of the exchange from abroad, as this involves them in serious loss. There, again, our sugar purchases, running to £2,000,000 a year, are a very important factor in the exchange situation, and any increase in our purchases of Australian sugar would undoubtedly at once facilitate our trade with that great Dominion. From the broader point of view, which I think is coming to us to-day, and the inter-relation of finance and industry, consuming, and producing, we should be doing a wise thing if we strengthened our markets.

No doubt I shall be told that my proposal involves a loss of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot take into consideration at the present time. While it is not for me—it would not be in order in my position—to propose a variant in my scheme which would carry out my object of increasing the preference without involving a loss of revenue, it is perfectly open to the Government to do so, and I should be quite willing to accept any proposal on the part of the Government which either increased the foreign duty and thus gave the preference for which I ask, with a substantial increase of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 revenue, or, by a purely fractional increase in the foreign duty, would adjust the revenue situation with the increased preference so as to bring in precisely the same yield to the revenue. I am not concerned with the details of my proposal, but with the acceptance of an additional preference which, I contend, is not inconsistent with the principles which the present Government have followed in this matter.

I admit that I am asking for something which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may consider is going back upon the general line which he has so consistently pursued. May I put it to him that the other day President Hoover went back upon a consistent course of policy, and upon the most definite declarations he has made throughout his term of office, and he did so amid the approval of his fellow-countrymen of all parties, and of the whole world. He did so because the facts of the situation in his own country, as well as in Europe, made him believe that a change in his declared policy was the wise and the right thing to do. May I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it might be possible in this case for him to depart from the line which he has so consistently advocated, and in fact would be consistent with the generous attitude which he took up only the other day with regard to the Dominion payments. Such a departure would not detract in the least from his reputation for courage, and it would bring to him, as to President Hoover, both immediate and enduring fame.


The object of the right hon. Gentleman and those who are supporting him in bringing forward this Clause is, of course, to increase the preference on Empire sugar, and the home growers of sugar would be affected automatically by this preference. The present Clause would, in fact, increase the existing preference on fully refined sugar, polarising over 99 per cent., by 1s. 5d. per cwt.; on the highest quality raw sugar, polarising between 98 and 99 per cent., by 2s. 4d. per cwt., and on lower quality raw sugars by proportionate amounts. Thus, the duty on foreign sugar polarising over 98 per cent. remaining at 11s. 8d. per cwt., the duty on Empire sugar polarising over 99 per cent. would be lowered from 5s. 10d. to 4s. 5d., the duty on Empire sugar polarising from 98 to 99 per cent. would be lowered from 4s. 9.2d., to 2s. 5.2d., and the rates of preference on Empire molasses, glucose and saccharin would be altered correspondingly.

I quite appreciate the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he pointed out that he moved the Clause in this form in order to keep within the procedure of the House of Commons. I think it is recognised by all on this side of the House, and probably throughout the House as a whole, that what the right hon. Gentleman would really like to see would be a very large increase in Protection on sugar, as well as on other things, and that he would desire to see that Protection subjected to a greater preference on behalf of Empire and home-grown sugar. That, of course, is in accordance with the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has consistently advocated on every occasion, both in this House and outside.

I am bound, however, in the first instance, to take this proposed new Clause at its face value, and to point out to the House what would be its effect upon the Revenue. On the assumption that the total quantity of Empire and home-grown sugar remained the same as it was in 1930–31, the proposed increases in the preference would cost approximately £2,000,000 in a full year. But the higher preference would act as a magnet to additional supplies of Empire sugar, and, for every 50,000 tons extra of such sugar each year, the loss of revenue would be increased by approximately one-third of £1,000,000. For this reason alone, of course, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself appreciates, my right hon. Friend would not be able to accept this amending Clause. I would add, with regard to the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman put forward to-day, that the rates fixed in the year 1928, when the Government of which he was a member was in office, were the result of a compromise with a number of interests, including the refiners, and I am certainly not at all clear—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is—that all those interests would be willing to support his amending Clause, I rather imagine that there would be a considerable divergence of opinion upon the merits of the matter, quite apart from the loss which we should suffer in the Exchequer from the effect of these proposals.

I should like, if I may be permitted to do so, to turn from the precise Clause to the larger aspect of this question, and it will not be a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman or to the House if I say that, quite apart from the particular effect of this Clause, the policy which lies behind the Clause is not in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government. The furthest that His Majesty's Government are prepared to go was expressed at the Imperial Conference last year, when the following statement was made: That the existing preferential margins accorded by the United Kingdom to other parts of the Empire will not be reduced for a period of three years, or pending the outcome of the suggested conference (in Ottawa), subject to the rights of the United Kingdom Parliament to fix the Budget from year to year. That was the expression of the Government's policy at the time, and the Government are certainly not prepared to go beyond that to-day. With regard to the sugar producers, I think nobody denies the unfortunate plight in which they are at the present time, but the Government have stated quite clearly that they do not propose to give assistance by means of additional preferences which are contrary to their policy, but by other methods which they have chosen to adopt. They decline to increase the prices of sugar by any proposals, which they alone could put forward, and which the right hon. Gentleman has not put in his proposed new Clause, to increase the protection on sugar and increase the preference at the same time. On the merits of this individual Clause, however, because the actual loss of revenue is the final consideration, I regret that we cannot see our way to accept it.


I would strongly urge that some effect should be given to these proposals. There would not be any increase in price if the duty were put merely on foreign sugar. There is plenty of sugar in Mauritius and other British Dependencies—far too much. Mauritius can produce sugar more cheaply than any other spot in the world, But the island is not well equipped, because of the insecurity of capital investment, and, if a proper preference were given—just a slight increase—there is not the least doubt that capital would flow into the island and the other West Indian Dependencies. They constitute the best possible outlet for sugar machinery. We have a great many places where sugar machinery is made, notably Glasgow, which urgently need orders, and, if we gave these islands a preference which would not raise the cost of sugar to the consumer by the tenth part of a farthing, undoubtedly the whole of these islands would re-equip themselves if they saw that there was some stability in the industry, because they would be able to get the necessary capital. I am sure it is within the competence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his staff so to give effect to the principle contained in this proposed new Clause that there would be no loss of revenue while increased prosperity would be given to these parts of our Empire.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

I noticed an inconsistency in the remarks of the Financial Secretary. He stated that, if the policy indicated by my right hon. Friend in this proposed new Clause were carried out, it would, I think he said, act like a magnet, there would be a great increase of sugar supplies coming from the Empire to this country, and, therefore, he would lose revenue in the other direction. I think that that was his argument. That, of course, is the fact. If you give this additional advantage to sugar supplies from the Empire, the pro portion of Empire sugar over foreign sugar would be very much increased. If that be true, I venture to suggest that it answers the hon. Gentleman's other fear that the price would go up. If you lower The duty on Empire supplies, the result will be that, by those increased supplies——


I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that the price would go up as the result of this proposed new Clause. I made it clear that the effect would be a loss of revenue, and I said that, if effect were given to what was at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, though it was not put into this Clause, namely, an increase of Protection by putting on an additional duty, that would increase the price.


I did not misunderstand the hon. Gentleman at all; I quite understood that. Supposing that the Government said of their own volition, "We must raise the revenue on foreign sugar which we are losing on Empire sugar," the result would be, as I understood, a change in the price. Obviously, if you increase the quantities of sugar subjected to the lower duty which come in from the Empire, that would be the result, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman's fears are clearly unfounded. But I would make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know that his heart is very hard on this subject, but I venture to tell him that the distress throughout all the sugar-producing parts of the Empire to-day is simply appalling, and I do beg of him to remember the larger fact, which is that our export trade so greatly depends upon the purchasing power of the parts of the Empire overseas. We have heard instances with regard to machinery, and the same is true of every other manufactured commodity that we send to these sugar-producing parts of the Empire. It is not a sound policy to contemplate the giving of loans year after year in order to save these Colonies and parts of the Dominions from bankruptcy. It is far better that we should sacrifice a small amount of revenue if we can maintain the purchasing power of those who are our best customers, and I venture to think that in the long run the right hon. Gentleman himself will come to see that it would be a sound policy to reduce this charge upon the consumers of this country, which I know he very much detests, and to give a greater preference to the Dominions overseas. There is nothing in that which is inconsistent with the decision of the last Imperial Conference. I understand that the decision was that we should tell the representatives of the Dominions that we would not reduce that preference. We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to extend it, so that there is no conflict there. I hope that His Majesty's Government, in view of the changing opinions throughout the length and breadth of the country and in all parties, will reconsider this question.


I think that the reply given by the Financial Secretary was very satisfactory on this point. I want, however, to speak particularly from the point of view of the poor labourers in the West Indies. It is quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause to speak on behalf of the sugar producers, but I want to put it to the Government that their sugar policy should not be considered from the point of view of Preference or of Free Trade alone. I do not agree with the Clause at all. The conditions in the West Indies are bad. The conditions in the sugar-producing Colonies of the West Indies are bad. These islands, which are dependent mainly on sugar, are in a perfectly desperate condition, and the policy of the Government with regard to this matter is one that is causing absolute consternation among their friends in these Colonies. But that is not because the Government did not adopt a Preference policy; it is because the Government seem to have a Free Trade policy and nothing else. We have always held on this side that Free Trade is not enough, and Protection is not enough. It would be out of order for me to enter into these matters now, but I want to say that there is another way out. These Colonies can have their finances arranged in an entirely different way. The finances of Mauritius could be saved a great deal even by the moratorium which I suggested a few nights ago in regard to the military grant. I hope the Government will not only consider the matter from a Protectionist, or a Free Trade or a financial point of view, but will have regard to the dire distress of the Colony. There is a complete answer to the Amendment, but I hope the Government will re-consider the matter from the point of view of the Colonies and not necessarily from the Protectionist aspect.


I was extremely interested in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery). His explanation as to the cause of the depression in Mauritius was not that Mauritius, as far as its sugar industry is concerned, was inefficient, but that the whole world market for sugar had been upset by the fostering of the various home markets and the pushing of uneconomic sugar into the world market. I quite agree, and that is perhaps the most effective attack upon our beet sugar subsidy that it is possible to make. This proposal to increase the preference on Colonial sugar is a very severe criticism upon the loss that we have sustained, amounting to £30,000,000, which has been poured down the sink in attempting to foster an entirely uneconomic industry. The effect of an increase in the preference on Colonial sugar is going to make the already uneconomic home industry feel the competition still more severely. Even with the enormous subsidy that it has had, it cannot carry on, and there is a Bill before the House to increase the subsidy. If this Amendment goes through, we shall have an immediate demand for a further increase in the subsidy to the home industry and, if it were granted, we should have a further demand from Mauritius for an increase in the amount of preference. It is ridiculous that we should have two industries, beet sugar and cane sugar, and be subsidising both in order that each may cut the other's throat. There is also a Bill before the House guaranteeing a loan to Mauritius. The right hon. Gentleman considered that that was an undesirable way of helping our Colonies. It was, he said, a dole, and he much preferred the Amendment, which he did not consider a dole. What is the Amendment but a further dole, and a very insidious form of dole, which goes on and on and which people do not realise that they are paying? If we have to help our Colonies, let us do it openly and clearly and as we do in the case of this guaranteed loan. Let us know how much we are granting. Let us realise what the cost is going to be and not do it n this secretive and insidious way of granting increased preferences.


Maintenance but not work.


The position, as has been pointed out most effectively from the other side, is that Colonies like Mauritius are extremely insecure, because there is only one industry upon which they can rely, and they will remain insecure so long as they are in that position. I think the right hon. Gentleman, who is supposed to be an expert in Colonial matters, looks forward in a short time to their getting a variety of industries. He has held it out as a possibility If we are going to subsidise the sugar industry as a sugar industry rather than make a definite loan, we are rivetting upon these Colonies the sugar industry as such and preventing the introduction of diversity into their industry. Prom every point of view the method of granting a definite loan which is not linked up with any particular industry is far and away the best method of helping these Colonies. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, unless we were prepared to grant help of this kind, we could not expect the preference that they give us to be continued. We allow them to send unlimited quantities into this country free. Where there is a Customs Duty, we give them a far more real preference than they give us. Many of the preferences that our Colonies are supposed to give us are practically worthless. Quite apart from the tax on foreign goods, the tax against British goods is practically prohibitive, and is meant to be prohibitive. The suggestion that the Empire can only be held together so long as it receives doles from the Mother country suggests that, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, Empire policy consists of the Colonies hanging on as long as they can suck blood from the Mother country.

With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), I was unable to follow his argument that there would be no increase in price if there was an increase on the tariff on sugar.


I followed the argument of the Financial Secretary where he was speaking of a reduction of the duty on imported Empire sugar on the one hand, and an increased supply of sugar at the reduced price and the raising of the duty on foreign sugar.


The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the raising of the duty on foreign sugar would not have any effect on the price of the sugar consumed at home, because it would be possible to allow Empire sugar to come into the country at a lower rate of duty. That means that we are going to have two prices of sugar. If there is going to be no increase in the price of Empire sugar, and an increased tariff is put upon foreign sugar, you are either going to have two prices or else Empire sugar is going to increase in price. Everyone knows perfectly well that, if the tax were put up on foreign sugar, Empire sugar would rise by exactly the same amount and the growers and dealers would collar the amount of duty.


If the Empire sugar had an increased turnover, they could afford to sell at the same or even at a less price.


The whole point is that we are to give this increased preference and increase the tax on foreign sugar in order that they may get a Higher price. The industry itself at present is losing. The loss on sugar in Mauritius is so great that, if you let it in free, it would not make a profit. To suggest that we are going to give an increase in the protection of Empire sugar, and that they are not going to take advantage of it, is a tale that we on this side are not going to swallow. Wherever there is an increase in duty there is inevitably, unless there is some counteracting influence, an increase in price. You have only to take the world price of any article you like to mention and you will find that the world prices from country to country vary almost exactly according to the tariff that is put on; and an increase in the tax upon sugar is going to increase the cost of the sugar to the consumer. I am delighted to hear that the Government intend to refuse the Amendment.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 280.

Division No. 360.] AYES. [6.42 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Campbell, E. T. Eden, Captain Anthony
Albery, Irving James Castle Stewart, Earl of Elliot, Major Walter E.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Cautley, Sir Henry S. England, Colonel A.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.) Everard, W. Lindsay
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover) Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Astor, Viscountess Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Ferguson, Sir John
Atholl, Duchess of Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Fermoy, Lord
Atkinson, C. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Fielden, E. B.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Flson, F. G. Clavering
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Chapman, Sir S. Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Christie, J. A. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Clydesdale Marquess of Galbraith, J. F. W.
Balniel, Lord Cobb, Sir Cyril Ganzonl, Sir John
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George Gault, Lieut. Col. A. Hamilton
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Colfox, Major William Philip Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Colville, Major D. J. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Conway, Sir W. Martin Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Cooper, A. Duff Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Bird, Ernest Roy Courtauld, Major J. S. G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Boothby, R. J. G. Cranborne, Viscount Greene, W. P. Crawford
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Gritten, W. G. Howard
Boyce, Leslie Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Bracken, B. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Brass, Captain Sir William Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Briscoe. Richard George Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Hanbury, C.
Broadbent, Colonel J. Dalkeith, Earl of Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y) Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Buchan, John Davidson, Rt Hon. J. (Hertford) Haslam, Henry C.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Butler, R. A. Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) O'Neill, Sir H. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Peaks, Capt. Osbert Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N) Penny, Sir George Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Hurd, Percy A. Perkins, W. H. D. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Thompson, Luke
Inskip, Sir Thomas Pilditch, Sir Philip Thomson, Sir F.
Kindersley, Major G. M. Ramsbotham, H. Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Knox, Sir Alfred Rawson, Sir Cooper Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Reid, David D. (County Down) Todd, Capt. A. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Remer, John R. Train, J.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro'& Whitby) Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Reynolds, Col. Sir James Turton, Robert Hugh
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Llewellin, Major J. J. Ross, Ronald D. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Kuggles-Brise, Colonel E. Wayland, Sir William A.
Lockwood, Captain J. H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wells, Sydney R.
Long, Major Hon. Erlc Salmon, Major l. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Macquisten, F. A. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Withers, Sir John James
Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Savery, S. S. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Womersley, W. J.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S. Skelton, A. N. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Smith-Carington, Neville W. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) Somerset, Thomas
Muirhead, A. J. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Nall-Cain. A. R. N. Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) Captain Sir George Bowyer and
Sir Victor Warrender.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Cluse, W. S. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Compton, Joseph Harris, Percy A.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Cove, William G. Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Alpass, J. H. Cowan, D. M. Haycock, A. W.
Ammon, Charles George Cripps, Sir Stafford Hayday, Arthur
Angeli, Sir Norman Daggar, George Hayes, John Henry
Arnott, John Dallas, George Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Aske, Sir Robert Dalton, Hugh Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Attlee, Clement Richard Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Ayles, Walter Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Day, Harry Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Denman, Hon. R. O. Herriotts, J.
Barnes, Alfred John Dudgeon, Major C. R. Hicks, Ernest George
Barr, James Dukes, C. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Batey, Joseph Duncan, Charles Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Ede, James Chuter Hoffman, P. C.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Holline, A.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Hopkin, Daniel
Benson, G. Egan, W. H. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Elmley, Viscount John, William (Rhondda, West)
Birkett, W. Norman Foot, Isaac Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Bowen, J. W. Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Broad, Francis Alfred George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Brockway, A. Fenner George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Bromfleld, William Gibbins, Joseph Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Bromley, J. Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Brooke, W. Gill, T. H. Kelly, W. T.
Brothers, M. Gillett, George M. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Glassey, A. E. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Gossilng, A. G. Kirkwood, D.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Gould, F. Lang, Gordon
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Buchanan, G. Gray, Milner Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Burgess, F. G. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Law, Albert (Bolton)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Law, A. (Rossendale)
Calne, Hall-, Derwent Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Lawrence, Susan
Cameron, A. G. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Cape, Thomas Groves, Thomas E. Lawson, John James
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Grundy, Thomas W. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Charleton, H. C. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Leach, W.
Chater, Daniel Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Church, Major A. G. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Clarke, J. S. Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Lees, J.
Leonard, W. Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Lewis, T. (Southampton) Owen, Major O. (Carnarvon) Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Lindley, Fred W. Palln, John Henry Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Lloyd, C. Ellis Palmer, E. T. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Logan, David Gilbert Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Longbottom, A. W. Perry, S. F. Sorensen, R.
Longden, F. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Stamford, Thomas W.
Lunn, William Phillips, Dr. Marion Stephen, Campbell
Macdonald, Gordon (INCS) Pole, Major D. G. Strauss, G. R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Potts, John s. Sullivan, J.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Price, M. P. Sutton, J. E.
McElwee, A. Pybus, Percy John Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
McEntee, V. L. Quibell, D. J. K. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Mckinlay, A. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
MacLaren, Andrew Rathbone, Eleanor Thorne. W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) Raynes, W. R. Thurtle, Ernest
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Gevan) Richards, R. Tinker, John Joseph
McShane, John James Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Toole, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Tout, W. J.
Manning, E. L. Ritson, J. Townend, A. E.
Mansfield, W. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Vaughan, David
March, S. Romerll, H. G. Viant, S. P.
Marcus, M. Rosbotham, D. S. T. Walkden, A. G.
Markham, S. F. Rothschild, J. de Walker, J.
Marley, J. Rowson, Guy Wallace, H. W.
Marshall, Fred Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Mathers, George Salter, Dr. Alfred Watkins, F. C.
Matters, L. W. Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Messer, Fred Sanders, W. S. Wellock, Wilfred
Middleton, G. Sandham, E. Welsh, James (Palsley)
Millar, J. D. Sawyer, G. F. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Milner, Major J. Scott, James West, F. R.
Montague, Frederick Scurr, John Westwood, Joseph
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. White, H. G.
Morley, Ralph Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Sherwood, G. H. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mort, D. L. Shield, George William Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Muff, G. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Muggeridge, H. T. Shillaker, J. F. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Murnin, Hugh Shinwell, E. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Nathan, Major H. L. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Naylor, T. E. Simmons, C. J. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester, Loughb'gh)
Noel Baker, P. J. Sinkinson, George Wise, E. F.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Sitch, Charles H. Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Oldfield. J. R. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Oliver, George Harold (likeston) Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.