HC Deb 31 March 1936 vol 310 cc1862-77

5.10 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "in Great Britain."

This Amendment has to be read in conjunction with a later Amendment, in Clause 22, to insert "Scotland or." The effect of the two Amendments taken together is to omit Scotland from the scope of the Bill. When the Bill was in Committee and the question of the inclusion of Scotland in the Bill was under consideration, the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill was asked whether he could say that the owners of the Scottish spindles were in favour of inclusion in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman did not answer that question. The question which he did answer was quite a different one. He answered that the Scottish mill owners were included with the English owners in the ballot, and that when he was giving the figures with regard to the result of the ballot, the Scottish opinion was included for the whole country with the English opinion. I suggest that that was really evading the issue, and I have been asked to-day by a firm of cotton spinners in Musselburgh, in my constituency of East Edinburgh, to move for the omission of Scotland from the Bill. Not only have I been asked by that firm, but I have been asked by the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce also to take that line.

Why did the right hon. Gentleman evade the issue of whether Scotland was or was not in favour of this proposal? The answer, of course, is, as might be expected by the House, that he could not say that Scotland was in favour of inclusion in the Bill, because of the facts which I will now proceed to discover. Something like 100 years ago there were about 100 cotton spinning mills in Scotland, according to my information, but in the course of the last 100 years they have come down until at the present time there are only about seven cotton spinning mills in Scotland. One of those mills is a subsidiary of an English company, and another is owned by a company which also has mills in England. That leaves five purely Scottish mills, and I am informed that those remaining five are unanimously opposed to the inclusion of Scotland in this Measure. They have very good reasons for taking that view. In the first place, those owners who own mills in England as well as in Scotland are quite likely, if this Bill be carried into law, to close down their Scottish mills and to keep open and running their English mills.

But, apart from that question, what are the facts? This Bill is designed to deal with redundant spindles. My information is that there are no redundant spindles in Scotland. It seems to us obviously unjust and unfair that a proposal should be made to impose a tax upon Scottish mills because of the over-capitalisation of the mills in Lancashire. It is unjustifiable, bemuse of the uneconomic action of the mill owners of England and of the over-development in Lancashire. We see no reason whatever why the burden should be put upon the cotton spinning industry of Scotland. The bulk of the cotton spinning in Scotland is carried out in Scottish factories which both spin and weave, and use the yarn. The Scottish manufacturers, who spin the yarn, which they use in their own factories, at present compete upon level terms with the English manufacturers. Cotton can be imported directly into Scotland by direct steamers from America, Egypt, India and other places,' and be as cheaply imported as into England. It can be spun as cheaply in Scotland as in England, but if Scotland is included within the scope of the Bill, the Scottish manufacturers will be handicapped in various ways. They will become liable to this taxation owing to causes for which they are not in the least responsible. Suppose that a Scottish manufacturer and a user of yarn desire to extend his factories. At the present time he is being supplied by his own spinning, but after the Bill comes into operation this manufacturer will be practically compelled to import yarn from the English spinning mills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Because the provisions of the Bill are opposed to the creation of additional spindles?


Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that Clauses 6 and 15 which deal with this question of spindles are withdrawn from the Bill.


There may be some slight improvement in that respect, but, at the same time, there is a great disadvantage in the Bill as far as it affects the Scottish manufacturers. In these circumstances I am asked by, spinners and by the Chamber of Commerce in Edinburgh to move the exclusion of Scotland from the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts the Scottish position and will ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who sits for the constituency of Leith, he will be told that the Leith Chamber of Commerce also ask for the exclusion of Scotland from the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will pass this Amendment. The points really are, first, the injury to the cotton Spinning industry in Scotland; and, secondly, the injury to the manufacturing industries which employ cotton. If Scotland remains unfairly within the scope of this Measure, the effect will be to confine, injure and limit the cotton trade in Scotland and to favour its increase in England. That ought not to be the action of this House, and the majority of the Members of this House ought not to penalise and injure the industry in Scotland for the benefit of the industry in England. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. If he does not do so, I shall be obliged to take the question to a division, when, I hope, the House will support me in moving the omission of Scotland from this Bill.


I beg to second the Amendment.

5.21 p.m.


The proposal made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) is that there should be a distinction drawn between cotton mills and cotton users in Scotland and those in England. His ground for so suggesting to the House is, that he sees some new hardship to be borne by the spinners of Scotland which is not shared by their compatriots in England. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman obtained his information, but I can assure him that the object of the Bill throughout is to put all spinning mills on the same footing, whether in England or in Scotland. In order that we may ascertain how far that can comply with Scottish opinion we have to take account, of course, of the information which he brings to the House, but he is in this respect giving us information which has already been received from at least one other Chamber of Commerce since the Bill was introduced. It was found in that case that the Chamber itself was not well informed as to the provisions of the Bill, and was certainly misinformed as to the opinion of the cotton spinners. What happened in the case of Glasgow and the West of Scotland may not be identical with what has happened in the East of Scotland, but I can assure him that from the information which we have obtained with regard to the inquiries circulated by those authorities, it was found that certainly well over one-half of the spindles in Scotland were not spindles owned by opponents of this Measure, and that the provisions of the Bill were accepted by some of the principal owners of cotton mills as being fair and reasonable.


Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that these are owners who own spindles in Scotland alone, or are they owners who take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman, those who, in addition to owning spindles in Scotland, own spindles in England?


I have no doubt that some have owned spindles on both sides of the Border, but that is not a reason why they should be treated differently from their compatriots who were on one side alone, either North or South. That makes no difference at all. The whole object of the Bill is, by imposing a levy, to provide the Spindles Board with funds out of which they can make the purchase of redundant spindles. The wiping out of redundant spindles will be a matter for inquiry, whether North or South of the Border. Those who have spindles and do not wish to sell them, need not do so. There is no compulsion. The only compulsion is that which provides for a uniform levy. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that, if that compulsion were not included in the Bill, his friends would at any rate try to keep out of the liability. That is not unusual, and, having some Scottish antecedents myself, I am not unaware of the keenness of that race when they come to bargaining with the Exchequer or with the Spindles Board. The truth is that these undertakings in Scotland which are opposed to the imposition of the levy may be companies or concerns which later on may desire that some of their redundant spindles shall be taken off their hands.

If there were a levy imposed in England and not in Scotland at all, and there was, as we anticipate, some considerable advantage to the spinning sec- tion of the industry as a result of the operation of the Bill, Scotland would get such benefits as might be provided in that way without making her contribution. I do not believe that that is the view of Scotland. I was in some doubt as to what was the view of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, which at one stage, before the Bill had been discussed in Committee, declared that they were not in favour of it. When they communicated with one of my hon. Friends in Committee upstairs, I was confirmed in the view that they had not grasped fully the opinion of their industry in Scotland. I made inquiries myself, and I had the pleasure of meeting the President of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce in Glasgow, and I saw the officials of the chamber. I also met those who represent one of the largest of the cotton spinning companies in Scotland. The result was that a letter was sent by Messrs. J. and P. Coats, who own over one—half of the spindles in Scotland, to the Chamber of Commerce in Glasgow, in which they said: With reference to the copy of your letter of February lath, addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, we desire to dissociate ourselves from the opinion attributed to the spinners in Scotland and wish to define our attitude, which is, that we are buyers of yarn and not sellers, and, taking a long view of the welfare of the industry as a whole, have no objection to the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill. We should be glad if you could send a copy of this letter to the President of the Board of Trade.


That is one of the two firms to which I referred.


I do not know whether this is one of the firms in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, but it is certain that they control over one-half of the spindles of Scotland, and it would be preposterous to say that there was a majority of spindles in Scotland in favour of the view which the hon. Gentleman has enunciated this afternoon. In the circumstances in which we are to operate on a national basis we cannot draw any distinction between the industry on the North and the South of the Border, and therefore we are unable to accept the Amendment.

5.29 p.m.


I am glad that my right hon. Friend is resisting the Amendment.

Although I still dislike the Bill to a considerable extent, if the Measure is to go through everybody ought to be in it. I regret that Mr. Speaker has not called another Amendment dealing with the question of the ballot. There is a great difference of opinion as to how many spindles there are in the United Kingdom. They cannot be ascertained, for the reason that Messrs. J. and P. Coats, to whom the right hen. Gentleman has referred, are not members of the Master Cotton Spinners' Association and have refused consistently to give any information to them. If I may keep within the bounds of order, may I suggest that if between now and the Report stage there could be inserted in mother place something in the Bill which would find out what really are the views of all the companies concerned, it would be to our advantage.

5.30 p.m.


I supported this Amendment in Committee, and I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given to-day by the President of the Board of Trade. He tells us that the great firms are in favour of the Bill. My information is that those who are supporting the Bill are the great monopolists, the great combines, who desire to stamp out the little men.


There is not a word of truth in that statement.


The Parliamentary Secretary says that there is not a word of truth in that statement. Is it not curious that on every occasion in Committee it was explained to us that the great combines were all in favour of the Bill and that the opponents were the small firms. That statement is true. Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot support his argument that there is not a word of truth in my statement. My statement is in line with the facts. This is an age whey everyone seems to think it wise to form trusts and combines. I was brought up in an age of free competition and was taught to regard that as more desirable, and I still think that it is. That is largely why I have been somewhat critical of the Bill. I do not see why we should not try an experiment. Let Lancashire have the Bill and let Scotland do without it.

Scotland as a spinning area is not very large; at any rate not so large that it would wreck the English scheme, assuming that the scheme is a good one. We should then have an opportunity of seeing the two schemes in operation simultaneously, one in a part of the world where perfect freedom would exist and where no money would be spent in buying up spindles and where no levy would be imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) says that if spindles are to be bought out, let the Scotsmen pay their share. It is suggested that the levy would not be so great if there is to be no purchase of spindles in Scotland. The English levy would deal with the purchase of the English spindles and there would be no Scottish levy with which to buy Scottish spindles. Therefore, I doubt whether the levy of Lancashire, Yorkshire and Cheshire would be any the greater if Scotland were left out.


There are very few spindles in Scotland.


Yes, but there are sufficient to enable one to carry out an experiment which may be worth while, in order to see whether free enterprise or organised trustification is the best. Here is a chance to try it. The President of the Board of Trade is for trustification, more or less. The underlying principle of it is in the Bill, and it will be very easy later on to build on it and to apply more coercion. This is only the beginning of coercion. I should like to see the system of freedom in Scotland, and the system of tyranny tried in Lancashire, if they want it. For that reason I support the Amendment.

5.35 p.m.


I support the Amendment on the ground that there is a difference between the position in Lancashire and the position in Scotland. The President of the Board of Trade has made great play with the point that Messrs. J. & P. Coats own more than half the spindles in Scotland, and they are in favour of the Bill. They also own, or partly own, certain spindles in Lancashire. J. & P. Coats use all the yarn that they manufacture themselves in Scotland, and I understand that there are no surplus spindles in Scotland. Therefore, there is no problem for Scotland, and if we are going to impose the levy on Scotland, Scotland will be penalised. It is no small amount of levy that we are going to impose. I understand that, roughly, the amount that they would have to pay would be £480 for 100,000 spindles per year, and they would get no return. If J. & P. Coats pay the levy and support the Bill they may be able to get rid of some of the spindles they have in Lancashire. Perhaps they will be able to bring the monopoly to Scotland and have some mills built there under their own direct control.

It is admitted that this problem of spindles is a Lancashire one. I do not think that affairs in Scotland have anything to do with the situation which has arisen in Lancashire. The real trouble has been mainly in Lancashire, due to over-capitalisation and many other things which brought about over-development of the industry in years gone by, and now the people who did that are coming to the Rouse and asking to be extricated from the position that they created for themselves. We ought to accept the Amendment and exclude Scotland and make the people in Lancashire face their own problems with their own finance. Then it would be fair play and there would be fair play for Scotland.

5.38 p.m.


The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Rowson) has referred to the Lancashire cotton spinning troubles as being of their own creation. Those troubles, and he ought to know it, seeing that he lives in Lancashire, are due to the people in the East beginning to supply themselves with cotton goods, with the result that Britain's cotton trade has shrunk to half its normal dimensions. The consumption of cotton goods from Britain is not more than half what it used to be. That has nothing to do with any question of the so-called ramps in 1920–21. The proposal to exclude Scotland from the provisions of the Bill is monstrous. What difference is there from the point of view of industry and the application, say, of import duties, between Scotland and England? There is none. We might as well say that one of our counties, say, Cheshire, should be excluded from the Bill, as to say that Scotland should be excluded.

The purpose of the Bill is to eliminate redundant cotton spinning mills and plant, so enabling the remaining mills to run nearer to 100 per cent. of their capacity, to reduce their cost of production and to have a better chance to make a good show. If either Scotland or an individual county in this country, other than Lancashire, were to be excluded from the operations of the Bill the cotton mills in the excluded areas would have all the benefits arising from the Bill, because the redundant mills would have been cleared away, there would be reduced competition, and they would be able to do much better, without bearing any share of the cost. I am sorry that Northern Ireland has been excluded from the Bill. I do not know why it was excluded and I do not know to what extent there are cotton spinning mills in Northern Ireland. It is a wrong principle that any area which shares in our economic life should be excluded from the Bill. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has definitely indicated that the Government will not accept the Amendment.

5.40 p.m.


I do not know where the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) got his figures when he suggested that the levy would be reduced. It is a fixed levy. It is fixed by the Bill.


Therefore there would be no increase if we leave Scotland out.


That is true, but that is not the point that the hon. Member was making. The point that he was making was that there would be a decrease in the levy.


No. The suggestion was made that if we left Scotland out a new burden would be placed on England. I was merely pointing out that as the Bill stands there cannot be any increased levy by leaving Scotland out, which was the argument brought against the Amendment.


That was not what the hon. Member said. No Member of this House has been keener on getting fair play as he calls it, in his protective policy as between the producers in this country and other countries, than the hon. Member. He wanted them to start on a level. Why not apply the same principle to this Bill? I am against the Bill, and if everybody was left out I should be in agreement with that, but I cannot see that it is fair to distinguish between one producer and another. That is completely unfair. I am surprised that there is support for the Amendment from the Labour benches. One hon. Member from Lancashire wants to put his Lancashire producers in a worse position than the Scottish producers. I hope that his constituents will notice his speech. I suggest in all seriousness that if there is to be a spindles levy it, should be contributed to by all those who are producing yarn. There is a good deal to be said from the point of view of the President of the Board of Trade. Knowing the history of the hon. Member for South Croydon in regard to demanding that fair conditions should apply to our own manufacturers, I would suggest that he should take his protective principles a little further and assure fair play as between one producer and another in whatever part of these islands those producers may be found. I shall support the President of the Board of Trade in opposing the Amendment.

5.43 p.m.


If the Amendment were carried the Scottish people would have all the advantage without making any contribution. I join with the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) in the hope that Lancashire and Yorkshire constituents will make a note of the fact that their representatives are endeavouring to penalise Lancashire and Yorkshire to the advantage of Scotland. The Bill is essentially a cotton industries Bill and it is dealing with the cotton industry as such, wherever it may be found in Great Britain, with the exception of Northern Ireland. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment. Surely he realises that it is never his intention that the Scottish people should have an advantage over the Lancashire people without making any contribution.

5.44 p.m.


Nothing is more remarkable than the attitude of the opponents of the Amendment, and of various Amendments which are introduced with the object of improving the Bill or of limiting the harm that it does. There has been no more inveterate opponent of the Bill than the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth). He says that this is a bad Bill and that it is going to do a great deal of harm, but God forbid that the harm should not be done to Scotland also. It is a most remarkable attitude for any opponent of the Measure to adopt. He reminds me of the fox in the old fable, who got caught in a trap with the result that he lost his tail. At first he was ashamed and did not want to be seen in public. He shut himself up in a cave, but then remembered that he could not stay like that for ever, and decided to make a virtue of necessity. He came out and the only thing he could do then was to go to the other foxes and point out how much better it was to be relieved of that heavy and clumsy appendage. So the hon. Member resists as far as he can the application of this Measure to his own constituency, but fearing that he cannot get out of it quite as easily as that says, "Very well, let Scotland have it too."


The point I made was that we should not suffer an extra injustice in England because you are not going to impose it on Scotland.


I understood that the hon. Member and the hon. Member opposite, with whom his political outlook is always so synonymous, were combining to blame Lancashire Members for wanting to leave Scotland out, but for quite opposite and mutually contradictory reasons. The hon. Member for South Bradford blames Lancashire Members for wanting to leave Scotland out, because he thinks Scotland ought to suffer the same harm as Lancashire, whereas the hon. Member on the other side of the House is blaming Lancashire Members for wanting to deprive Scotland of the advantages which the Measure is going to confer on the industry as a whole. The House can safely leave the two hon. Members to fight the matter out.

So far as the Amendment is concerned, we say that there are not two cotton industries, one in Lancashire and another in Scotland. It is not a question of putting the same advantages or disadvantages on both in order that they may compete with one another on fair terms. We say that the Measure is thoroughly bad. If we could we would delete Great Britain and insert nothing in its place. We do not want the Measure at all, but if we are going to limit the damage which the Bill will cause and save any part of the industry from injury, then the only consistent attitude for an inveterate opponent of the Measure like the hon. Member for South Bradford is to support those who are trying to limit the harm the Measure may do and save anyone from its bad effects. I hope the House will pass the Amendment.

5.52 p.m.


I do not remember that this point has been raised before. I have never been able to understand the attitude of Parliament towards Scotland in respect of Bills which are passed through this House. Only this morning I sat on Standing Committee B dealing with a Bill to restrict Sunday trading in shops, and we were told that the Bill was not going to apply to Scotland simply because the Scottish people do not want it. Many Bills passed in this Parliament do not apply to Scotland. There is the question of education, on which there are two separate Committees discussing two separate Bills, one for Scotland and the other for England and Wales. I am wondering why there are two Bills in the case of education, but in the case of the Bill which we are now considering there is only one covering England, Scotland and Wales. I could not understand why Scottish Members of all parties did not rise up in their wrath when the hon. Member compared Scotland with Cheshire.


Does not the hon. Member know that Cheshire is the most wonderful county in the whole of the country?


It may be wonderful without being intelligent.


And it is also the most intelligent as well.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)

I thought we were discussing Scotland.


I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how it comes about that while in the main Bills passed by the House of Commons do not include Scotland, yet on this occasion this Bill does include Scotland? As far as I know there is more reason for including Scotland on this occasion than for including it most other occasions.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the on Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 118.

Division No. 127.] AYES. [5.55 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Duncan, J. A. L. MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Dunglass, Lord McKie, J. H.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Edmondson, Major Sir J. Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Ellis, Sir G. Magnay, T.
Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Elliston, G. S. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Eimley, Viscount Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Emery, J. F. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Markham, S. F.
Aske, Sir R. W. Errington, E. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Assheton, R. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Maxwell, S. A.
Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton) Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Mayhew, Lt -Col. J.
Atholl, Duchess of Findlay, Sir E. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Balniel, Lord Fox, Sir G. W. G. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Fraser, Capt. Sir I. Mill, Sir F. (Leyton, E)
Baxter, A. Beverley Fremantle, Sir F. E. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Furness, S. N. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Fyfe, D. P. M. Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Beit, Sir A. L. Ganzoni, Sir J. Moreing, A. C.
Bernays, R. H. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Blair, Sir R. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Blindell, Sir J. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Boothby, R. J. G. Gledhill, G. Munro, P.
Bossom, A. C. Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Goodman, Col. A. W. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Bracken, B. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Owen, Major G.
Brass, Sir W. Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Patrick, C. M.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Gridley, Sir A. B. Peake, O.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Penny, Sir G.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Grimston, R. V. Petherick, M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Gritten, W. G. Howard Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Gunston, Capt. D. W. Pilkington, R.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Guy, J. C. M. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Bull, B. B. Hamilton, Sir G. C. Pownall, Sir A. Assheton
Bullock, Capt. M. Hanbury, Sir C. Procter, Major H. A.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Hannah, I. C. Radford, E. A.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Cartland, J. R. H. Harvey, G. Ramsden, Sir E.
Cary, R. A. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Rankin, R.
Cautley, Sir H. S. Hepworth, J. Rayner, Major R. H.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Holdsworth, H. Remer, J. R.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) Holmes, J. S. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Christie, J. A. Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Clarke, F. E. Howitt, Dr. A. B. Ropner, Colonel L.
Clarry, Sir R. G. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Colfox, Major W. P. Hulbert, N. J. Rowlands, G.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Hume, Sir G. H. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Hurd, Sir P. A. Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs) Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Keeling, E. H. Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Craddock, Sir R. H. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Sandys, E. D.
Critchley, A. Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities) Scott, Lord William
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Kirkpatrick, W. M. Seely, Sir H. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Shakespeare, G. H.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. Show, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Cross, R. H. Latham, Sir P. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Crossley, A. C. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Crowder, J. F. E. Leckie, J. A. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Culverwell, C. T. Leech, Dr. J. W. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Davison, Sir W. H. Lees-Jones, J. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
De Chair, S. S. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
De la Bère, R. Levy, T. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lewis, O. Southby, Comdr A. R. J.
Denville, Alfred Liddall, W. S. Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Dodd, J. S. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Spens, W. P
Donner, P. W. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Drewe, C. M'Connell, Sir J. Storey, S.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) McCorquodale, M. S. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Dugdale, Major T. L. MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Wise, A. R.
Sutcliffe, H. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Warrender, Sir V. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Waterhouse, Captain C. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Touche, G. C. Wayland, Sir W. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F. Wedderburn, H. J. S. TELLERS FOR THE AYSS.—
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. Wells, S. R. Major George Davies and Lieut.-
Turton, R. H. White, H. Graham Colonel Llewellin.
Wallace, Captain Euan Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G
Adams, D. (Consett) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Adamson, W. M. Hardie, G. D. Potts, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Price, M. P.
Ammon, C. G. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Pritt, D. N.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Holland, A. Quibell, J. D.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Hollins, A. Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Banfield, J. W. Hopkin, D. Riley, B.
Barnes, A. J. Jagger, J. Ritson, J.
Barr, J. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Batey, J. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Bellenger, F. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rowson, G.
Benson, G. Kelly, W. T. Sanders, W. S.
Bevan, A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Sexton, T. M.
Bromfield, W. Kirby, B. V. Shinwell, E.
Brooke, W. Kirkwood, D. Short, A.
Buchanan, G. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Silverman, S. S.
Burke, W. A. Lathan, G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Cape, T. Lawson, J. J. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Casselis, T. Leach, W. Sorensen, R. W.
Chater, D. Lee, F. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cluse, W. S. Leonard, W. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Leslie, J. R. Thorne, W.
Cocks, F. S. Logan, D. G. Thurtle, E.
Cove, W. G. Macdonald, G, (Ince) Tinker, J. J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford McGhee, H. G. Viant, S. P.
Daggar, G. MacLaren, A. Walker, J.
Dalton, H. Maclean, N. Watson, W. McL.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) MacNeill, Weir, L. Westwood, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Mainwaring, W. H. Whiteley, W.
Day, H. Marklew, E. Wilkinson, Ellen
Dobble, W. Marshall, F. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Mathers, G. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Ede, J. C. Maxton, J. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Milner, Major J. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Montague, F. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Frankel, D. Muff, G. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Gardner, B. W. Oliver, G. H. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Paling, W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Parkinson, J. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.