The rate of the duty of excise charged on spirits under Subsection (2) of Section three of the Finance Act, 1920, in addition to the duties specified in Part III of the First Schedule to that Act shall be reduced to Five Pounds per gallon computed at proof, and accordingly the said Subsection (2) shall have effect as if for the words "Seven Pounds seventeen shillings and sixpence" there was substituted the words "Five Pounds."—[ Mr. Boothby. ]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."It is designed to reduce the tax on whisky from £7 17s. 6d. per proof gallon to £5. For some reason, which I am frankly unable to fathom, the Government do not make a distinction between gin and whisky in their tax proposals. In fact, there is a distinction to be drawn between these two potents. There are those who maintain that gin, on the whole, is lowering, but be that as it may—I am not myself in a position to pronounce on the subject—there is nobody who would deny for one moment that whisky is, in essence, a stimulating beverage. During the war the increase in the duty on whisky has amounted to no less than £4 5s., so, under my proposal, the Treasury is left 15s. better off than they were before the war and the duty on whisky would be higher than in 1942. I would like to make it quite plain that the proposal I am making now applies, on paper, to both whisky and gin because of the arrangements of the Treasury, but, in fact, I am only really proposing to reduce the duty on whisky and to leave gin alone for the time being. I do not need to remind the Committee that the retail price of a bottle of whisky now is 25s. 9d., not counting the black market.
Five quid in the black market.
Before the war of 191418 the retail price of whisky was 3s. 6d. per bottle. I ask hon. Members to consider these facts because they are of considerable importance. The present duty on whisky represents 18s. 4½d. a bottle and I ask any hon. Member to put his hand on his heart and to say whether that is a savage and unconscionable tax or not. We all know that the supply of whisky is limited at the present time. Nobody can really get it. It is highly improbable that anyone would be able to get inebriated on the amount he is able to get, but what I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is that, at the present level of taxation, the consumer of moderate means is, in fact, unable to get any whisky at all, becausehe cannot afford to pay for it. Therefore, this is essentially a class tax. The rich can get whisky because they can afford to buy it, the man of moderate means cannot, and the poor man cannot. Therefore, my Clause should please hon. Members Opposite. I do not want to detain the Committee— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—This is a very important matter. Like all other industries, this industry depends ultimately for its success and prosperity on the home market. It is no use thinking we can rebuild a tremendous export trade in whisky if we kill the home market, and that is what the Government are doing not only in regard to whisky, but in regard to many other industries as well. This industry is attacked from all sides. It is bullied by every Government Department. There is this penal and savage taxation, to start with; it was shut down altogether for a considerable period during the war—
But not because of taxation.
and only recently supplies of barley have been cut off againfrom the distilling industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear." I would just remind them that we are pretty hard up for dollars at the present time and we are going to be hard up for a long time. Whether we land a loan from Washington or not, we want to get all the hard currency we can get. The distilling industry is the largest single earning agency of hard currency in this country. In 1938 27½ per cent. of the value of our total exports to the United States of America was whisky. From stocks already piled up, we have sold during the war no less than £70,000,000 worth of whisky to the United States. At a moment when the President of the Board of Trade is making desperate appeals to everybody to manufacture for export to the United States, what is the sense in bludgeoning this industry almost out of existence? It is a vital export industry. In the next few years, if we are able to manufacture whisky in sufficient quantities, we shall get more dollars out of the export of whisky than out of any other single commodity in this country. I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to realise this. There is, of course, the national aspect of this matter. We in Scotland feel deeply about the treatment being meted out to one of our national industries, which has stood us, and the whole country, in good stead.Whisky is a healthy drink frequently prescribed by medical gentlemen for their patients. It is also, by common consent, a great consolation, and with this Government in power we want all the consolation we can get. The Chancellor refused to accept my Earned Income Allowance Amendment yesterday; the least he can do is to accept this New Clause, which may help us somehow to get through the next few months while he is reconsidering that fatal decision. This industry is one of Scotland's great national industries. It has been plundered by the Exchequer for the last 20 or 3o years. They think, as they think about the motor industry and other industries, that it is a cow to be milked steadily for the benefit of the revenue, without any regard whatever to its national value or to its value as a great export industry. For the last 25 years the duty has gone steadily up, and latterly it has gone up by leaps and bounds at the expense of an industry of which we in Scotland are proud. There is a great demand for whisky at the present time, not only in this country, but also in the United States. The Chancellor and the Government are doing everything in their power to see that that demand cannot be met. I do not think that that is a wise policy from the national point of view, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reverse this fatal threat and give this industry, which is a great industry, and will, I hope, be a great industry for many years, a chance. and not bludgeon it out of existence.
I represent a constituency which is particularly interested in the distilling trade, and I cannot allow this occasion to pass without supporting the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I know that anybody who appeals on behalf of whisky is open to misconstruction. I assure the Committee that I, personally, do not drink whisky. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I must admit to taking a little gin now and again, but whichever it is, it is spirits with which we are dealing. This great and valuable industry is not perhaps recognised as it should be, except by those who consume whisky, and they very often forget where it comes from. Many people only know the city from which I come from having seen the name on a bottle. When I say, "I come from Perth," they say, "Oh. yes, that is 'White lable,' isn't it?" That is all they know about it.It is a great advertisement all over the world for the trade of this country. I do sincerely ask that this distilling trade, which has borne the brunt of taxation for so many years at such a tremendous rate, should have some consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is not really a joking matter. If one's constituents are largely dependent, I will not say on whisky, but on the distilling of whisky, it is not a joking matter; and I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give some consideration, even if only a slight fraction, to this important trade, important for both the home and export markets.
:I think this new Clause can be disposed of quite simply and easily. We have had the usual charming and happy speech from the Mover, and I hope that now that he has raised the spirits of this Assembly, he will be content and let his Clause be dropped. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For these reasons: they arc quite simple and very few. What he suggests is that the duty on spirits—whisky, and gin as well—should be reduced from £7 17s. 6d. per proof gallon to £5. This would mean 6s. 8½d. for a bottle of whisky which now costs 25s. 9d. The present consumption of spirits is something over 9,000,000 gallons per year, and the revenue in the current year is something in the nature of £70,000,000. if the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member is followed, it will mean that in one year we should lose £27,000,000 of money. From that arises the query whether we can afford to dispense with £27,000,000 in the current year; and, if we can, whether whisky should have the benefit of it?
I excluded gin.
I know, but the Motion covers all spirits, and I must take the Clause as it is put down. That, frankly, would be the effect. Therefore, I ask the Committee to remember that it would mean £27,000,000 a year; that, if the Revenue can afford to forgo £27,000,000, there are other things which the nation at large might desire to have. There are people who drink beer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of whisky at present being the rich man's drink, and that the poor man could not afford it. That may very well be so, but the poor man has his beer taxed very heavily indeed—and beer is certainly the poor man's drink. Very large numbers of us smoke, and tobacco is heavily taxed. For these reasons, if for no other reason, I ask the Committee to reject this Clause.
I do not see why we should. I thought the arguments produced by the hen. Gentleman unconvincing to anybody who represents a Scottish constituency, and they will not go down well if they are seen in the Scottish Press tomorrow. I am not a bit reluctant to detain the Committee on this Clause, because Scotland feels very strongly on this subject, and it is not often that the opportunity for helping Scotland comes up on the subject of the Budget: Scotland has had a raw deal out of this Budget, as, indeed, has most of the country, and Scottish people have begun to feel and understand how they have been deceived. The hon. Member has just said £27,000,000 would be the cost to the Revenue if this Amendment were carried. In fact, what that means is that that £27,000,000 is at the expense of one of the major industries of Scotland.There is no doubt that this overwhelming taxation on the whisky industry of Scotland is a terrific handicap to the Scottish people. It receives no material sympathy whatever from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I appreciate the fact that acceptance of this Clause would mean a substantial loss of revenue, but that revenue is gained at the expense of the major, or one of the major, industries of Scotland. This case has never been put sufficiently emphatically on behalf of Scotland. It is a serious case. It is vital that this industry should not have this crushing, overwhelming burden of taxation placed on it. Is there any other industry in the country that has such crushing taxation as the whisky industry of Scotland? Certainly not. I doubt if there is one. Why should it continue 'o he so? I would like to have had sufficient whisky to keep this discussion going the whole evening. But I appreciate the fact that that cannot be done. I earnestly hope that other Scottish Members, and some English Members, will support Scotland in this effort to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of reducing this taxation.
I really must protest against the narrow-minded and intolerant attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman who tried to defend the attitude of the Treasury. He looks at the matter from the Treasury point of view. Of course the Treasury gets into everyone whom it gets into its maws. Nevertheless, he really has not been there long enough to get his mind as confused as it obviously has become. He says that £27,000,000 is estimated to be the loss in taxation involved if this Clause were accepted.I will only make one comment. We have had three or four million Americans in this country for the last three or four years. Every one of them became very much accustomed to Scottish whisky.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, a great number of them. I would say, therefore, that we would very soon make good the loss of that £27,000,000 by the numbers of Americans who will come back to this country to taste once more that excellent brew that we manufacture in Scotland with such success. I myself was brought up in a home in which moderation and toleration were taught. I have stuck to the tolerance, but there are one or two points which my hon. and gallant Friend made which I think need stressing, because they were completely ignored by the Financial Secretary. Many of my constituents would be horrified if they thought I was supporting this Clause, but I do so because I think it is in the interest of Scotland as a whole, and not in the interest, or disinterest, of certain of my constituents. But everyone knows that after a long day, like this, for instance, when our nervous energies have been largely consumed, we do look forward to going home at night—not to be seen in the smoke-room by those who would perhaps carry the tale further—and have that little encouragement which will enable us to face the following day of frustration. Then there are those tired housewives. It is said, of course, that women do not drink whisky. But they do like gin. The remark was made on one occasion that gin was "mother's ruin." Believe me, that is not true, because I have found gin is an excellent drink. When I started my few remarks I spoke of the philosophy of moderation. No doubt many hon. Members opposite have not yet learned that very healthy and useful quality in carrying out their public duties. There is only one other point. It has been the custom, I am sorry to say, on the Front Bench opposite, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in another place yesterday, to regard strength as being only gained through misery. I myself still believe that strength can be gained from a little pleasure occasionally. Moderate as I am, I have gained a considerable amount of pleasure through my very periodical and seldom indulgence in a little sustenance. I am not going to keep the Committee any longer. But I would like to tell a story here. Recently I was in a shop and was talking with a naval commander. We were both there for the same purpose, and that was to secure, if possible, for a little celebration— perhaps a birthday or something like that—a bottle of whisky. We had reason to celebrate. We both failed, due no doubt to the heavy taxation that is now charged on whisky. But the point of my story is that my friend the naval commander turned to me and said" You know, it seems damned hard. My last ship was escorting 346,000 cases of whisky across to the States and now I cannot even find one bottle to drink myself." I do ask my right hon. Friend to hear that in mind. The silent Service has been forced into this unfortunate position. Surely the loss—and I do not think it really would be a loss—of £27,000,000 would be amply repaid by the very warmth of heart which the right hon. Gentleman would give to others. In any case from the tourist point of view alone it should be remembered that we have built up a good will in Scotland through Scotch whisky. Even if it were not for our lovely scenery, our hospitable manners and kindly homes, there is always Scotch whisky behind it tall. If we want to build up a sound prosperous tourist trade in the future, I am perfectly certain that the first and the main and the last thing which the Chancellor has to do to achieve that purpose is to accept the Clause of my hon. and gallant Friend.
I think this the occasion where at least one Englishman should rise to support this new Clause. In the year 1853 Mr. Gladstone imposed a duty on spirits of 4s. 8d. per proof gallon. I am sorry to note that in his next two Budgets he increased the duty in each case. Since that time the "Rake's Progress" has continued until it has now reached the colossal figure of 1575. 6d. per proof gallon. I would like to put two points to the right hon. Gentleman. The first is the question of degree. Of course, I know the Chancellor is anxious to shut down on public expenditure at these times, and putting articles up to a prohibitive price is a very good way of doing it. In the case of whisky, from 3s. 6d., which was the price of standard brands before the last war, we have now risen to 25s. 9d., an increase of 750 per cent., which, I suggest, is out of all proportion to the rise, through taxation or any other reason, of any other article. There is just one other point. This is not entirely a British matter. It is not entirely a domestic matter to be studied in this Committee, and my reason for saying this is that, when the duty is raised in this country other countries immediately try to raise the duty on their own. Our export whisky is penalised. Since 1942, only three years ago, as the result of that action of the then Chancellor, the following countries have followed suit in raising the duty on spirits: United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Southern Rhodesia, Paraguay, the Bahamas, Bermuda, and Uruguay, including, as they do, our largest customers. These are the points I wish to leave to the right hon. Gentleman. But for the late hour, I was going to make some sentimental remarks about the coming festive season, but, as they also contain a table of figures, I ask your leave, Mr. Beaumont, to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
May I for one moment endeavour to induce some sense of proper solemnity into this matter? I have -just come back from Denmark with a great sense of natural justice and of civilisation, and I am sure that citizens of Denmark would be astonished by the way this very reasonable Clause has been received. Unfortun ately, 1 was not here to listen to the Budget speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor, but in every year preceding I have made it my business to add up the taxation paid by those infidels, those beasts, those inhuman citizens who drink and smoke, as against those angels who do not drink and smoke. It is always a staggering figure, and was particularly so last year. The amount paid by those who drink and smoke was £ 715,000,000, very nearly a prewar Budget, whereas the taxation paid by those who did not drink and smoke, on tea, coffee and so on, was £25,000,000. Yet those citizens expect and receive precisely the same protection from the Fleet, the Army, and the police. That is one aspect. There is no moral and proper reason to distinguish between the people who drink and smoke, and the others, in this way. All this talk about whisky being the drink of the leisured classes, the rich, is absolute nonsense. Unlike my angelic, virtuous and spiritual friends opposite, I often go into public houses. I confess it. I am not ashamed of it. There I have seen constituents, not only of hon. Members on the opposite benches but of these benches on this side, who have what is called "the screws," rheumatics. When constituents of hon. Members have "the screws" it is good for them to drink whisky but it is bad for them to drink beer. I have met dozens of humble men who have said:" I have got 'the screws.' "— [Laughter.]— It is extraordinary the levity with which arguments based on fundamental knowledge of human life are received on the other side of the Committee. It is a fact that, when poor men have rheumatics, whisky is far better for them than beer. It is no good laughing; it is a fundamental, proletarian, plebeian, elementary fact. If that is so, and no doctor has got up to oppose me—
The hon. Member was brought up in a funny medical school.
:It is a bit "screwy."
If that is the highest scientific contribution that can be made by an hon. Member opposite, I am not much afraid of the effect of my argument. I am saying what is known. In other words, it is nonsense to talk about whisky as being luxurious. It is liked by all classes, and rightly.I will get back to my point. The point is, why have this arbitrary 40o per cent. or 500 per cent. tax on one single commodity? That is the point which has to be faced by the Front Bench. Is it because this commodity is a poison? Is it that? If it is that, why do we base our whole export market on sending poisonous filth to America? This tax is pure laziness on the part of the Treasury.
We export it as a medicine.
This is great fun, but the Front Bench have got to face it. What does it mean? Why take a particular commodity and say that on that particular commodity there shall be a 400 per cent. or 500 per cent. tax? What is the basis of it? They cannot say it is poison or immoral, otherwise they would not make it the chief export to America. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that, if this Clause was accepted, it would cost the Treasury £27,000,000. For years past I have been offering one method at least by which £27,000,000 could be got—by taxing betting. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite will have to face it. There is all this taxing of everything we earn and buy, and all this stuff about saving. We laboriously collect £600,000,000 in savings every year; but every year £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 is spent on betting. If hon. Members opposite will accept my proposals for taxing betting, I will get them not £27,000,000, but £47,000,000.The whole basis of this thing is that it is a lazy tax. It is very easy to put is., 2s. or 3s. on whisky. No possible justification has been offered for this tax. The Financial Secretary has a right of reply, and I would like him to get up and tell us what is the basis of the 400 or 500 per cent. tax on this commodity. Why is there not a similar tax on tea? If this country is going to go down the drain, as very likely it will do, it will not be on the very tiny snippets of whisky and gin which are available to people—it will go go down in a cataract of tea. If any hon. Member has had the unfortunate experience of having in his house Irish bomb repair labourers, who arrive at half-past eight in the morning—sometimes— and go off at half-past nine for an hour to have their tea, their "elevenses," and then work perhaps for three-quarters of an hour, and go off again at eleven o'clock for another cup of tea, he would sympathise with my arguments. I have tried to inquire what is the basis of this formidable and savage tax upon this particular beverage. If it is a moral thing, then I say that tea should be taxed in the same category, because people who drink whisky do not go off for an hour, away from their work, at half-past nine in the morning. All day long the workmen are interrupted by tea. So are the offices, workshops, docks and ships. I have seen it all through the war. What is the basis of this tax? If it is a moral tax, then, on the facts I have deduced, the Government should take something off whisky and put it on tea. If whisky is so poisonous that it should be so taxed, we should not export it to America, and poison and corrupt our American friends. What is the answer?
The hon. Member is dangerously near to repetition.
I think we are all in danger of repetition.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned ships. Will he tell us something about the ships' crews?
If the hon. Gentleman pursues that subject, I shall have to rule him out of Order.
I am not quite clear what your Ruling was, Mr. Beaumont. If the hon. Member talks about ships' crews, I can say that I know perfectly well the bad effect of constant tea. I honestly think that tea has become a national peril. If the basis of this tax is moral—
The hon. Member has wandered very far. The Clause we are now debating concerns whisky, and not tea.
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. But the Financial Secretary to the Treasury asked where we were going to get this money if we surrender £27,000,000: and I was trying to suggest a source on two. I suggest this tax is quite illogical and arbitrary. I have not heard so far any logical or decent defence from the Treasury, and I invite somebody on that bench to get up and say what is the basis of this 400 per cent tax.
I should like the Chancellor to examine closely the position of the export trade. I have just spent a little while in the United States of America, and the one great cry there is not for tea—though that is increasing— but for Scotch. The trouble is that because only limited supplies are going over there, our American friends are inclined to drink the wrong Scotch—Scotch that is not Scotch, which is made in America, with extraordinary labels, the best Scotch labels they can find, and bearing underneath, in tiny type, a label saying "Made in U.S.A." They are demanding the best Scotch, Scotch that is the genuine article, and the more we can send over the greater will be the demand. We have had several million Americans over here who have been drinking the real Scotch, and when they get over the other side they will drink the genuine article if it is sent over. I am talking seriously.
Division No. 39.]
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Grimston, R. V.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Hare, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Harvey, Air-Cdmdre. A. V.||Pitman, 1. J.|
|Baxter, A B.||Herbert, Sir A. P.||Poole, 0. B. S. (Oswestry).|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.|
|Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J R|
|Boies, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Holiis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Boolhby, R.||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Bower. N.||Howard, Hon. A.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. 0.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, IVIaj. J- A.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T-||Keeling, E. H.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Butcher, H. W.||Lambert, G.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, B)|
|Carson, E.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Teeling, Fit.-Lieut. W.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M.(Solihull)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.||Linstead, H. N.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. G.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Thorpe, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Crosihwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Turton, R. H.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.|
|Digby, Maj. S. Wingheld||Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Walker-Smith, Lt-Col. D.|
|Dower, LI.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Draysort, Capt. G. B.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.|
|Drewe, C.||Marples, Capt. A. E.||Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)|
|Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)||Marsden, Comdr. A.||Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.|
|Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir l. (Lonsdale)||Mellor, Sir J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Gage, Lt.-Col. C.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: -
|Gates, Maj. E. E.||Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.||Sir Arthur Young and Mr. Studholme.|
|Gomme Duncan, Col. A. G.||Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Barton, C.||Bowen, R.|
|Adamson, Mrs. J. L.||Battley, J. R.||Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)|
|Allen, A. C (Bosworth)||Bechervaise, A. E.||Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Belcher, J. W.||Braddock, T. (Mitcham)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Benson, G.||Brook, D. (Halifax)|
|Attewell, H. C.||Berry, H.||Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.||Burden, T. W-.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Binns, J.||Burke, W. A.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Blenkinsop, Capt. A.||Byers, Lt.-Col. F.|
|Baird, Capt. J.||Bottomley, A. G.||Champion, A. J.|
|Balfour, A.||Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Clitherow, R.|
One other point. The Financial Secretary said that if this Amendment were carried it would mean £27,000,000 less revenue. But he is making a hasty calculation. He said nothing about the increased consumption following the lesser price. If the price is less the demand goes up. My hon. Friend over there knows where he can find a bottle for £5.
You tell me, and I will go there.
I ask the Chancellor to concentrate on the export trade. I have seen and know that in the United States there is nothing better than whisky for bringing back the dollars.
I think the Committee is now in the right spirit to come to a decision upon the proposed new Clause.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 217.
|Cobb, F. A.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Roberts, G. 0. (Caernarvonshire)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Rogers, G. H. R.|
|Collick, P.||Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Royle, C.|
|Collindridge, F.||Keenan, W.||Sargood, R.|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Kenyon, C.||Scott-Elliot, W.|
|Corbet, Mrs. F.K. (Camberwell, N.W.)||Key, C. W.||Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.|
|Corlett, Or. J.||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.||Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.|
|Corvedale, Viscount||Kirby, B. V.||Shurmer, P.|
|Crawley, Fit.-Lieut. A.||Lang, G.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)|
|Daines, P.||Levy, B. W.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Skefhngton, A. M.|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Lindgren, G. S.||Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)|
|Davjes, Ernest (Enheld)||Lyne, A. W.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McEntee, V. La T.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham,S.)|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Mack, J. D.||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Davies, S. 0. (Merlhyr)||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Deer, G.||McLeavy, F.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.|
|Diamond, J.||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Dobbie, W.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Stanford, W.|
|Douglas, F. C. R.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Mayhew, Maj. C. P.||Strachey, J.|
|Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Messer, F.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Dumpleton, C. W.||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Swingler, Capt. S.|
|Durbin, E. F. M.||Mikardo, Ian||Symonds, Maj. A. L.|
|Dye, S.||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. 1. C.||Mitchison, Maj. G. R.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Monslow, W.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Moody, A. S.||Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Thomas, John R. (Dover)|
|Ewart, R.||Morley, R.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Fairhurst, F.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Thorneycroft, H.|
|Farthing, W. J.||Murray, J. D.||Tiffany, S.|
|Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Nally, W.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Foot, M. M.||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.|
|Gaitskell, H. T. N.||Nichols, H. R. (Stratford)||Walkden, E.|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Walker, G. H.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)|
|Gil2ean, A.||O'Brien, T.||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Gooch, E. G.||Oldfield, W. H.||Weitzman, D.|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Oliver, G. H||Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)|
|Grey, C. F.||Orbach, M.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Grierson, E.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Pargiter, G. A.||Wigg, G. E. C.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Gunter, Capt. R. J.||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Wilkes, Maj. L.|
|Haire, Fit-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)||Peart, Capt. T. F.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)||Perrins, W.||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.||Piratin, P.||Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)|
|Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Platts-Mills, J. F. F.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingreve)|
|Hardy, E. A.||Popplewell, E.||Williamson, T.|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Willis, E.|
|Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Pritt, D. N.||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Hobson, C. R.||Proctor, W- T.||Woodburn, A.|
|Holman, P.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Wyatt, Maj. W.|
|Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Ranger, J.||Yates, V. F.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.|
|Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Rhodes, H.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle)||Richards, R.|
|Janner, B.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
|Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Robens, A.||Mr. Pearson and Captain Snow.|