HC Deb 16 May 1933 vol 278 cc269-82

7.40 p.m.


I beg to move, That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 2) Order, 1933 dated the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved. This Motion deals with a purely technical matter. The House will recall that, under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, the Treasury were empowered to levy on all or any imports from the Irish Free State duties up to 100 per cent. ad valorem, or their appropriate specific equivalent. The Treasury were further empowered to vary the Orders when once made. Under this power, two Orders were made in 1932. The first imposed duties of 20 per cent. ad valorem, and the second increased those duties from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. on animals for food and animals not for food. I hope the House will bear in mind the distinction between animals for food and animals not for food. On the 13th April, the first Order of this year was made, and it converted the 40 per cent. duties on live cattle for food into specific duties. The Order referred to in this Motion reaffirms that conversion, and adds dairy and breeding cattle, and also sheep and lambs at appropriate specific rates; so that now all animals, whether for food or not, are covered. In view of the comprehensive nature of this Order, which, as I say, includes all animals, whether for food or not, it will not be necessary to ask the House to approve of the first Order, for in this Order all the provisions with regard to cattle are consolidated.

The passage of this Order will relieve the Customs authorities of the duty of scrutinising every transaction in order to ascertain its value, and will relieve importers of the necessity of making deposits pending the Customs inquiry. There is advantage, therefore, both for the Customs authorities and for the importer. The Treasury does not gain in revenue by the conversion from an ad valorem duty to a specific duty. The duty is kept at what is approximately the equivalent rate.


Does that apply to race horses?


Yes, it applies to all animals, whether for food or not.


What would the duty be on a racehorse?


The duty on "other animals" is 40 per cent. ad valorem, as specified in the Order. In the case of a racehorse it would be necessary to ascertain its value. If its value were wrongly declared proper proceedings would be taken.

7.47 p.m.


I submit that the Government are not treating the House fairly in this Order. This is a new Order. It is the third Order we have had. In July last, after the Irish Free State defaulted in payment of the land annuities, we had the first Order, which imposed a 20 per cent. duty ad valorem. In November we had another White Paper similar to this, and a new Order which increased the duty to 40 per cent. ad valorem. To-day we have the duties varied and another form. I cannot help feeling, from what has been said by the Financial Secretary on each occasion when we have discussed this matter before, that there is a purpose in this Order. Yesterday I put a question to the Financial Secretary and She gave me this answer: The sums withheld by the Irish Free State Government amounted to £1,750,000 by the 15th July, 1932, when the Special Duties came into force. The sums withheld between that date and the present time amount to £3,200,000. The revenue collected up to the 6th May in respect of the duties imposed under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, and the Import Duties Act, 1932, on goods imported into the United Kingdom from the Irish Free State was approximately £2,891,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1933; cols. 30 and 31, Vol. 278.] So that we are "down" in the receipts from these duties by something like £2,000,000.


£400,000 from the date of the first imposition.


From the figures here it seems that we have to find nearly £2,000,000, and I want to know who is to find the money. The declaration has been made time and again by the Secretary of State for the Dominions that the British taxpayer would not be asked to pay a penny.


The hon. Member is now arguing against the import duties. The whole point of the Order is to alter the basis on which the duty should be charged. It does not go beyond that.


If the decision is that there is no intention to secure a greater return from this method of levying the duties, I admit your point, Mr. Speaker, but I have before me the statements made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions with regard to these duties and the duties that have been imposed before, and I could quote those statements to show that the right hon. Gentleman said that the British taxpayer would not be called upon to pay anything. In our opinion it is folly to continue this business, and we can be no parties whatever to it when we know that a settlement could have been reached if the Government had sought it. The Secretary of State has been so clear and definite in his statements that the Government were going to see that this money was obtained from the Free State, that I felt we might debate the Order, as we have debated previous Orders, and prove that this change in the levying of the duties was for the purpose of securing an increased return from them. The other day the Minister of Agriculture in dealing with this matter said that the Irish Free State Government were giving bounties to their people, and that last week more cattle were imported into this country than in the corresponding week when the duties were first imposed. In other words, the Irish people are getting over the duties; they are meeting the situation. We have attack and counter-attack and the people are having to pay. So far as I know it, the Opposition are against this principle in any shape or form. We believe it is economic war and we will be no parties to its continuance.


The only question at issue is whether the duty shall be 40 per cent, ad valorem or shall be so much per head. If the hon. Member can show that so much a head on an animal is higher than 40 per cent, ad valorem he will be in order.


I think it is the duty of the Financial Secretary and not of myself to answer that question. He ought to be able to say whether 40 per cent, is going to give us an amount equal to the fixed amount laid down here.


I said so most categorically and I say it again.

7.53 p.m.


I rise with considerable trepidation to debate this matter after the Ruling that has been given. I have in my hand the White Paper which the Treasury has issued in support of the request that the House shall pass this new Order. I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, have had an opportunity of studying it with the same care as I have devoted to it. This White Paper recites the whole story from the beginning of this unsuccessful effort on the part of the British Government to collect certain debts from the Irish Government to individuals in this country for whom the Government feel that they have a certain measure of responsibility. Would I not be in order, in discussing this Order, to mention matters that are referred to in the recital of events in this White Paper?


It is true that there is a considerable Preamble to this Order. Sub-section (2) of Paragraph I raises the only point at issue.


Do I understand that it has now become impossible at any stage for the House to question the wisdom of the Government's policy in dealing with this particular Irish problem? Am I to understand that from month to month and week to week the Government may continue adjusting the handling of this Irish question? The Financial Secretary tells us that this is only a technical matter and that it relieves everyone concerned from a whole lot of difficulties. I proposed to deal with that point. Do I understand that the House is absolutely helpless, and that we cannot protest against the extension of what we believe to be a wrong policy?


I shall certainly not give a Ruling of that kind, because when the proper opportunity arises the hon. Member can move what he likes in connection with the whole system. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that I cannot allow discussion on particular Orders, on some question that is not in those Orders. The only question that can be discussed now is what is contained in the particular Order before the House. That is all I am ruling.


I am bound to accept that Ruling, which I take it is the same Ruling as you would give with respect to any one of the Orders brought forward by the Import Duties Advisory Committee for discussion to-night.


The only thing to be discussed is that which is in this particular Order.


And there can be no reference to the general policy involved? That puts me under a considerable handicap. The point at issue, I understand, is simply that certain difficulties have arisen in the handling of this business, apart from the failure to collect the total amount desired. The Treasury has decided that it would be more convenient for everyone concerned, exporter from Ireland and importer here, if a fixed figure were now placed in the Order instead of a percentage figure. It may be clear to the ordinary person, but it is not clear to me precisely what is being done when we find in Sub-section (2) of Paragraph 1 of the Order these words: Provided that in any case where a duty chargeable on cattle, sheep or lambs under the said Schedule as so amended would exceed the value thereof, the said Schedule shall have effect as if there were substituted for that a duty of 100 per cent, of the value thereof. This House origiNaily granted the Dominions Secretary and the Treasury power to impose a 20 per cent, charge on goods imported from Ireland as a means of collecting a debt. Then, a month or two ago, we gave them power to increase that duty to 40 per cent., because 20 per cent, was not sufficient to raise the sum that we desired to get. Now I find this paragraph, which raises the 40 per cent, to 100 per cent. I know that that is limited by the fact that in the Schedule referred to definite figures are put down, but what is the purpose of putting it in at all? It means that, although the Financial Secretary to the Treasury assures us that this does not bring any more into the Treasury, it was impossible to lay down this Schedule of precise figures with the old 40 per cent, limitation, and that in order that they could produce this Schedule, the 40 per cent, upward limit had to be increased to a 100 per cent, upward limit. I am afraid that I do not know enough about the current prices of livestock and the differences in ages— 2 years old and upwards being cattle known as mIncers"— I am afraid I am not sufficiently well up in the affairs of livestock to know the value of a mIncer. This is a subject on which we know, Mr. Speaker, that you have very special knowledge, and perhaps you might come to our aid on the technicalities, but I do not know the basic value of the "under 6 months old," I do not know the market value of the "6 months old but under 15 months old." I do not know the value of the mIncers or the non-mIncers at all, but I am driven to conclude, from the fact that it has been necessary to raise the 40 per cent, limit to 100 per cent, to accommodate the Treasury, that these rates in the Schedule represent a tax of somewhere between 40 and 100 per cent. The Financial Secretary says it is only technical, but actually we are giving the Government a third instalment of an increase—first 20 per cent., then 40 per cent., and now an unspecified figure, but in certain cases somewhere between 40 and 100 per cent.

I cannot see why, if the amount it increased, assuming that the volume of trade remains comparable to what it is, an additional amount will not come into the Treasury. We are giving in this Order power to increase the figure to 100 per cent., and I can understand how, some night late, when we are all thinking about getting home, a simple Motion might appear on the Order Paper that the figures in Schedule so-and-so, of Command Paper so-and-so, should be altered to so-and-so, and we should look at it and say: "That is £2 10s., instead of 35s. I wonder what that means, but, after all, it does not matter, because the Minister says it is only technical, so we will all go home:" That is what we shall have done in two steps, the step we are taking tonight and the next one, each of them very trivial and not worth worrying about separately, but combined giving the Dominions Office and the Treasury the right to impose 100 per cent, tariffs on Irish agricultural products and livestock.

I wan to take up the Financial Secretary on his statement that this got rid of all the trouble of declaring values, either by the importer or the exporter. As a matter of fact, it starts a whole lot of new technical difficulties, on which already I have had representations from the importers interested in the West of Scotland. There is the technical problem now arising as to what age an animal is, and a whole herd has got to be held up at the wharves in Glasgow while, a veterinary surgeon goes round and weighs up whether the animal under observation is five months and three weeks or six months and one week old. I am sorry that Mr. Speaker has left the Chair, as I think he could have told us, but there are men who can give an expert look at the horns and hooves and say that the answer is two, three or four, as the case may be. I understand there are ways of doing it, but I am perfectly certain that it will be tremendously difficult, as we know it is in a whole lot of other branches of legislation, for even the greatest expert to deal with a marginal case. One can imagine the case of a "6 months old" [An HON. MEMBER: "Or a mIncer."]—1 am not afraid to face the mIncer. One can imagine a cow just leaving Ireland on its second birthday, being delayed by storms, as has occurred before, and, before it is landed on the docks of Glasgow, being two years and one week old. Does it come into the £3 category or the £6 category? There is a substantial difference.

I have put it jocularly, but the people concerned in Glasgow have already written to me and said that, if there were delays before, the delays involved in weighing up the ages and categories of cattle arriving at the docks at Glasgow, with veterinary surgeons experienced in this particular branch of work engaged in prolonged examinations, will be far greater, and there will also be greater annoyances to the persons in this country who are engaged in a perfectly legitimate trade than were involved in the procedure that has been adopted up till now. Therefore, for these reasons, in addition to the other one, that I regard the whole policy towards Ireland on this matter as having been a profound mistake from the general political point of view and as having been proved from month to month to be a profound failure from the practical point of view; and having regard to the fact that this nation is making great protestations about tariff truces and about going into the World Economic Conference, so that we can harmonise the trade interests of the world—and this represents a very serious blot on our own escutcheon, that any nation gathered at the London Conference would be entitled to point out—for all these reasons, I propose to cast my vote against the acceptance of this Order by the House.

8.11 p.m.


I entirely agree with the last speaker that this is not a trivial matter to be thrust aside as merely a formality. On the advice of the Secretary of State for the Dominions we deliberately imposed tariffs in a particular form, and now we are asked to vary them. We are solemnly informed that, after experience, the method adopted of levying the tariffs ad valorem is inconvenient and has failed. What does this new procedure indicate? I cannot help feeling that it suggests that these new duties are no longer to be regarded as temporary, but that they are likely to last for a very long period. That is a very serious side of it, and I think we are entitled to have the Minister of Agriculture here to explain the significance of this proposal, because the agricultural industry is very seriously affected. I am informed by an hon. Member opposite that his constituency is adversely affected, and the agricultural interests are much concerned in the West of Scotland and Birkenhead, where there is a large number of people employed in handling Irish cattle and sending them to the Midlands for the fattening industry.

I do not think we should lightly, without information, but merely on the statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this new method is more convenient and likely to bring in more revenue, pass this stage over. I know the Customs officials have had some ex- perience, but I think the interests of the industry at the ports here and in the West of Scotland, and in the Midlands of this country, should have a little more enlightenment on how this proposal will affect them. I am concerned mainly, however, with the sinister fact that apparently now the Government are calmly going to sit down for the next two or three years in using this new procedure for raising revenue. Where we had temporary duties of a crude character and some sort of rough machinery for collecting revenue, it is now suggested that a new attempt should be made at a scientific tariff on agricultural produce and cattle from Ireland. It is apparently very carefully thought out, indicating that the Government now regard these duties as part of the permanent tariff system of this country, and they are providing permanent machinery for collecting revenue from Ireland in lieu of the annuities that were due to us. I have always recognised the justice of our claim. I have always felt that it is unfortunate that we should have this crude machinery of retaliation.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

I do not think the hon. Baronet was present earlier when Mr. Speaker ruled that we cannot go into the merits of the original Order.


I will not pursue the subject except to say that the recognition that it is necessary to introduce a new scientific system by the change over from one form of duty to another is an admission that the duties are to be permanent and not temporary.

8.16 p.m.


The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Order is for greater advantage and convenience. It will certainly not mean any convenience or advantage to the traders of Birkenhead, because you are putting a duty per Captta on the cattle instead of a duty on weight. The result is that a much lighter weight of cattle is used in the North of England than in the South. It follows that the North of England is going to pay exactly the same tax on light weight beasts as other parts of the country will pay on heavy weight beasts. That will mean that more money is to be spent in tax per lb. butchered in the North than in the South. This seems unfair discrimination which is not understood by the traders in Birkenhead. I hope the Government will clear up that point. I should also like to know whether it is going to have a result upon store cattle. If you buy light-weight cattle from Ireland and pay the same duty as on heavy cattle, store cattle will be fattened in Ireland instead of in England.

8.17 p.m.


It does not seem to us that we have had any adequate explanation of the reason for making this change. [Interruption.] I heard what it was. I came in directly I saw the hon. Gentleman's name up, but he had finished speaking. I understand he said this will make no difference to the charge of duty. It is a mere convenience and a rearrangement. But I see in the new Schedule that live sheep and lambs will both be charged at 12s. per head. It is not suggested that the price of sheep and lambs is the same. Obviously, they fetch different prices, sheep being more valuable than lambs. Therefore, this must be an alteration of taxation as regards sheep and Iambs. If the hon. Gentleman says that in the aggregate it will produce the same amount to the Treasury, that does not mean to say that the tax will not be increased above the 40 per cent. to which it has hitherto been limited and, indeed, it is apparent from the words of the proviso that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) read out, that provision has been made for that by putting in a limit of 100 per cent. So that the effect of this in a number of cases will be to increase the tax from 40 per cent. to some undefinable figure which is higher. We object to that increased taxation upon Irish beasts on the same grounds that we objected to the original taxation. We do not believe that this is the proper method, and these increased taxes which must inevitably be charged under the Schedule owing to the way in which it has been recommended and arranged are just as bad as the original taxes.

We deplore the theory that sooner or later we shall come to an arrangement with Ireland by means of increasing taxation because we believe that that is exactly contrary to the fact, and that the time has now come when increases of taxation such as are here mentioned should be stopped. We have had a rise from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent, and now up to these ad valorem figures, which in some instances are much above 40 per cent., and we believe that every step that is taken up that staircase of rising taxation is inimical to the future of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I understand that President Roosevelt has to-night sent out a personal appeal to the heads of 44 great Governments of the world asking them particularly to do all that they can to make the World Economic Conference a success and to ease the difficulties of world trade. It seems to us that the imposition of these specific duties in the place of ad valorem, duties is making it more difficult for trade to be carried on between this country and Ireland and that that increased difficulty is exactly contrary to what the Government should be doing, especially in view of the fact that the World Economic Conference is about to open.


Not in the case of Ireland.


The hon. Member thinks that Ireland should be kept out of the World Economic Conference, but I understand that she is attending the World Economic Conference, and an invitation has been sent to her by this Government to attend it, and she is, as far as I know, still within the British Commonwealth of Nations.


Not in spirit.


Surely the time has come when, whatever the history of the past may be, a Sincere effort should be made to meet the Irish people so as to come to some agreement upon all the matters that are outstanding between us. Probably every one feels that it would be far better if we could come to some arrangement of that sort.


Let them start.


I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has been led away by the interruption further than he intended.


I was speaking on the point that this specific duty in my view makes it more difficult to trade between Ireland and England, and I am putting it that this increase of difficulty of trading between the two countries is merely another step in the progressive increase in difficulties which we have witnessed ever Since the difficulties with Ireland first started. We certainly oppose any Order of this sort, and we desire to register our dissent from the policy of the Government, which seems to be not to enter into conciliation with the Irish people but rather to continue the economic warfare, which we believe is and can be no solution of the difficulty and which we feel must prejudice the position both of this country and of Ireland at the World Economic Conference.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 223: Noes, 40.

Division No. 175.] AYES. [8.25 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Crossley, A. C.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Eurghley, Lord Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M. Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Burnett, John George Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Calne. G. R. Hall- Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Apsley, Lord Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Denman, Hon. R. D.
Aske, Sir Robert William Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Dickie, John P.
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Catsels, James Date Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cautley, Sir Henry S. Edge, Sir William
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric Elmley, Viscount
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Christie, James Archibald Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Clayton. Dr. George C. Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Conant, R. J. E. Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Cook, Thomas A. Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Bernays, Robert Cooke, Douglas Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Cooper, A. Duff Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Blaker, Sir Reginald Copeland, Ida Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Blindell, James Courtauld, Major John Sewell Fuller, Captain A. G.
Boulton, W. W. Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Ganzoni, Sir John
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Crooke, J. Smedley Gault, Lieut, Col. A. Hamilton
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Gibson, Charles Granville
Broadbent, Colonel John Croom-Johnson, R. P. Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Cross, R. H. Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Mabane, William Rutherford. John (Edmonton)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) MacDonald, Malcolm (Balsetlaw) Salt, Edward W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas McKie, John Hamilton Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwin)
Greene. William P. C. McLean, Major Sir Alan Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Grimston, R. V. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Gritten, W. G. Howard Marsden, Commander Arthur Scone, Lord
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Martin, Thomas B. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Guy, J. C. Morrison Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Shute, Colonel J. J.
Hammersley, Samuel S. Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Hanbury, Cecil Morgan, Robert H. Skelton, Archibald Noel
Hanley, Dennis A. Morrison, William Shepherd Slater, John
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Moss, Captain H. J. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Harbord, Arthur Muirhead, Major A. J. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Hartland, George A. Nail, Sir Joseph Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Soper, Richard
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Normand, Wilfrid Guild Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Henderson, sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) Nunn, William Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller O'Connor, Terence James Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Hore-Belisha, Lesile O'Donovan, Dr. William James Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Hornby, Frank Oman, Sir Charles William C. Stevenson, James
Horsbrugh, Florence Ormiston, Thomas Strauss, Edward A.
Howard, Tom Forrest Palmer, Francis Noel Strickland, Captain W. F.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Peat, Charles U. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Penny, Sir George Sutcliffe, Harold
Hume, Sir George Hopwood Perkins, Walter R. D. Tate, Mavis Constance
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Peters, Dr. Sidney John Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Petherick, M. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Pike, Cecil F. Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Turton, Robert Hugh
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Power, Sir John Cecil Wallace, John (DunferMilne)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) PowNail, Sir Assheton Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Kerr, Hamilton W. Ramsbotham, Herwald Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Rankin, Robert Wells. Sydney Richard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Held, David D. (County Down) White, Henry Graham
Law, Sir Alfred Reid, William Allan (Derby) Whyte, Jardine Bell
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Remer, John R. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Leech, Dr. J. W. Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Robinson, John Roland Withers, Sir John James
Levy, Thomas Ropner, Colonel L. Womersley, Walter James
Liddall, Walter S. Rosbotham, Sir Samuel Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Lindsay, Noel Ker Ross, Ronald D.
Llewellin, Major John J. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Sir Victor Warrender and Dr.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu Runge, Norah Cecil Morris-Jones.
Banfield, John William Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Owen, Major Goronwy
Batey, Joseph Harris, Sir Percy Price, Gabriel
Briant, Frank Hirst, George Henry Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) John, William Salter, Dr. Alfred
Buchanan, George. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cape, Thomas Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Daggar, George Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Lunn, William Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, Charles McEntee, Valentine L.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) McGovern, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D.
Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan), Maxton, James Graham.
Grundy, Thomas W. Milner, Major James


"That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 2) Order, 1933, dated the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved."