§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
This is a highly technical and difficult Clause to follow, made far more so by the extremely involved draftsmanship. Just now the learned Solicitor-General, in dealing with Clause 6, said that was a matter on which he was not competent to reply because it dealt rather with the financial aspect. Here we are on something in which he will be in his element. I invite hon. Members opposite who are following the proceedings, as opposed to those who are here for the purpose of rest and recuperation, to turn, if they would, to Clause 8 (2) and try to appreciate the difficulties which I find as a layman in this sentence—this non-stop sentence of 175 words, of which Subsection (2) consists. I have done my best. Through you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, may I inform the learned Solicitor-General that I have made my way with painful steps, and slow, as far as the semi-colon to be found in line six on page six. Up to that point I think I have understood the meaning of the Subsection. But proceeding beyond that point I confess I have become lost and involved. One of my hon. and learned Friends who was here just now read it with me, but he has left the Chamber in a state of emotion for the purpose of obtaining refreshment. So we must now lean, as we so often do, upon the learned Law Officer opposite.
I suggest, in all seriousness, that it would be a good thing if we could have these matters put into Acts of Parliament in rather simpler language. This is an extraordinarily involved sentence. I think perhaps even the hon and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) might find himself in difficulties in this matter. On the other hand, he may find it simple. I do not. At any rate, now that we have the Law Officer with us I hope he will be able to 439 engage in what I might describe as an explanatory memorandum on this Subsection, and explain to us the pains and penalties to which we are laying ourselves open if this is allowed to stand part of the Bill. I confess to being in a state of almost complete—I do not know quite what word to use—
§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
Perhaps "fog" is too simple a word. I was trying to find some legal word.
§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
I think that is a very valuable suggestion. I feel in much the same position as Professor Laski earlier in the week. I would be grateful if the learned Solicitor-General would favour us with his exposition.
§ The Solicitor-General
Putting it quite shortly, Subsection (1) of Clause 8 prevents the issue of securities to persons resident outside the scheduled territories. Suppose a person who subscribes to the memorandum of association of a new company is a person who is resident outside the jurisdiction, Subsection (2) says that certain consequences will follow. The first consequence is this. The incorporation of the company itself shall be perfectly valid, notwithstanding that the subscriber is resident outside. That is the first point. The second point is that. in so far as his subscribing would make him a member of the company, the memorandum shall be invalid, and he shall not become a member of the company by so subscribing. The third point is this Section 28 of the Companies Act 1929, says, that if in the case of a public company, there are less than seven members, and if the company trades for six months after its incorporation, anybody who is a member of that company, knowing that it has less than the requisite number of members, shall be responsible for the debts of the company to their full extent. That is to say, he shall not be enabled to rely upon the fact that it is a limited liability company. The third consequence of the subscriber to a memorandum being a person resident outside the scheduled territories is this: that members of the company who subscribe to the company shall be liable to the full extent of the company's debts if it goes on trading for six months with a less 440 number of members than that which is the minimum requisite. I hope that is clear.
May I recapitulate, because, I frankly confess, it is confusing? I hope I can make it clear. There are three consequences of a subscriber to a memorandum being resident out of the scheduled territories. First, the incorporation remains a valid incorporation; second, the memorandum is invalid in so far as it purports to make that subscriber a member of the company; third, the consequence provided for in Section 28 of the Companies Act. 1929, in the event of a company trading for more than six months with less than the minimum requisite number of members, shall ensue, so that the members of the company shall be liable to the full extent for the company's debts. They cannot say that, because it is a limited liability company, they are responsible only to the extent of their investment.
§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
The Committee is indeed indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I followed him as far as I could. I am still in a certain darkness. I shall read his speech tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT In the meantime, I make this practical and concrete suggestion, that on the Report stage the Government should delete this Subsection, and substitute the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which are far more coherent, obscure as they still are. I wonder if that could be done?
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North)
I should like to endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said. I do not think I am particularly unintelligent, but I confess that I could not, and still cannot, understand this Clause
§ Sir C. Headlam
Then will the hon. Member kindly explain it? I do suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should reconsider the wording of this Clause. I am convinced that he could make it much clearer to the average man than it is at the present time. It is a complicated Bill, which it is difficult for the layman to understand and this wording seems to make things even more difficult to understand. I do beg the learned Solicitor-General to look into this Clause, and see if he cannot make it a little clearer for the rest of us.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Eccles
Perhaps I might attempt to help the Committee by saying that the Solicitor-General was telling us in his lucid language that what this Clause does is to put obstacles in the way of Americans trying to invest money in this country. It is the purpose of the Clause that, except with the permission of the Treasury, persons resident outside the scheduled territories— and we are all really thinking about citizens of the United States of America— shall not buy British securities in a new venture. We must question this policy. We must ask the Government why they are so keen to make it difficult for the citizens of the United States and other countries—the French, for instance—to invest their money here. They want to come at the present time. Americans and Canadians want to put money into British factories. They want to do it first because they think the British workman will turn out a good article at an economic price. They also want to do it because they do not believe that we can fulfil our Bretton Woods obligations without a very stringent sytem of import licensing; and, therefore, if they want to have products made with their processes sold in this country they must be made inside the ring fence.
That is why American business men are coming here with their processes. But they are being put off by the Treasury, or sent to the Board of Trade and sent back to the Treasury. I know a good many of these people. What they are doing is to go to Paris and fix up their factories there, because they are not given decent terms to come here. The reason is that the Bank of England and the Treasury think that every American dollar that is put into this country is "hot" money. They have got "hot" money on the brain. They believe that if any investment is made in this country by United States citizens some panic—something or other—will occur in a few years, or even a few months, and that they will then want to take their money out again. I do not believe that that is the present situation There are many industrialists in the United States who would like to see their processes developed with British labour and in British factories; and, therefore, I ask the Financial Secretary whether the Treasury might not reconsider their whole policy to investments by foreigners in this country. I believe it is a good, civilised thing to do; and I 442 do not believe for one moment that satisfactory arrangements could not be made whereby these investors would be content to take out a reasonable profit. Of course, if they have to keep their money here for five years without taking out anything—and they might make a loss— they would require a reasonable dividend. I think the Government should be careful, when they make exemptions under the famous Clause 31, to do it in such a way that the foreign investor, who wants to come in this country, is not frightened off, and does not go to the Continent of Europe and put down his plant there.
Will the Solicitor-General inform us what are the reasons why we should not want to attract foreign capital?
§ The Solicitor-General
Permission is readily granted for the investment here of dollars, providing dollars are, in fact, paid and, so far as it is possible to do so, permission is granted with the greatest rapidity in each case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is all very well for hon. Members to exclaim, but there is a c6nscious endeavour on the part of the responsible authorities to cut out delay. Obviously, delay does interfere with legitimate business, and business often has to be done very rapidly, and the authorities responsible have that very keenly in mind. If hon. Members know of cases of delay, I should be very glad if they would kindly let me or my right hon. Friend have particulars, because in bringing such instances of delay to their notice they would be assisting the responsible authorities. Delay is a thing which is fought against quite deliberately—
§ The Solicitor-General
Deliberately, knowing that it is an obstruction which must be avoided. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the complaint he made is one which has foundation in fact, but if it has foundation in fact, if he would let us have particulars we should be obliged.
§ Mr. Pickthorn
Surely the learned Solicitor-General has not met the main point, which was that the Clause, as he explained it—could I have his attention for a moment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we are endeavouring to understand this Clause. If hon. Gentlemen had been a little longer in this House 443 perhaps they would know that that is customary. The point put was that, from the Solicitor-General's explanation—which I thought was very lucid, and which I at least followed—the purpose of the Clause appears to be to make difficult, in general, investment by American capitalists in this country The Solicitor-General answered that in special cases there is expedition in permitting such investment, in spite of the general rule, but the point of the main argument put to him by my hon. Friend was that the general rule itself needed defending. With every respect to the learned Solicitor-General, I cannot quite think that that is really a Law Officer's point, and I submit to the Committee that it is a point which they ought not to accept without some explanation of the general, principle.
As the learned Solicitor-General was put up to answer this small Debate, may I ask him to consider one other point which is within his particular competence? It was complained that Subsection (2) was much more obscure than Subsection (1), and I respectfully agree, but I would suggest— diffidently, because I know quite well that amateur draftsmen are almost always worse than professional ones—that it ought to be considered whether the parallel provisos in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) could not both be put into the same form of expression, so that both would be either negative or positive. I think a real difficulty in reading the Subsection is caused by the change-over from the use of the word "unless" on the one side to the positive condition on the other.
The main point, to which I would turn finally, is that if it is agreed, as I think the learned Solicitor-General did agree with my hon. Friend below me, that the main general purpose of the Clause is to make difficult, in general and apart from specific licences, the investment of dollars in this country; if that is, as I understand and believe it to be, the purpose of the Clause, surely the Clause ought not to go from the Committee without that purpose being justified? I respectfully suggest that there has been no attempt, so far, to justify that purpose, though I do not for a moment suggest that it might not be an absolutely good and indispensable purpose.
§ Mr. Birch
I appeal to the learned Solicitor-General to answer this other 444 point, as I think he was about to do a moment ago. It is a matter of some importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) suggested that there might be a very good reason for stopping people investing dollars here, but I confess that it escapes me at the moment. I would like to know the real reason why the Government wish to discourage the investment of dollars in this country at the present time, when I should have thought that it would be a very valuable thing to have dollars.
§ The Solicitor-General
It is a complete misunderstanding of this Clause to think that it is designed to make it difficult to invest dollars. The whole point is that there must be the means of control, and the whole scheme of this Bill, as I said earlier, is to impose stringent powers of control and then to relax them in accordance with circumstances by action under Clause 31. Dividends can be remitted abroad now, as the position is, and as far as the investment of dollars is concerned, there is no objection to it in principle. But each case must be considered on its merits, in order to see whether it is in accordance with the national interest.
§ The Solicitor-General
There must be general overall control in particular cases for the sake of the national interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is the object of control, that it should be possible to put a hand on these transactions if the national interest so requires.
With regard to the drafting point raised by the hon. Member, I agree it is possible, as a matter of drafting, to make sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) both either positive or negative, but I do not think it would be an improvement, and I submit to the Committee that sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) are models of lucidity in this particular Bill.
§ The Solicitor-General
I said, quite consciously, in this particular Bill. It is a Bill which is complicated and technical, it is no good denying that. But as the two sub-paragraphs read now, I submit that they are perfecty intelligible and satisfactory in their present form.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
Does that answer from the Solicitor-General mean that the Government are now frightened of the movement of "hot" money into this country, because that is a thing which the Chancellor has always denied? In fact, the Chancellor, in numerous answers, has suggested that it is the Government's desire to get dollars to come into this country, and that it is the Government's desire to ensure that the maximum investment is made as soon as possible. Does the learned Solicitor-General's answer mean that the Government's policy has now been reversed, and if not why put this barrier in the way? Surely the one thing we want today is to encourage the maximum investment of dollars in the shortest possible time. We want to encourage people to come here and spend dollars, in order to improve the balance of payments between ourselves and the United States. To introduce this control is merely to leave the Treasury as a bottleneck, as yet another channel through which the unfortunate foreign investor must percolate as best he can, in trying to do what we all want to encourage him to do, namely, invest in this country. It seems to me to be quite absurd, illogical and foolish to do such a thing, when we are dependent for the moment on any source from which we can draw that revenue which we so badly need in order to eke out the American Loan. I would suggest to the Government that instead of putting in a Clause like this they should put something in to encourage foreign investors and make it easier for them by letting them know really where they stand. In that way we should get on a lot faster.
§ Mr. Stanley
I should like the learned Solicitor-General to answer one question about which I am not quite certain: How is it that all the controls he says he may want to exercise over this sort of thing are not already provided by the Borrowing Act? Are not all issues of securities in this country already subject to the supervision of the Treasury under that Act, and if that is so, what extra powers are needed under this Clause?
§ The Solicitor-General
They are not controlled by reference to the territorial position, and they are not controlled by reference to whether the persons to whom the issue is to be made are or are not resident in the scheduled territories.
§ Mr. Stanley
That is really not an answer to my question. My point is that before anybody issues securities of any kind, they have to get the permission of the Treasury, through the machinery laid down by the Borrowing Act.
§ Mr. Stanley
Yes. Any issue of securities under this Clause, or anything done in that way, would have to go to the Capital Issues Committee. Why on earth cannot they, with their powers, take these things into account? They have all the powers under the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act. What is the necessity for this being in the Bill? It is simply cluttering up the Statute Book, causing more difficulties and more misunderstandings. All the powers the Government can possibly need to deal with the issue of securities in this country have already been given by this House, last year, in that Act. Can I have an answer on the point, what extra powers this gives the Government that they have not got already.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-General
I have already given the answer, and I cannot go on repeating it. The Capital Issues Committee is guided by the question of whether the investment is socially necessary, and this provides a different species of control by reference to territorial jurisdiction. In this case, the Treasury are given the power to control issues of securities to persons who are resident outside the scheduled territories. That is a different kind of control from that envisaged in the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act. The two things are completely different. They can be worked together, but one is control on one footing, and the other is control by reference to a completely different point. It is incorrect to think that there is any unreasonable stopping of investments here in dollars. As I said earlier, the permission is readily given for investment, provided the investment is paid in terms of dollars or other useful foreign currency. There is no unreasonable or unthinking obstruction placed in the way of such investments.
§ Mr. Gallacher
I grow weary of listening to the wails of hon. Members on the 447 other side. I cannot speak for the Government, but I can speak for a whole lot of the lads who sent the Government here. They sent the Government here to push out the British capitalists, and there is no sense in pushing out the British
§ capitalists and opening the door for American capitalists to come in.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 93.449
|Division No. 23.]||AYES||[9.5 p.m.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Dumpleton, C. W.||Kirkwood, D.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Durbin, E. F M.||Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Dye, S.||Lee, F. (Hulme)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Edelman, M.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Leslie, J. R.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Levy, B. W.|
|Austin, H. L.||Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Lipson, D. L.|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Logan, D. G.|
|Baird, J.||Ewart, R.||Longden, F.|
|Balfour, A.||Fairhurst, F.||Lyne, A. W.|
|Barstow, P. G.||Farthing, W. J.||McAdam, W.|
|Barton, C.||Field, Captain W. J.||McEntee, V. La T.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Follick, M.||McGhee, H. G.|
|Belcher, J. W.||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Mack, J. D.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Gaitskell, H. T. N.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)|
|Benson, G.||Gallacher, W.||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)|
|Berry, H.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||McLeavy, F.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)|
|Binns, J.||Gibbins, J.||Macpherson, T. (Romford)|
|Blackburn, A. R.||Gibson, C. W.||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Gilzean, A.||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Mann, Mrs. J.|
|Boardman, H.||Goodrich, H. E.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Marquand, H. A.|
|Bowen, R.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)||Marshall, F. (Brightside)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Mathers, G.|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Grenfell, D. R.||Mayhew, C. P.|
|Bramall, Major E. A.||Grey, C. F.||Medland, H. M.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Grierson, E.||Mellish, R. J.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Messer, F.|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Middleton, Mrs. L.|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Gunter, R. J.||Mikardo, Ian|
|Burke, W. A.||Guy, W. H.||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Mitchison, Maj. G. R.|
|Callaghan, James||Hale, Leslie||Monslow, W.|
|Carmichael, James||Hall, W. G.||Montague, F.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Moody, A. S.|
|Chamberlain, R. A.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Champion, A. J.||Hardy, E. A.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)|
|Chater, D.||Harrison, J.||Murray, J. D.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Nally, W.|
|Clitherow, Dr. R.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Neal, H. (Claycross)|
|Cobb, F. A.||Herbison, Miss M.||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)|
|Coldrick, W.||Hicks, G.||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)|
|Collick, P.||Hobson, C. R.||Noel-Buxton, Lady|
|Collindridge, F.||Holman, P.||O'Brien, T.|
|Collins, V. J.||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Colman, Miss G. M.||Horabin, T. L.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||House, G.||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Hoy, J.||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Corlett, Dr. J.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Parkin, B. T.|
|Cove, W. G.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)|
|Crawley, A.||Hynd, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Attercliffe)||Paton, J. (Norwich)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Irving, W. J.||Pearson, A.|
|Daggar, G.||Jay, D. P. T.||Peart, Capt. T. F.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Perrins, W.|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)||Piratin, P.|
|Davies Ernest (Enfield)||John, W.||Platts-Mills, J. F. F.|
|Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Porter, E. (Warrington)|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Porter, G. (Leeds)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Deer, G.||Keenan, W.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Delargy, Captain H. J.||Kenyon, C.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Diamond, J.||King, E. M.||Randall, H. E.|
|Dobbie, W.||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.||Ranger, J.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Kinley, J.||Rankin, J.|
|Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Kirby, B. V.||Rees-Williams, D. R.|
|Reeves, J.||Sorensen, R. W.||Warbey, W. N|
|Reid, T. (Swindon)||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.||Walking, T. E.|
|Rhodes, H.||Sparks, J. A.||Watson, W. M.|
|Richards, R.||Stamford, W.||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Steele, T.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Robens, A.||Stephen, C.||West, D. G.|
|Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)||While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)||Stubbs, A. E.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Rogers, G. H. R.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)||Wigg, Col. G. E.|
|Royle, C.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B|
|Scollan, T.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Scott-Elliot, W.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Segal, Dr. S.||Thomas, John R. (Dover)||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Sharp, Granville||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)||Thurtle, E.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Shurmer, P.||Tiffany, S.||Williamson, T.|
|Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.||Tolley, L.||Willis, E.|
|Silverman, J. (Erdington)||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)||Turner-Samuels, M.||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Simmons, C. J.||Ungoed-Thomas, L.||Woods, G. S.|
|Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.||Usborne, Henry||Wyatt, W.|
|Skinnard, F. W.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.||Yates, V. F.|
|Smith, Ellis (Stoke)||Viant, S. P.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)||Wadsworth, G.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)||Walkden, E.|
|Snow, Cast. J. W.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Solley, L. J.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstew, E.)||Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr. Popplewell.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.|
|Aitken, Hon. Max||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Pickthorn, K.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Howard, Hon. A.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Hulbert Wing-Cdr. N. J.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|Birch, Nigel||Hurd A.||Ramsay, Maj. S.|
|Boothby, R.||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Bower, N.||Jonnings, R.||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Keeling, E. H.||Ross, Sir R.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Scott, Lord W.|
|Carson, E.||Lindsay, M. (Solihull)||Shephard, S. (Newark)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Linstead, H. N.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Snadden, W. M.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Spence, H. R.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.|
|De la Bère, R.||McCallum, Maj. D.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Digby, S. W.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Marlowe, A. A, H.||Touche, G. C.|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Marples, A. E.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (City of Lond.)||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Duthie, W. S.||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|Eccles, D. M.||Maude, J. C.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Fletcher, W (Bury)||Mellor, Sir J.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Gage, C.||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Gammans, L. D.||Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.|
|Grant, Lady||Neven-Spenee, Sir B.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Grimston, R. V.||Nicholson, G.||Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.|
Question put, and agreed to.