§ (1) There shall be charged on every contract note as defined by this Section for or relating to the sale or purchase of any stock or marketable security the following Stamp Duties:—
§ Where the value of the stock or marketable security—
- is £5 and does not exceed £100, 6d.;
- exceeds £100 and does not exceed £500, 1s.;
- exceeds £500 and does not exceed £1,000, 2s.;
- and for each additional £1,000 or fraction of £1,000, 2s.
§ (2) Where a contract note is a continuation or carrying over note made for the purpose of continuing or carrying over any transaction for the sale or purchase of 673 stock or marketable securities, the contract note, although it is made in respect of both a sale and purchase, shall be charged with duty under this section as if it related to one of those transactions only, and, if different rates of duty are chargeable in respect of those transactions, to that one of those transactions which would render the contract note chargeable at the highest rate.
§ (3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the expression "contract note" means the note sent by a broker or agent to his principal, or by any person who by way of business deals, or holds himself out as dealing, as a principal in any stock or marketable securities, advising the principal, or the vendor or purchaser, as the case may be, of the sale or purchase of any stock or marketable security, but does not include a note sent by a broker or agent to his principal where the principal is himself acting as broker or agent for a principal, and is himself either a member of a stock exchange in the United Kingdom, or a person who, in the opinion of the Commissioners bonâ fide carries on the business of a stockbroker in the United Kingdom, and is registered as such in the list of stockbrokers kept by the Commissioners.
§ (4) Where a contract note advises the sale or purchase of more than one description of stock or marketable security, the note shall be deemed to be as many contract notes as there are descriptions of stocks or securities sold or purchased.
§ Sir F. BANBURY moved in Subsection (1) to leave out "£500" ["where the value of the stock or marketable security is £5 and does not exceed £100—sixpence; exceeds £100 and does not exceed £500—one shilling"], and to insert instead thereof "£1,000."
§ That, of course, would be followed by consequential Amendments for sums between £1,000 and £10,000 and so on. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down upon the Paper Amendments which very much modify the objections raised to the original Clause, and I think it would save time if in discussing this Amendment I was at the same time to discuss the Amendments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Clause, as it originally stood, provided that on a contango transaction of £100,000 the amount that would have to be paid in Stamp Duty would be £120. At the present moment the amount which would have to be paid is £1 4s., and the enormous difference between 674 that sum and the original sum of £120, and even the sum which is now provided, namely, £12 on such a transaction, shows I think the tax has not really been considered very carefully. The duties, even as they are amended, will press very heavily upon certain transactions. There is a very large business done in the way of borrowing money on the security of Consols. The facilities with which people have been able to borrow money on Consols encourages them to invest in Consols, because they have the knowledge that when they invest in Consols they will be able without difficulty to obtain loans upon them, and consequently it becomes a very good security. Under the Chancellor's new proposals, a transaction of £20,000 on Consols carries a Stamp Duty of £1. The profit is very often only one-eighth which amounts only to £2, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take £1, which amounts to 50 per cent. of the profits. Although £1 does not seem a large amount, the fact that it is half the profit shows it is a tax that ought not to be imposed. I have gone very carefully into these figures, and in order not to err on the side of exaggeration I have asked several people in business whether I should be wrong in stating that the ordinary profit on a contango is not more than I have stated. They said you would be very much understating it. The result is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking this large tax from the State. What would be the result of all this? The result would be that contangos will be abolished and the money will be locked up. Such a large amount of taxation as that cannot be taken when the profits are so small. The Chancellor takes 50 per cent. of your profit, and the result will be that it will be done in other forms, and the Chancellor will lose his money. That is the result of making these taxes so heavy. In the case of an ordinary transaction the tax of £1 on investment of £20,000 is not a very large amount. That is not a question of the Stock Exchange, because it is a tax which will really be borne by the public. No doubt they will grumble if they have to pay £1 for the investment of £20,000. I do not think that that would have any deterrent effect, because a man invests £20,000 at rare intervals. But this tax will have an effect upon the business of large financial houses, where business is constantly going on and where stock is constantly changing hands. As hon. Members know, it is not investments pure and 675 simple that make the market, but it is where the large financial houses are prepared to come forward to do the business. In that case I believe the Clause will have a very bad effect. The margin is so very small in this kind of business. I am afraid the effect will be to drive away business which we already have in London. A shilling, I am told, would bring in £175,000 this year, and £350,000 next year. If the duty of 1s. brings in £175,000, and if that duty is increased its yield would be very much more. Two shillings would bring in £350,000. We were told in the last Debate by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that we did not offer any alternative. Well, but if he makes the duty 2s. in every contract over £1,000, he will get more than £350,000. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment he would relieve a considerable amount of anxiety in the City, while at the same time he would secure his money, and if he did not find next year that the result of the duty was as good as he expected then he will be able to increase it. It is much better to go slowly in these matters rather than to go hastily. I am afraid, however, I am appealing to deaf ears, as I do not believe the Chancellor will accept my Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
Not only will I not accept the hon. Baronet's Amendment, but I hope he does not expect me to accept it. As I understand it, we are now discussing the scale. That scale, which I placed upon the Notice Paper, represents the arrangement arrived at between the Government and the Stock Exchange after very careful investigation of all the cases submitted to us. I agree it is a very different estimate from that originally submitted. We examined something like 700 cases, and, after negotiations conducted over a period of several months, we arrived at this arrangement by agreement. The representatives of the Stock Exchange, men who have the confidence of the Stock Exchange, having assented to this, I do not think the hon. Baronet will contend that it is a scale which will destroy their business.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
Or that it will seriously interfere with their business. 676 They are quite satisfied with the scale. Of course, there may be special cases, but they are a very narrow margin, that possibly may be interfered with to a certain extent, but they are very exceptional cases, and the Stock Exchange gentlemen, I am bound to say, met the Government in a spirit which I desire to fully recognise. They have been exceedingly fair and straighforward, and I think they have taken a highly patriotic course. From the start they said: "We fully realise that the Government is in need of money for national purposes, and we think it is fair in these circumstances that you should come to the Stock Exchange for its share, and we are quite prepared to pay our share." All they said was: "We think you ought to raise the money in a better way." I said: "Very well; give me the same amount of money in a better way and I shall be very glad." After months of negotiation this scale has been arrived at, as an agreement between the Stock Exchange and the Government, and I do not think that much criticism can be offered if they are satisfied. I think they met me very well. These gentlemen can take very good care of themselves, and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is a very fair sample of them. The members of the Stock Exchange Committee regard the Amendment I shall propose later as a fair scale, and there is no injustice done. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Baronet will withdraw his Amendment and enable us to go on with the next Amendment.
§ Major COATES
After the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to his negotiations with those representing the Stock Exchange I would ask the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Amendment. I feel we do not want to prolong this discussion, and I think we ought to devote our time to discussing points which have not been acceded to by the Stock Exchange Committee. If I may pass any criticism upon the arrangement come to between the Government and the Stock Exchange Committee it would be that I think the small investor might have had a smaller charge and a larger one might have been put upon the rich investor.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I have received a letter from the Stock Exchange Committee, and I do not gather from it that they are satisfied with the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman says an arrangement 677 has been come to, and I am not surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got the better of the Stock Exchange. Under these circumstances there is nothing further to be said. If the Members of the Committee had consulted me I should have told them to be very careful as in all probability they would be "bested," and it seems they have been bested. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, to leave out the last two lines of Sub-section (1) ["and for each additional £1,000 or fraction of £1,000…two shillings"], and to insert instead thereof the following scale:—
|"Exceeds||£1,000||and does not exceed||£1,500||…||3s.|
|Exceeds||1,500||and does not exceed||2,500||…||4s.|
|Exceeds||2,500||and does not exceed||5,000||…||6s.|
|Exceeds||5,000||and does not exceed||7,500||…||8s.|
|Exceeds||7,500||and does not exceed||10,000||…||10s.|
|Exceeds||10,000||and does not exceed||12,500||…||12s.|
|Exceeds||12,500||and does not exceed||15,000||…||14s.|
|Exceeds||15,000||and does not exceed||17,500||…||16s.|
|Exceeds||17,500||and does not exceed||20,000||…||18s.|
|Exceeds||20,000||and does not exceed||…||£1"|
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir F. BANBURY moved, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "in the opinion of the Commissioners."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEY
I desire to ask the attention of the Committee and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the few observations I shall now submit with a view to endeavouring to satisfy the Committee that something better than the provisions of this Clause is available to the Government which will bring in more money than this Clause can bring in, and something which could not possibly inflict any serious or appreciable hardship upon any member of the community. This Clause has been glibly spoken about by hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House as a contribution by the Stock Exchange towards the financial necessities of the State. To me that is an utterly meaningless phrase and mere clap-trap, which will not bear a moment's investigation. The Stock Exchange is not going to contribute a farthing. This proposal is only a direction 678 to the Stock Exchange agents as to the amount of the burden they shall put upon the public and the ladies and gentlemen who will bear this burden are exactly the same people upon whom the incidence of the rest of this Budget will fall. There is no contribution whatever from the Stock Exchange, and this is simply a proposal to put an additional burden upon investors and speculators. I make myself responsible for the statement that 90 per cent. of the business of the Stock Exchange is of a gambling description. Quite 90 percent. of Stock Exchange transactions are made solely for the purpose of securing a profit upon a rise in price. The other 10 per cent. represent bonâ fide investments. If a man buys a house for investment or if he buys for speculation, he will have to pay to the State exactly the same contribution. Consequently, the speculator in freehold house property is exactly on the same level as an investor in house property, so far as his contribution to the revenue is concerned. When, however, you come to the Stock Exchange, there is this extraordinary distinction: Assume that two men buy the same kind of shares at the same time and at the same price; assume that one buys simply as a gamble and the other as a bonâ fide investor. The investor takes up his stocks and pays his 10s. per cent. for the transfer, but the gambler simply pays that puny thing known as the contract stamp. The result is that the investor makes the Government a present of 10s. per cent. on the transaction and the gambler goes practically scot free. The 10s. per cent. is, for all practical purposes, just over 1d. in the £. Now, is there any human being inspired with a desire to speculate in stocks and shares who would refrain from doing so because he had to pay for a £1 share £1 0s. 1d.? Such an argument will not bear consideration for a moment.
In the suggestion I make there will be no danger of the business being driven away. I can quote as a precedent for my suggestion the principal Act, the Stamp Act of 1891. In that Act it is provided that in regard to a certain class of property the duty shall be paid upon the contract to purchase. All I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do is to provide that these Transfer Duties which are to be paid when stock is transferred shall not be increased and shall not be altered, but that the duty shall be payable on the contract to purchase, so that the moment the 679 gambler buys the stock he will have to pay the transfer. What is the objection to that proposal? I have argued it with members of the Stock Exchange, and I can find no answer to it. I argued it with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he said, "It is not the man who sells the stock, it is the bearer we want to get at, and your proposal would not touch him." Every transaction in stocks and shares is assumed in law to be a genuine purchase or sale. When a man goes to a stockbroker and says, "Buy me 1,000 shares," the law assumes he means to pay for those shares and take them up, and unless he does so the bargain would be void, and could not be enforced. I am not suggesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer any alteration in the law. When a man buys stocks and shares we assume that he buys them as a bonâ fide transaction. My suggestion is that instead of paying the Transfer Duty later on you should collect it at the source, and then it is put on your contract. That would bring into the Exchequer many million pounds a year. I do not think there is a member of the Stock Exchange who will deny that statement.
In the ordinary business of the Stock Exchange the enormously preponderating portion of it is the purchase of stocks and shares which never culminate in a transfer. They are simply gambling transactions Let me give one concrete instance. Two friends of mine each bought on the same day 500 shares for £6,000 from the same broker, an eminent member of the Stock Exchange, and they each got a contract. One of them paid the £6,000 plus the contract stamp, and the other simply said to the broker, "I am not going to take the shares up now; carry them over for me." The one who took them up had to pay the Government £30, whilst the other does not pay the Government a farthing. I put that case to the Government. That means in other words, that he paid interest on the money he borrowed. The man who paid the £6,000 lost the interest on it. There is no answer to this proposal. The tax is easily collected, and it would not interfere with business at all. Every stockbroker would welcome it, because it would give him a little additional security that the transaction was a bonâ fide one. It means 1d. in the £ on the purchase of stock. It would drive no business abroad. It would only apply to registered 680 stock and not to bearer stock. It would not affect foreign securities to any appreciable extent at all. It would bring in many millions a year, and I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give it his serious consideration. It would mean at least as much as a 10 per cent. duty on manufactured goods coming into this country. No one will deny that our present fiscal policy has been somewhat strained and sorely tried for national revenue. Here is £10,000,000 at least waiting for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as any examination of the books of the Stock Exchange will show. It is not only the Stock Exchange of London, but all the stock exchanges of England, and outside stockbrokers. You give away the case now by means of the additional stamp on continuation contracts and on options, and you propose to make the outside broker put stamps on his contract, things you have never done before. Why not go a little further. Ten millions is not too much for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Development Fund can do with it very well, if he can find no other use for it. There is the whole case, and there is no answer to it. I shall listen with anxiety why it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not adopt it. I have come to the conclusion that a financial Resolution would not be necessary, but if it were necessary the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get it to-morrow or Monday, and he could then get £10,000,000 move than he has asked for. I hope, instead of brushing the proposal aside with platitudes, he will, now he is in a melting mood, give it serious consideration. I put it forward as a serious contribution to the Debate.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
My hon. Friend has placed before me a golden prospect, and I wish it were possible to see its development. He says that by treating the original transaction as if it were the transfer of the share you would get £10,000,000. Has it never occurred to him that you might destroy the business altogether? Everyone knows that the difficulty with a tax of this kind is to strike the mean between that minimum which gives you an inadequate amount and that maximum which absolutely destroys the tax. It is a very difficult thing to know at what point the tax you impose ceases to be of a productive character, and I am certain that if every speculator had to pay this Stamp Duty as if it were on a real transfer business would be driven away altogether.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEY
Does not the law at the present time assume it to be a real transaction? It would only affect the gambling members of the public. They would pay 1d. in the £ more for gambling in stock.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
If the object of the hon. Member were to stop these transactions his proposal would be a very effective means, but it certainly would not produce revenue. If the House of Commons were to come to the conclusion that these transactions had to be stamped out altogether, a 10s. per cent. duty would be a very effective way of attaining that object, but I am perfectly certain no revenue would be produced by that means. As a matter of fact, in France there is an ad valorem duty, but it does not approximate the amount suggested, and though I will not say it has altogether destroyed the business, it has limited it very considerably. The same thing applies to the German stamps. Therefore, however alluring the scheme may be from the point of view of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is sadly in need of cash, I am afraid I could not possibly be tempted, and certainly not now, to substitute this proposal for the proposal in the Bill.
§ Mr. E. A. RIDSDALE
I think the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) has made a statement which requires an answer. I do not think any transaction which takes place on the Stock Exchange is a gambling transaction. The hon. Member imagines that the sum of £10,000,000 may be produced for the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of the pockets of the Stock Exchange or out of the public by placing a duty of 10s. per cent. on all bargains entered into in registered stocks or shares, but not in bearer shares. If the hon. Member had been logical in his suggestion, and had included the whole, then I was going to show what a serious impost this would be and how it would kill business; but his suggestion is that the tax should be merely applied to registered securities. What would be the result? Every bargain which he described as gambling in registered stocks would simply take place in bearer securities. The whole proposal is absolutely ridiculous.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEY
Does the hon. Member suggest that a gambler in English companies would deal in bearer stocks? Does he not know that almost without exception they are registered?
§ Mr. A. B. MARKHAM
The hon. Member who has just sat down has overlooked the fact that on the bearer certificates he would have to pay treble duty. What is the amount of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving away compared with his original proposal?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means by the original proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer under the altered scale is giving away no revenue at all. It is a mere redistribution of the sum which it was always intended to obtain.
§ Mr. MARKHAM
It is certainly a decrease on the original proposal of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to his full pound of flesh on all these gambling transactions. I do not pose as being virtuous myself. I gamble, and, like most other fools who engage in the same occupation, I always lose. You have here a business which the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) truly says is chiefly gambling, and a Government which stands for purity cannot even see its way to tax gamblers the same amount as bonâ fide investors have to pay. I cannot for the life of me see why the full duty should not be paid on all these gambling transactions. I am opposed to all gambling. It is one of the greatest curses in the world. But here is a Government which claims to be so virtuous, and it will not put a tax on gamblers. It gives them a free licence and every facility to gamble at a very minimum of cost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said the Stock Exchange met him as patriots. He did not say that about them in this House a few years ago. I am glad to think he has changed his views. He says the Stock Exchange is providing the money. I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Hackney that they do not provide it; their clients provide it; and I am quite certain that to say the Stock Exchange is to provide this money and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entered into an agreement with them is not in accordance with the wishes of the great bulk of progressive opinion in this country.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 67.685
|Division No. 714.]||AYES.||[7.45 p.m.|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Agnew, George William||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Alden, Percy||Harwood, George||O'Malley, William|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Haworth, Arthur A.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Hazleton, Richard||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Partington, Oswald|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Healy, Timothy Michael||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Hedges, A. Paget||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Helme, Norval Watson||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)||Pointer, J.|
|Barnes, C. N.||Henry, Charles S.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Barran, Sir John Nicholson||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Bell, Richard||Hooper, A. G.||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester)|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Horniman, Emslie John||Reddy, M.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Jackson, R. S.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Jenkins, J.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Brigg, John||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Bright, J. A.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Robinson, S.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Joyce, Michael||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Keating, M.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Kelley, George D.||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Chance, Frederick W.||Kilbride, Denis||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Laidlaw, Robert||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Clough, William||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Seely, Colonel|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lamont, Norman||Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis||Sheehy, David|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Lehmann, R. C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Snowden, P.|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Levy, Sir Maurice||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cox, Harold||Lewis, John Herbert||Steadman, W. C.|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Cullinan, J.||Lundon, T.||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Lynch, A. (Clare, W.)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Summerbell, T.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Maclean, Donald||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-shire)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Duffy, William J.||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Tomkinson, James|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||M'Callum, John M.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Verney, F. W.|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||M'Micking, Major G.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Elibank, Master of||Mallet, Charles E.||Walters, John Tudor|
|Erskine, David C.||Marnham, F. J.||Waring, Walter|
|Essex, R. W.||Massie, J.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Meagher, Michael||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Menzies, Sir Walter||Watt, Henry A.|
|Falconer, J.||Middlebrook, William||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Molteno, Percy Alport||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Muldoon, John||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Myer, Horatio||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Gibson, J. P.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Gill, A. H.||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Nolan, Joseph||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Glover, Thomas||Norman, Sir Henry||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Norton, Captain Cecil William||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Gulland, John W.||Nussey, Sir Willans||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Nuttall, Harry|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Butcher, Samuel Henry||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Courthope, G. Loyd|
|Balcarres, Lord||Carlile, E. Hildred||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Castlereagh, Viscount||Craik, Sir Henry|
|Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Clive, Percy Archer||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Fell, Arthur||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Starkey, John R.|
|Forster, Henry William||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Foster, P. S.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Gardner, Ernest||Morpeth, Viscount||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Gretton, John||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Haddock, George B.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert||Renton, Leslie||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hills, J. W.||Renwick, George||Younger, George|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)||F. Banbury and Sir W. Bull.|
|Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|