§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Colonel Clifton Brown in the Chair.]
§ CLAUSE 1. —(Agreements for re-insurance by Board of Trade of certain risks in respect of ships and cargoes.)
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:(2) Nothing in any agreement made in pursuance of this Section shall preclude the Board of Trade from limiting its liabilities under such agreement if at any time the Board deems it expedient in the public interest to do so.The purpose of this Amendment is to place in the hands of the Board of Trade the power to limit its liability under any agreement arising from the Bill. It will be noted that Clause I provides that the Board of Trade may enter into agreements with certain parties who are concerned with obtaining additional cover from the Board of Trade. When the matter was debated on the Second Reading of the Bill, I ventured to urge upon the President of the Board of Trade that there existed no substantial grounds for assuming that the Government would meet the whole of the liability that was likely to be incurred, and in the course of the Debate the right hon. Gentleman used certain figures which seemed to me to fortify my argument. In dealing with the value of shipping, cargoes and goods, he used the figure of £2,380,000,000—
§ The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley)
That included commodities insurable under Part II of the Bill, valued at £2,000,000,000, and not merely those insured under Part I.
§ Mr. Shinwell
The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I will make myself as clear as I can. I said we were dealing with ships, cargoes and goods, and by goods I mean commodities, because we are here dealing with both Part I and Part II on the subject of liability. That is the issue that is before us— not necessarily Clause I, but the general question of liability; and, on the 1128 assessment which the right hon. Gentleman himself placed on the value of ships, cargoes and commodities, he used the figure of £2,380,000,000.
§ Mr. Stanley
I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if he will look at his Amendment he will see that it says:Nothing in any agreement made in pursuance of this Section shall preclude the Board of Trade,and so on. Clause I, which we are now discussing, has nothing to do with the insurance of commodities.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. If he will only restrain himself for a moment or two, he will see the point towards which I am driving. I am dealing with the general question of liability. I want to set forth our position in that respect in order to fortify my argument in support of this particular Amendment, and, in order to indicate the liability which the Government under this Bill— not necessarily under Part I or under Part II, but under the Bill— may be called upon to accept, I use the figure to which I have just referred and which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the course of the Second Reading Debate. It is perfectly true, as he says, that under Clause r only part of that liability will be thrust upon the State. We are dealing here with ships and cargoes; I think the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. We are dealing exclusively, under this part of the Bill, with ships and cargoes; for the moment commodities are excluded. For ships and cargoes agreements have to be made. I want the right hon. Gentleman to accept our view that in those agreements there should be inserted the necessary provision to ensure that the State should not be called upon, if the circumstances arise, to accept the whole liability.
It will be noted— this was made apparent in the Second Reading Debate— that there is to be a differentiation in respect of the State liability as between ships and cargoes and general property. I understand that it would be out of order to discuss the liability or cover for general property, but there is to be a differentiation. I would say, in passing, that we know that the Government have promised to set up a committee to inquire into the subject of comprehensive insurance. That committee has not yet met; we have not yet been made 1129 acquainted with its personnel, and it is not clear whether the conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading are to be the terms of reference on the committee. For the moment, we are concerned with the differentiation. Certain owners of property are to receive the necessary cover, and the State, in respect of them, is to accept a liability, and, in certain cases, the whole of the liability. Other people, such as householders, are to be excluded.
It appears to me, first, that if there is to be a differentiation one section of property owners ought not to be paid in full, and, secondly, if the Government contemplate introducing proposals at a later stage which will provide a measure of insurance or of compensation for other property owners on a limited scale, this is the time to limit the liability in respect of those property owners—owners of ships and cargoes—with whom we are now dealing. The owners of ships and cargoes are not called upon to pay premiums until the outbreak of hostilities. In the case of goods, there is another provision in respect of registration fees which are to be paid. But there are to be no premiums paid by the owners of ships and cargoes until war breaks out.
§ Mr. Shinwell
But the State is ready to pay 80 percent. of the cover. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if war breaks out the State does not reinsure? Surely that is the purpose of the Bill. The Government accept 80 percent. of the risk. No premiums are to be paid on that section of insurance until war breaks out. Such premiums as are paid now, in time of peace, are to cover normal risks, not war risks. We may find ourselves in the position that a week, or it may be two weeks, or a month, after war breaks out the Government are called upon to meet the liability incurred, yet very few premiums, if any, will have been paid. No revenue will have passed to the State, and yet the State will be called upon to meet the claims. Moreover, the Government are to be called upon under the scheme to meet the claims in full, and possibly at a very early date after the liability has been incurred. That seems to be an anomaly which ought 1130 to be corrected, particularly in view of the fact that we are not yet advised as to the Government's intention in respect of compensation, either on the basis of premiums paid or without premiums paid to owners of the property. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree to what is proposed in the Amendment, namely, that the board shall, if it is deemed expedient in the public interest, limit its liability.
The right hon. Gentleman attempted to assess, on the basis of advice given him by those who are assumed to have expert knowledge, the amount of damage likely to occur. To make such an assessment seems an impossibility. It can be no more than a speculation. If we knew what was going to happen in the next war we should be in a better position to judge the liability and the premiums to be paid, and, indeed, the kind of scheme which would be best calculated to protect the interests of our population. It may be that considerable damage would be done to ships and cargoes as a result of submarine and aerial warfare. In the last War there was serious risk from submarines, but very little from the air. In the next war the assumption is that vessels will encounter risks from both submarine and aerial attacks, and the damage may be very much greater, therefore, than anyone supposes. In view of those circumstances, I suggest that we ought not to agree on the State accepting the whole of the liability. The liability should be limited in such a manner as will enable the State to meet other liabilities which are likely to be incurred as a result of the destruction of property.
§ 9.15 p.m.
Mr. David Adams
I support the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade may think it desirable to take in this additional Sub-section in self-defence. At present vessels are covered against war risks, but they are not covered against King's enemy risks, and a state in which this country might be at war. It is obviously impossible for the President of the Board of Trade or any Member of this Committee to predict with any assurance what amount of damage may be done in view of the new methods of warfare to ships and cargoes with which this Clause specifically deals. It is for that reason that we feel it desirable that there should be some provision made 1131 enabling the Board of Trade to limit its liability under such agreement, if at any time the Board believes that it is expedient in the public interest so to do. My fears do not carry me in the direction of believing that this contingency is very likely to arise. The experience of the last War was that the Board of Trade was very careful to cover itself, and it did so successfully by means of a Measure passed during the War to charge substantial rates of premium in order to raise the requisite fund. These premiums were rated from £percent. to as much as 5 percent. on the total value of the vessels and cargoes per month, so that we had the experience of 60 percent. of the total value of cargoes and of vessels being charged in the course of the year as cover against King's enemy risks during the last War. The result of that from my own personal experience was that many shipowners were driven to reduce the values for which they were insured owing to the very heavy, and, in the judgment of certain people, necessarily heavy, premiums which the Board was charging in this connection.
The next war, should it come, may present an entirely different situation. There may be an extraordinary amount of sinkings and damage due to King's enemy risks, and it seems reasonable that the Board of Trade, under Clause I of this Bill, should, where it can be shown that vessels would by reason of the absence of this reinsurance or this Board of Trade cover, be laid up in our ports, or that the vessels would be for other reasons unable to trade, be under a specific liability. It has no option in the matter, but must offer the 80 percent. cover to assist the operation of the provision under which they are insured for war risks on the ocean to-day where they are operating in certain trades. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has indicated that the liability of the State, under the heading of ships with cargoes, amounts to the colossal sum of £2,380,000,000 sterling. If the State were to be called upon to meet any such liability, it would be necessary for the Board of Trade to have a protective Clause in which it might be assumed that liability had reached sufficient proportions.
1132 I am satisfied that our protective armour will be sufficient to keep the liabilities within reasonable bounds, but it is essential that the Board should have the protection which this Amendment would offer to it. Is there not a possibility, in the event of what might be termed a universal war, that there might come a time when the tides of war substantially receded into perhaps other parts of the globe where perhaps we were not so fully concerned, and yet, as long as that state of warfare prevailed and King's enemy risks were prevalent, the Board of Trade would be called upon to continue the cover unless a protective Subsection such as that which we are now suggesting were adopted? The operation of reinsurance during the last War was a profitable undertaking for the Board, but the Board has no right to conclude that, if another war comes, the same situation will prevail. The Government are apparently assuming that the same situation will prevail or there would have been a protective provision in the Bill. A substantial case has been presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham, and by the statement which I have made, and the Board of Trade ought, in the general interests of the State, to accept the Amendment which we have suggested.
§ 9.24 p.m.
§ Mr. Stanley
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment could have moved it in any very great spirit of optimism that I was likely to accept it.
§ Mr. Stanley
For the simple reason that he must realise that the acceptance of the Amendment would, in fact, make nonsense of the Clause and nonsense of the whole scheme under Part I. The whole object of the introduction of this Measure under Part I was in order to give a degree of confidence in pre-emergency times, so that should there be a crisis we should not find, as we did in September, the flow of goods to and from this country drying up, or run the risk of owners not daring to send their ships out in case they should be caught on the high seas in an emergency without adequate cover. The whole point of Clause I is to enable the Government to enter into an agreement which will safeguard the position and which will make it certain that if an 1133 emergency comes owners of ships and cargoes in transit will be adequately covered. All that the Amendment says is that having made this agreement, then the Board of Trade can proceed to break it whenever they like if they consider it is in the public interest so to do. In other words, they would remove any possible basis of confidence which this agreement will give. It is no good telling a man that in case of emergency he will receive this cover and at the same time that the State has taken power to break the agreement at any time they consider it necessary. Acceptance of this Amendment would make complete nonsense of the scheme of Clause 1.
The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) quite rightly drew attention to the fact that during a protracted war the character of the hostilities might change and, as he said, the Board of Trade would need some escape Clause. I think the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the escape Clause of the Board of Trade lies in the fact that the agreements into which they enter are subject to denunciation after a period of notice. The draft agreement regarding ships insurance is subject to six months' notice, and the cargo pool scheme subject to three months'. Therefore, without the necessity of anything in the Bill it is possible, by giving notice, to change the agreement if the agreement proves, in the light of existing circumstances, to be unsatisfactory. It seems to me, and must seem to any business man in this House, that that is the way to do it. If the agreement is unsatisfactory, then have provision in the agreement which will enable you to end it and re-negotiate it. But it is a bad principle for this House to adopt, and quite destructive of the whole purpose of the Bill, to pass a Clause enabling the Board of Trade to enter into agreements, and agreements in which they pay premiums —
§ Mr. Stanley
They pay them now. The hon. Gentleman must allow me to know the primary provisions in my own Bill. Under the cargo scheme premiums are accruing to the pool now. It is wrong to enter into agreements for which premiums are being paid, and at the same time pass a Clause which will enable the Board of Trade to tear up any agreement they have made.
§ Mr. Stanley
That is a proper agreement. People enter into it and knowing that it can be denounced in three or six months by giving notice, but that is very different from the knowledge that when you have entered into an agreement, the whole object of which is to cover the outbreak of war, then on the day after, when it becomes important, the Board of Trade can say, "I break the agreement and decline to accept any liability at all."
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Shinwell
The point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: He has just stated that these people are paying premiums now for cover. Will he say whether the Government receive any of these premiums now for re-insurance?
§ Mr. Stanley
Certainly, under the cargo re-insurance scheme. That liability has been accruing since the report was made in April. The accounting period is sometime at the beginning of September but the liability has been accruing since last April.
§ Mr. Shinwell
I really must have another word to say to the right hon. Gentleman about this. I understand that his purpose is to provide confidence for the owners of ships and cargoes. If this confidence is not provided the shipowners will not use their ships but will lay them up in port. That is his purpose. No confidence, however, is to be provided for property owners, but just for shipowners and cargo owners, otherwise the trade and commerce of the country is to be held up. That is a remarkable situation. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that this agreement may be denounced at any time, if the Board of Trade thinks fit, at three months' notice. Six months must elapse before the agreement can lapse and then it is necessary to have three months' notice. If that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and if that is the proviso which he holds in reserve, what is to follow? Surely this must be the consequence of the denunciation: A new agreement is to be brought into operation and that agreement is either ended for the purpose of accepting the whole of the liability or it is ended for the purpose of accepting only part of the liability because the financial position has 1135 undergone a change or because the damage is so excessive as to prevent the State meeting the whole of its liability.
It seems to me that the Board of Trade might avail themselves of the opportunity now. The right hon. Gentleman says that this makes nonsense of the scheme. The scheme already is nonsense because it provides confidence and assurance and a settlement of full claims, at an early date after the damage has been done, to one section of the community, and provides nothing for others, and that is why it is nonsense. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that this makes nonsense of the scheme is quite gratuitous. On the question of premiums the right hon. Gentleman says that from April of this year premiums had been paid into the pool by the owners of ships and cargoes. From that moment money passed into the hands of the Government. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that. If he did not say that, then I must be hard of hearing. Suppose war broke out in September. The amount of premium paid would be insignificant beside the claims that would have to be met if any damage occurred, and yet the Government are to accept the liability on the payment of premiums over a very short period of an amount of which we know nothing at all. We are told that at the end of September, when we reach the end of the accounting period, we shall know what the premiums are. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he talks of the accounting period?
§ Mr. Stanley
When you are paying premiums you do not pay every day or every month, but at the end of a convenient period you account for the premiums which have accrued during the period. The first period will end in September.
§ Mr. Shinwell
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to be at cross purposes. Let me put the position as I see it. I am the owner of a vessel and I belong to an indemnity association. The right hon. Gentleman now says that the payment of premiums is for cargoes and not for ships. I am asking about the payment of premiums for ships. He says that it is only for cargoes and not for ships. I am dealing with Clause I, and until a few minutes ago the idea was that we were dealing with Clause I. Now I understand, 1136 perhaps I am wrong in the assumption, that the premiums are not being put into a pool in the case of vessels. Is that the position? If the right hon. Gentleman is not disposed to listen to my argument, I must proceed to put the argument a little more forcibly. I am a member of an indemnity association, and I want to insure against normal risks— against King's enemy risks the Government propose to re-insure— and I pay my premium. What part of that premium for the extra cover passes into the hands of the Government?
§ Mr. Stanley
I will explain again. If you are a member of a club you do not pay a premium. It is not carried on on a premium-paying basis. What happens is that when a loss is incurred by a member of the club a call is made to meet it. A premium is not paid in the ordinary course.
§ Mr. Shinwell
Then there is no premium passing into the hands of the Government in that regard. Now I come to the second case, where premiums are paid. I am a shipowner and I want cover. I go to a marine insurance broker and he undertakes the task and proceeds to take the necessary cover through the medium of an underwriter. That is the ordinary normal method of insurance when premiums are paid, and in that case I presume the Government is providing reinsurance. What part of the premiums paid there are passing into the hands of the Government? Can the right hon. Gentleman say? Who knows most about this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman or myself? I should like to know that. The right hon. Gentleman does not know his Bill himself when he talks about premiums accruing to the Government, and now he says that with respect to ships no premiums accrue to the Government. We ought to have a clear answer. This matter requires to be cleared up. If there is to be re-insurance by the State either for ships or cargo then, clearly, there ought to be a limited liability unless there is a protracted period during which the owners of ships and cargoes pay premiums as a result of which considerable revenue accrues to the State, out of which the liability can be met. If that is not the position in this case, I do think we are entitled to a great deal more information, and therefore I press the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."1138
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 231.1139
|Division No. 270.]||AYES.||[9.42 p.m.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Groves, T. E.||Poole, C. C.|
|Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Hardie, Agnes||Quibelt, D. J. K.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)|
|Ammon, C. G.||Hayday, A.||Ridley, G.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Riley, B.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Ritson, J.|
|Baley, J.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hill., A. (Pontefract)||Sexton, T. M.|
|Benson, G.||Hopkin, D.||Shinwell, E.|
|Bevan, A.||Jagger, J.||Silkin, L.|
|Buchanan, G.||John, W.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Cape T.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Cooks, F. S.||Kirby, B. V.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Cove, W. G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Lathan, G.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Daggar, G.||Lawson, J. J.||Stephen, C.|
|Dalton, H.||Lee, F.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Leslie, J. R.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Day, H.||Logan, D. G.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Dobbie, W.||McEntee, V. La T.||Thurtle, E.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||McGhee, H. G.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Ede, J. C.||MacLaren, A.||Viant, S. P.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||Maclean, N.||Walkden, A. G.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelty)||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Mathers, G.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)||Maxton, J.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Frankel, D.||Messer, F.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Gallacher, W.||Milner, Major J.||Wilmot, John|
|Gardner, B. W.||Montague, F.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Naylor, T. E.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Paling, W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Parker, J.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-col. G. J.||Cartland, J. R. H.||Fremantle, Sir F. E.|
|Adams, S. V. T.(Leeds, W.)||Carver, Major W. H.||Furness, S. N.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Cary, R. A.||Fyfe, D. P. M.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Channon, H.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col, Sir W. J. (Armagh)||Clydesdale, Marquess of||Goldie, N. B.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Gower, Sir R. V.|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)||Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)|
|Apsley, Lord||Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Gridley, Sir A. B.|
|Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)||Cox, H. B. Trevor||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Craven-Ellis, W.||Grigg, Sir E. W. M.|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Critchley, A.||Grimston, R. V.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Guinness, T. L. E. B.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.|
|Balniel, Lord||Cross, R. H.||Hambro, A. V.|
|Barrie, Sir C. C.||Crowder, J. F. E.||Hammersley, S. S.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Culverwell, C. T.||Hannah, I. C.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Denville, Alfred||Harris, Sir P. A.|
|Beechman, N. A.||Doland, G. F.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)|
|Beit, Sir A. L.||Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)|
|Bernays, R. H.||Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Drewe, C.||Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-|
|Boulton, W. W.||Duggan, H. J.||Hepworth, J.|
|Bower, Comdr. R. T.||Dunean, J. A. L.||Holdsworth, H.|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Eckersley, P. T,||Holmes, J. S.|
|Bracken, B.||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Hopkinson, A.|
|Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)||Ellis, Sir G.||Horabin, T. L.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Emery, J. F.||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Howitt, Dr. A. B.|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)||Errington, E.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)|
|Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Findlay, Sir E.||Hunloke, H. P.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.||Fleming, E. L.||Hutchinson, G. C.|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Foot, D. M.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'st'n)|
|Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald|
|Keeling, E. H.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)|
|Kellett, Major E. O.||Patrick, CM.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Peake, O.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)||Perkins, W. R. D.||Spens, W. P.|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Petherick, M.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'l'd)|
|Leech, Sir J. W.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Lees-Jones, J.||Pilkington, R.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Ponsonby, Col C. E.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Procter, Major H. A.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Levy, T.||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Lipson, D. L.||Ramsden, Sir E,||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Little, Sir E. Graham-||Rankin, Sir R.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Little, J.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P.|
|Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Loftus, P. C.||Remer, J. R.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Lucas, Major Sir J. M.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Touche, G. C.|
|MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|M'Connell, Sir J.||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|MeCorquodale, M. S.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Turton, R. H.|
|Macdonald, Capt. P.(Isle of Wight)||Rothschild, J. A. de||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Rowlands, G.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Maitland, Sir Adam||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Mander, G. le M.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Manningham-Butler, Sir M.||Russell, Sir Alexander||Wayland, Sir W. A.|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)||Webbe, Sir W. Harold|
|Markham, S. F.||Salmon, Sir I.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)||Salt, E. W||White, H. Graham|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Samuel, M. R. A.||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.|
|Mitcheson, Sir G. G.||Schuster, Sir G. E.||Williams, Sir H. C. (Croydon, S.)|
|Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Selley, H. R.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Moreing, A. C.||Shakespeare, G. H.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)||Shepperson, Sir E. W.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.||Wise, A. R.|
|Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.||Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.|
|Munro, P.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)||York, C.|
|Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Snadden, W. McN.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Somerset, T.||Major Sir James Edmondson|
|and Captain McEwen.|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.