HC Deb 23 February 1932 vol 262 cc225-39

Amendment made: In page 11, line 20, after the word "Treasury," insert the words: (given after consultation with any other Government Department which appears to the Treasury to be interested)."—[Mr. Runciman.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, after the word "on," to insert the words: the importation into the United Kingdom of".


May we have some explanation?


It is a purely drafting Amendment, and I do not think that I need trouble the Committee with an explanation. It is in order to bring the Clause into line with Clause 3.

Amendment agreed to.


I have a manuscript Amendment which I desire to move in page 11, line 20, after the word "may," to insert the words: after consultation with and upon the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I do not put this forward in any sense as a wrecking Amendment. Clause 12 is one of the most important Clauses in the Bill for that deals with foreign discrimination. The use of the powers under it may be of serious consequence to this nation. Arising from their use, there may be disputes regarding trading conditions. Wars have been caused by trading disputes, and, if these powers are not used wisely, there is great danger of international friction. The Bill has been improved by the two Amendments put in by the President of the Board of Trade, but as far as I can see there will be difficulties in deciding when nations are dis- criminating against us. For instance, the rate of exchange may give us an advantage which other nations do not possess. Would the imposition of a tax by a foreign nation in order to balance the advantage of the exchange be counted as discriminatory? The Clause gives the Board of Trade powers which, in our judgment, are too wide, and if the advisory committee is to be judicial in character and free from outside pressure in taking and sifting evidence for or against, we think that this Amendment will be the most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter. The words I suggest would relieve the President of the Board Of Trade of a tremendous responsibility. There may in future be some President with extreme views on this question, and in order to guard against that contingency and to be assured that discriminatory action is not to be taken until consideration has been given, I ask the Government to accept the Amendment.


I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment. The purpose of the Clause is to put us in the position of defending ourselves effectively against foreign discrimination. If the Government are to have that power, they must be free to act with promptitude, and it would be absurd for long discussions to go on in this country before the Government were enabled to take the necessary action against any discrimination from which it was suffering. This Clause is not of much use for the present, for we have a most-favoured-nation treaty with every country in the world of importance except one, and that is France—


I am afraid that the hon. Member is getting beyond this Amendment.


I want to know what is the scope of the Clause. This is a Clause to be used in certain eventualities in case there is discrimination. We can only use it provided we are internationally free to use it. If we have entered into an agreement with other nations—


I think that that question comes on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."


The question which arises under this Amendment concerns the machinery by which the principle of the Clause if approved by the Committee is to be carried out. It is quite clear that the contingency against which we have to provide is the withholding from this country of most-favoured-nation treatment. An infringement of that may arise in a variety of ways, but I cannot imagine any way in which it would arise in which the Board of Trade would not be the office through which the Advisory Committee, if it were inquiring into it, would have to learn the facts of the case. The Advisory Committee are not in a position to say whether or not there has been discrimination, because they do not know. Any information as to the action of an offending Government abroad must be obtained, through the medium of the Foreign Office, by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade are the body capable of forming a view, and obviously they ought not to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Advisory Committee. Further, the Advisory Committee might take a very long time to inquire into the case, and meanwhile the discrimination against this country might continue. It might arise not only on the question of a tariff, but in the matter of a quota. This question is obviously not one for the Advisory Committee. They have other duties, which are clearly laid down in the Bill, but this is not one of them, and in the circumstances it appears to be much better, for administrative purposes, to leave the administration of this Clause with the Government itself and on their responsibility.


I quite realise that the information in these cases would have to be obtained by the Board of Trade, because the situation with which this Amendment would deal could arise only on account of some incident, such as the imposition of an extra duty upon an article of export from this country, being brought to the attention of the Board of Trade. This is a manuscript Amendment, and probably the right hon. Gentleman has not had time fully to consider it, but it is not proposed to remove the decision from the Board of Trade. All that is suggested is that the Board of Trade should consult with and get a recommendation from the Advisory Committee. There is a real reason behind this Amendment. It is not brought forward to put sand into the machine, as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks, or to delay the proceedings. We are setting up what is really three-decker machinery. First there is the 10 per cent. duty; then there is the extra duty to be imposed upon articles which are judged to need protection; and on top of this there is the purpose—in my view the best purpose, if it succeeds—of preventing extra and hostile duties being placed upon our goods. What we want to do is to co-ordinate the three processes and not to isolate them.

As I understand it, the Advisory Committee are to take a full survey of our industrial system; they are not to consider only the effect of a duty on an isolated article, but its effect on the industry of the country as a whole. Let me take a, practical example. Suppose we put an extra duty on woollens and France retaliated with an extra duty of 15 per cent. on coal. We might then say, "We are now going to retaliate by putting an extra 20 per cent. duty on some other article." We suggest that before the President of the Board of Trade takes any such action he should go to the Advisory Committee, who are taking the larger view, and say, "You have put this duty on French woollens, and that has resulted in the French imposing an extra duty on coal, and we propose retaliating on France by putting an extra duty on silks. What do you think of that?" Is that an unreasonable proposal? We do not want to have a number of isolated Departments each working on their own. That might have a disastrous effect. Further, not every President of the Board of Trade will hays the same equitable temper and Free Trade disposition of the right hon. Gentleman. If he is to be there, we can largely trust him, but Ministers come and Ministers go, and we might have a Minister of the character and temperament of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft)—more warlike, more bellicose, who might come to a decision which would launch us into a serious tariff war. [Interruption.] Apparently the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth rejoices at the prospect.


You are making serious allegations against colleagues.


It might bring about a state of affairs in international trade which would be worse than the present. The right hon. Gentleman wants these powers in order to lower tariffs and to bring about what has been called real Free Trade. There are hon. Members who say, "We are all for free imports, and, if other countries will lower their tariffs, we are in favour of abolishing tariffs." On the other hand, there is another type of mind which believes in tariffs for their own sake, believes in an economic nationalism, each country standing on its own, and which would isolate Great Britain from the Continent of Europe and tie it up to the Empire, separating it economically from the rest of the world. That is the type of mind from which we wish to protect the country. We want to see a judicial atmosphere introduced into these proceedings. I hope that in its final form the Advisory Committee will be judicial in character, of the kind the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) desires and that we desire. We should feel more inclined to hand over these great powers to the President of the Board of Trade in the hope of bringing about lower tariffs if we knew that he worked in conjunction with the Advisory Committee. I submit, again, that it is a moderate Amendment, which does not rob the President of the Board of Trade of all his powers, but merely requires that he should take advice from the appropriate committee set up under this Bill, whose business it will be to make a survey of the whole industrial position.


On a point of Order. Am I not right in thinking that the Government Amendment in line 23 has already been disposed of? This manuscript Amendment, as I heard it read out, comes in on line 20. I sub-myself to your Ruling, but I think it is not usual to go backwards in dealing with Amendments. Has there been a mistake?


I am afraid the hon. Member is right. There has been a mistake on my part. I did not notice this manuscript Amendment until after the second Government Amendment had been disposed of. It was my fault, and I did not propose to stop the discussion unless this point of Order was raised, but, as the matter has been brought to my attention, I must rule that we cannot proceed with the Amendment, and must go on to the next Amendment on the Paper.


I beg to move, in page 12, line 18, at the end, to add the words: An annual report as to the use made of and results obtained under this Part of the Act shall be rendered to Parliament. 4.0 p.m.

There is much in these proposals which is tentative and experimental, and I think there is a good deal of conflict of opinion as to the ultimate consequences of these retaliatory tariffs. Some hon. Members regard retaliatory tariffs as likely to precipitate economic war, while others think they will be a means of securing a reduction of tariffs in other nations. I believe that the mass of people in this country—I shall be perfectly frank —are anxious that tariffs should be given a trial. Inasmuch as that is so, and as we are all conscious of the fact that we are fighting what is, temporarily no doubt, not a losing battle but a lost battle, it behoves us, I think, in no obstructive sort of way, to make this Bill really workable, and to provide valuable data for governmental action in future. We want simply to resolve the question whether these retaliatory duties are good or bad, and it is a perfectly reasonable request which the Amendment makes, that an annual report as to the use of retaliatory tariffs shall be submitted to the House, because then we shall be not in the realm of doctrinaire theory, but in the realm of facts.


I am obliged to the hon. Member for the very gracious way in which he moved this Amendment, and for the admission which he made that the spirit of the country was one favourable to the trying of tariffs. The hon. Member desires that a report should be laid before Parliament each year as to the results which this Clause has produced. The merits of this Clause are not to be measured by its use, but by its existence. We hold in reserve here the power to defend ourselves from discriminatory action. It is not we who propose to take the discriminatory action, if I may clear up the misconception which appeared to exist under the previous Amendment. It is we who propose to take the power to defend ourselves from discriminatory action taken against us. It is the existence of that power which is of value, and therefore it will not be possible to estimate for the purposes of the report asked for the exact results of this Clause. I hope my hon. Friend will see that when we have this Clause upon the Statute Book, we shall be put in a position to take action which will prevent us from being badly treated by foreign countries. My hon. Friend will realise that a report could not be very voluminous or very satisfactory.


I do not think that the reply of the hon. Member is very convincing. While it may be, as he states, that no information will be available, and that there is nothing to record in an annual report, that is the best thing that could happen, but we are entitled to have a report in a case where discrimination has taken place, so that the House may be in a position to see how it has been dealt with by the Board of Trade, the Treasury, and the appropriate Departments. At Question Time to-day we heard that an hon. Member, who has been one of the most vigorous supporters of the Abnormal Importations Act and of this Bill, and is a strenuous supporter of Customs duties for this country, had suddenly discovered that the place where he happens to live and have his being has been affected by measures taken by a country against goods exported from this country, and he wants the Board of Trade to step in and try to persuade the Government of Holland to allow these goods to go there from the West Riding. Should the Board of Trade take any steps to deal with such a case, that is the sort of thing we want to see on paper, so that we can know exactly how it is dealt with. I shall be glad to know, where discrimination is used, whether it is dealt with in blind fury—


On a point of Order. Does the general question arising out of this report come under an Amendment dealing with the question as to whether there should be an annual report?


I am afraid that I was not listening to the hon. Member. It is quite true that we must not discuss questions arising out of the report.


I understand that, and could you, Sir Dennis, have been at liberty to have listened for a moment or two, I do not think the hon. Member would have taken advantage to raise the point of Order.


Yes, I should.


I never intended to cover the whole range of the subject. What I endeavoured to raise was the question whether, if discrimination took place, we were entitled to know if that discrimination would be dealt with in the annual report, and whether it was dealt with by the blind fury of the President of the Board of Trade or the sweet reasonableness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is information to which we ought to be entitled. I think that the Amendment is a good one. We hope that there will be no occasion which will necessitate a report, but should discrimination take place, and there was retaliatory action under Clause 12, we ought to see what steps have been taken by the Government to deal with such a case.

Amendment negatived.

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


I should like to resume the remaks which I was about to make on an Amendment when I was ruled out of order. We have treaties containing the most-favoured-nation-Clause with every important country in the world with the exception, I think, of France. As long as we are bound by those treaties, we cannot use Clause 12, as I understand it, except in respect of France. The question therefore arises whether His Majesty's Government are going in due course—if they do not answer me to-day, I shall understand why—to take steps to denounce the existing commercial treaties with a view to their replacement by treaties containing a, most-favoured-nation Clause of a. character which will make it possible for this country to use the powers given in this Clause. I hope that they will come to a favourable decision, because I do not think we can do what is necessary as long as we are bound as we are to-day. In the meantime, we are not bound so far as France is concerned. France, it appears to me, has been discriminating against us, and that discrimination has not been retaliation for anything we have done. I think I am correct in saying that their discriminatory action against us took place at least two or three days before the first Order was made under the Abnormal Importations Act, and therefore in no sense was it retaliation against us, although many people suggested that it was.

If they discriminate against us not only by duties but also by prohibition, and if this Clause becomes law, I hope that, in the most friendly way, we shall point out to the Government of France that we have an Act containing this Section, and I do not see why its use should lead to any unfriendliness. They would know exactly where they are. It is part of the rules of the game, and in the future they would be less inclined to discriminate against us than in the past. I hope that the Government will be perfectly willing to use the instrument which, I am sure, this Committee will give it very cheerfully. No Clause meets with more general approval in this House than this Clause. Even the hosts on my right appear to approve of this Clause, however much they may be against the rest of the Bill, with the exception of one hon. Member from Edinburgh. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to say what use he intends to make of the powers we are so generously giving him.


If anything were required to show why we should oppose this Clause, it is the exposition of the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee. He is the embodiment of the war spirit. He wants to go in for a good old tariff war. I like his idea of what is friendly interchange of talk with other people! His idea is to go up to somebody and say, "Look here, I am going to bash you in the eye in a minute."


I merely suggested that if a gentleman has bashed me in the eye, I am entitled to retaliate.


The hon. Member is not limiting it to that. He wants to say that if any country in the world should offend him he is going to bash it in the eye. The hon. Member cannot see himself, but if he had had a looking-glass in front of him, he would have realised that his words were heightened by the way he delivered them. We shall certainly vote against the Clause.


Will the President of the Board of Trade tell me what is the position with regard to a country which attacks our trade by means of a subsidy or bonus on exportation? The House will remember that in 1929–30 there was considerable activity on the Continent in the way of this bonus or subsidy on exports which damaged our agricultural industry to a considerable extent. In May, 1930, Germany was subsidising her exports of oats by 4s. 6d. a cwt., and France at a similar time was subsidizing her exports of wheat by 4s. a cwt. I believe that economic warfare carried on in the future will be not only by the imposition of duties against this country, but by a hostile discrimination against this country by means of these subsidies on exports, and I would be very grateful if the President of the Board of Trade would tell me, first of all, whether this bonus or subsidy is covered by this Clause, and, if not, whether before the Report stage he will so amend the Clause as to provide against this discrimination.

I and some of my hon. Friends have an Amendment on the Order Paper which was not called, but even if it had been called, I appreciate that it would have made nonsense, and I apologise for the incomplete nature of that Amendment. In order to provide for this case, there would have to be an entire re-shaping of the whole Clause, but I do urge upon the President of the Board of Trade the importance of this question of subsidy or bonus on exports, especially to our agricultural industry. We want to provide a defence against economic warfare, and we do not want suddenly to find that this country has no trench helmets to protect itself against shrapnel.


I should like the Minister also to consider the matter which has just been raised by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and also the attitude of France in her Colonial Empire. In West Africa, Algiers, Madagascar and other places in the French Colonial Empire there exists what amounts to a prohibition of British goods. This is a very great disadvantage to British traders in that part of the world. There is a great contrast in the treatment of French goods going into our Colonial Empire and British goods going into the French Colonial Empire. I should like to be allowed to mention one way in which they discriminate against British goods: When a British house has a branch office in any of those parts of the French Colonial Empire, employment is given solely with a view to discriminating against British trade. When the Minister is considering the case which was put before him just now by the hon Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), I hope he will take into consideration the question of the French Colonial Empire also.


I will very briefly reply to the points which have been raised. In the first place, referring to the export subsidies which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) described to the Committee: he will observe that this Clause is a discriminatory Clause. It is only to be put into operation where there is discrimination against this country. The subsidies which the hon. Gentleman has in mind are not subsidies which are used for discriminatory purposes against this country alone; they are subsidies which are given in respect of the whole of the export; for instance, of oats from Germany. That does not apply only to this country, but to the general export trade from Germany. It would not therefore arise within the limits of this Clause as there would be no discrimination that would justify action. I do not know of any subsidy which is given upon exports which does discriminate. That is not the way in which a country desirous of offensive action would ever think of proceeding, as it is a most expensive and the least effective way, and there has not been a single instance of discriminatory action of that kind against our trade that I am aware of.

The kind of thing that might arise is the working of a quota system which may operate unfairly against this country peculiarly, or it may be by twisting most-favoured-nation treatment. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman—I know it is so in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams)—has many instances in his mind of most-favoured-nation treatment not being given to us, not by the definite withholding of what is called most-favoured-nation treatment, but by giving in the schedules of their treaty arrangements with other countries things which to us are perfectly immaterial, and working the most-favoured-nation treatment so as actually to give benefits in some direction which are withheld from us owing to the selection of articles. That sort of thing is difficult to deal with, and unless it were flagrant it would not be possible to take the necessary action.

The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) of discrimination against the person is not one which we had in mind in drafting the Bill. It is clear that if there were a case of discrimination against the nationals of this country and it were a case of withholding from them the right to trade, that would come very near to an infringement of most-favoured-nation treatment and we should have to consider the case as and when it arose. The great advantage of this Clause will be the fact that it exists, and that will be even more effective than it being put into use. I hope it will never be necessary. If it is not necessary to use it, then we shall know that we are receiving fair treatment all over the world. If it does become necessary, we must take action very promptly, and the provisions of this Clause will enable us so to act. I hope the mere fact that it is in existence and that for the first time we have a weapon of this kind in modern times, will be a sufficient deterrent.


If there were a discriminatory subsidy on exports, would there be power in this Clause, or not, to act against a foreign country? I appreciate that Germany did not use discrimination against our exports, but I was rather looking into the future.


If the discrimination were to the detriment of this country and actually did damage, we should certainly take it into account, but that has not arisen on any of the subsidies which have been given abroad.


Suppose that a subsidy is being given by a foreign country on an article, of which 90 or 95 per cent,, or perhaps the whole of the export of the goods comes to this country; would that be considered as coming within the meaning of this Clause?


I doubt very much whether it would be necessary, and

it would not come within the meaning of this Clause. I think it would be sufficient to put up the tariff to whatever extent we thought expedient.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 337; Noes, 47.

Division No 81.] AYES. [4.21 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Conant, R. J. E. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Cook, Thomas A. Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles Cooke, James D. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Albery, Irving James Cooper, A. Duff Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Copeland, Ida Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Craven-Ellis, William Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hillman, Dr. George B.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Crooke, J. Smedley Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Cross, R. H. Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth,Sutton) Crossley, A. C. Hornby, Frank
Atholl, Duchess of Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Horobin, Ian M.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Dalkeith, Earl of Horsbrugh, Florence
Balniel, Lord Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Denman, Hon. R. D. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Denville, Alfred Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Dickie, John P. Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Donner, P. W. Hurd, Percy A.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Doran, Edward Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Bernays, Robert Dower, Captain A. V. G. Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Drewe, Cedric Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) Duckworth, George A. V. Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Blaker, Sir Reginald Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Boothby, Robert John Graham Duggan, Hubert John Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Borodale, Viscount. Duncan, James A. L, (Kensington, N.) Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Bossom, A. C. Dunglass, Lord Ker, J, Campbell
Boulton, W. W. Eady, George H. Kerr, Hamilton W.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Eden, Robert Anthony Kimball, Lawrence
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Edge, Sir William Kirkpatrick, William M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Boyce, H. Leslie Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Knebworth, Viscount
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Elliston, Captain George Sampson Knight, Holford
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Elmley, Viscount Knox, Sir Alfred
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Emrys-Evans, P. V, Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Everard, W. Lindsay Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Falle, Sir Bertram G. Leckie, J. A.
Browne, Captain A. C. Fermoy, Lord Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Buchan, John Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Levy, Thomas
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lewis, Oswald
Burghley, Lord Fuller, Captain A. G. Liddall, Walter S.
Burnett, John George Ganzoni, Sir John Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Gibson, Charles Granville Lloyd, Geoffrey
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Gillett, Sir George Masterman Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Caine, G. R. Hall- Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Gluckstein, Louis Halle Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Campbell, Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley) Goff, Sir Park Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Goldie, Noel B. Mabane, William
Carver, Major William H. Goodman, Colonel Albert W. MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Castlereagh, Viscount Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Castle Stewart, Earl Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas McConnell, Sir Joseph
Cautley, Sir Henry S, Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) McEwen, J. H. F.
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Grimston, R. V. McKie, John Hamilton
Chalmers, John Rutherford Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W) Gunston, Captain D. W. McLean, Major Alan
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) Guy, J. C. Morrison McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Chotzner, Alfred James Hamilton, Sir George (Word) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Christle, James Archibald Hamilton, Sir R, W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Magnay, Thomas
Clarke, Frank Hammersley, Samuel S. Maitland, Adam
Clarry, Reginald George Hanbury, Cecil Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Clayton, Dr. George C. Hanley, Dennis A. Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Clydesdale, Marquess of Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Colfox, Major William Philip Hartington, Marquess of Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Colville, Major David John Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Marsden, Commander Arthur
Martin, Thomas B. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Storey, Samuel
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Reid, David D, (County Down) Strauss, Edward A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Millar, Sir James Duncan Remer, John R, Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray T.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Renwick, Major Gustav A. Sutcliffe, Harold
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip Tate, Mavis Constance
Milne, Charles Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Templeton, William P.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Rosbotham, S. T. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Rothschild, James A. de Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Moreing, Adrian C. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Morgan, Robert H. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Runge, Norah Cecil Train, John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Moss, Captain H. J. Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside) Turton, Robert Hugh
Muirhead, Major A. J. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Munro, Patrick Salmon, Major Isidore Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Salt, Edward W. Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild Savery, Samuel Servington Waterhouse, Captain Charles
North, Captain Edward T. Scone, Lord Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Nunn, William Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Oman, Sir Charles William C. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Wells, Sydney Richard
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. Weymouth, Viscount
Palmer, Francis Noel Simmonds, Oliver Edwin Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Patrick, Colin M. Sinclair, Col. T, (Queen's Unv., Belfast) Whyte, Jardine Bell
Pearson, William G. Skelton, Archibald Noel Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Peat, Charles U. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Perkins, Walter R. D. Smith, H. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John Smithers, Waldron Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Petherick, M. Somerset, Thomas Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Somervell, Donald Bradley Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Powell, Lieut.-Col, Evelyn G. H. Soper, Richard Womersley, Walter James
Pownall, Sir Assheton Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Procter, Major Henry Adam Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Purbrick, R. Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Spencer, Captain Richard A. Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland) Sir George Penny and Sir Victor
Ramsden, E. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Warrender.
Rankin, Robert Stones, James
Attlee, Clement Richard Harris, Sir Percy Nathan, Major H. L.
Batey, Joseph Hirst, George Henry Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George John, William Pickering, Ernest H.
Cape, Thomas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Price, Gabriel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Daggar, George Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Thorne, William James
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Leonard, William Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Edwards, Charles Logan, David Gilbert Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Lunn, William White, Henry Graham
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) McEntee, Valentine L. Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) McGovern, John
Grundy, Thomas W. Mander, Geoffrey le M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Mr. Groves and Mr. Duncan Graham.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maxton, James

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.