§ For the purpose of enabling deductions from revenue receipts of expired capital outlay on inherently wasting assets to be allowed by the additional Commissioners' claims in respect of those deductions shall be included in the annual statement required to be delivered under the Income Tax Acts of the profits and gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern, and where such a deduction from the revenue receipts is made, and has been made, from the commencement of the actual employment of the inherently wasting assets in seeking profits, or during a period of not less than three years to the end of the usual financial year of the particular trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern last prior to the year of assessment, and provided such deduction is so made as to prevent the same being available as profits, 2612 the additional Commissioners in assessing those profits and gains shall make such allowances in respect of those claims as they think just and reasonable. For the purpose of this Section the term "inherently wasting assets" means assets which necessarily waste in the process of seeking profits, provided always that such wasting assets are not the value of transferred rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
I beg to move, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
The object of the Clause is to prevent the Income Tax being collected, as I say it is collected, on a much larger sum than truly represents the profits earned by the investment of capital. I move it after consultation with a great number of business 2613 people interested in this question, and who urged me to move it in the interests of most true economy and true and accurate business. I believe that on both sides of the House I shall have a certain amount of support to the Clause which I am moving, because I think only last year the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now the Chancellor of the Duchy, admitted that a strong case was made out for relief in respect of inherently wasting assets, or, as I should prefer to call them, expired capital outlay, if it could be done with proper safeguards to the revenue. The Clause has been very carefully drawn, and follows the model contained in many Income Tax Acts, especially the 1907 Act. It follows the model of the Clause in that Act, under which relief is given in respect of deductions for wear and tear of machinery and plant. I also claim for this Clause that intrinsically and on its face it is a genuine Income Tax Clause, for the reason that no person could possibly understand it at first sight, and I think, when that is the case, obviously it must have something to do with a genuine Income Tax Act. It has been adapted in order that proper safeguards may be given to the revenue.
This is not a party question, nor is it one in which I have the smallest personal interest; it is only a question of trying to establish a true measure for ascertaining profits; and, from information that has come to me, I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he wishes to have sound finance he will accept this Clause. If he does so, he will certainly earn the thanks of a great number of persons in the City of London. It would not be fair for me to say that I have not received help. I have received assistance from a very great authority on the question of inherently wasting assets, Mr. Leake, whose book is well known to a great number of Members, while the Government wisely rely on the assistance which he can give them in matters of very serious moment at the present time. May I illustrate what the Clause is intended to do. I take the simplest case of wasting assets—a nitrate bed in Chili. You can ascertain by a measurement how much nitrate there is there, and what your return will be when you have spent your labour upon it and obtained the nitrate which you can see, which you can measure, which you can ascertain, and which you know.
It is quite obvious that in the process of working the nitrate and getting it to 2614 market you use a certain amount of the bed. Take an illustration. You pay £20,000 for a bed which it is known would take twenty years to work, and each year you work a twentieth part of it of the value of £1,000. Obviously any company which is prudent and wished to deal honestly in its finances would say that as they eat up a portion of the bed each year they must make provision for the wasting asset. If any directors ventured to declare a dividend or profit without making such provision they would run the risk of being told by any court, or at a meeting of shareholders, that they were improvident, not to use harsher language. When they go to the Inland Revenue authorities what happens? They have to pay Income Tax on the whole gross profit including the £1,000 of expired capital outlay. That might be a very small matter in the old days, but at present the Income Tax brings in a revenue of between forty-four and forty-five million pounds. It has become a very serious matter; so serious that the companies which might come and do their business and be registered over here are ceasing to be registered here.
I have been told of companies in the last few months with a capital of from £200,000 to £250,000, which under ordinary circumstances would be registered here, but have declined to come to London because of the immense burden of the Income Tax as at present collected. I have been told by an authority on whom I can rely, and on whom I am sure the Committee would rely if they knew him, that if this Clause had been passed a few months ago a large body of capital which was put into a company to work certain nitrate beds, would have been registered over here, but that in the absence of some change the company decided to be registered in Chili. The result is a considerable loss of revenue in Stamp Duties and in other work in connection with the company, and a considerable loss to the revenue of this country. When I am asking for certain relief in respect of these deductions as to inherently wasting assets, I am also endeavouring to give facilities for business to come to this country which is deterred at present owing to the system by which Income Tax is gathered. I have here the profit and loss accounts of a considerable nitrate company. The gross profit for the year was £19,232. How was that dealt with? To the depreciation account to meet the expired capital outlay which had been made they put £10,474. That clearly shows, as the directors thought, that in 2615 obtaining a profit of £19,232 they had eaten up a portion of their cake representing £10,434, leaving really a profit of £9,000. But when they had dealt with the Income Tax, insurance reserve, and so on, they had a balance of only £3,890. No provident financier or shareholder would have put the profits of this company at a larger sum than £3,890. But what say the Inland Revenue authorities? They say that the company must pay Income Tax on the whole £19,232. Therefore, they claim on more than double the profit that has been made, with the result that the Income Tax of this particular company, instead of being 1s. or 1s. 2d. in the £, runs up to something like 4s. 6d. in the £.
But it is not every wasting asset that I wish to enjoy this immunity. That would be wrong. There are a great number of assets spoken of as wasting assets, which are not truly wasting assets for the purpose of securing immunity from Income Tax. The matter has been well dealt with in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Income Tax in the year 1905. The Committee went through various cases of depreciation of wasting assets, and pointed out that there are a certain number of wasting assets which ought not to have immunity. Take, for instance, an ordinary leasehold. A person who buys a lease with, say twenty years to run, knows that every year he must in some way provide to replace the capital which runs off year by year as the lease draws towards its close. From the point of view of the Income Tax authorities it would be quite unfair to suggest that that was an inherently wasting asset. A man who buys a lease buys the right to hold a house during a limited term of years. During those years, if he had been the owner, he would have been subject to Income Tax. What the purchaser does is to put down a lump sum in return for something which per se is subject to Income Tax year by year. If you were to render leaseholds immune from Income Tax you would by a transfer enable particular persons to avoid payment of Income Tax. That is not what we seek to do. As Mr. Leake says:—If that were done. British Income Tax could be largely evaded by the simple process of selling to another person the right to the future income, thereby enabling not only the original owner to secure the future income free of tax in advance of the years in which it, will arise and become normally chargeable with British Income Tax, but also enabling the present owner to secure it free of tax, for he would be entitled 2616 to set off his expired capital outlay against the actual profits received in each year.I put these two illustrations because I want to make my point clear to the Committee. I do not claim immunity for all kinds of what are commonly called wasting assets. I confine this Clause to such wasting assets as inherently waste in the process of seeking profits. The Clause therefore I am tasking attention to is modelled on the Act of 1907. It will be remembered that gradually immunity has been granted, or rather, relief has been granted, both for repairs and with respect to deductions for wear and tear of plant and machinery, and now relief is granted in the case of ships. Under the Act of 1894 there is one-sixth reduction allowed in respect of repairs to buildings from a rack rent. In the case of plant and machinery, 5 per cent, is allowed off under the Act of 1878; while under the Act of 1907 ships are allowed to have a life of twenty-five years, and 4 per cent, reduction is commonly allowed in respect of them. I am claiming that a case has been made out, and rightly made out, in respect of these inherently wasting assets. What is the answer? The answer is: "Oh, well; Income Tax is a Statutory Tax, and must be collected; we must get revenue somehow, and inasmuch as we have gone on collecting it in the past we will go on collecting it in the future." That is not an answer. It is not necessary that you should go on continuing what is really an injustice and an outrage on true finance. Surely when you have got to a point when Income Tax is so heavy that by reason of the way you collect it you are deterring people from coming to this country, and bringing their businesses here, you should pause and consider. It may be very well to say, "We have Statutory rights." But there is really something better and higher than that. You really ought to encourage people to keep their finance and the practice of their businesses in that prudent and right manner which is consistent with the views of right thinking people. May I quote a few words from a judgment of one of the judges who had to deal with one of these particular nitrate cases. He said:—Any prudent person who carries on a business or gets an income from something in which capital is necessarily wasted by reason of the use of that material which he starts as part of his capital will provide for such a case by a sinking fund. Although that is a prudent course to adopt, no deduction in respect is now permitted by the Income Tax Act.All one can say is that that is very unfortunate. Let me come to the particular Clause, which has been drawn, if I may say so, with very great care. I hope the 2617 Chancellor of the Exchequer will understand that I am not endeavouring to make an unfair inroad into the revenue that he collects. I am not endeavouring to give an opportunity for persons to escape from paying. All I am intending to do is to bring about a system of the collection of Income Tax in which there is care and prudent finance, and on what I may call business principles. First of all the Clause enables a deduction from revenue receipts to be allowed by the additional Commissioners. Under the 1907 Income Tax Act the additional Commissioners have got the right—and that right remains in them, it is not taken away—to allow such claims as have been included in the annual statement with respect to deduction for the wear and tear of machinery, and I do not wish to take away that power from the additional Commissioners.
I desire to allow them authority to allow what is just and reasonable—the purpose of allowing deductions on claims included in the annual statement of the accounts of any trade or manufacture, adventure or concern, and so on, where there has been a deduction made in respect of inherently wasting assets, not merely shown in one balance-sheet, where it may be possibly hidden away so that it might be subsequently used as a profit, but where it is done as part of the system, as in the nitrate companies, over a period of years, and where it is so done so "as to prevent the same being available as profits in any subsequent year." Where you have got that class of wasting assets the additional Commissioners shall make such allowance as they think just and reasonable. Therefore if there is any case of unfair deduction so that the money is not properly used or is likely to be brought out again in the balance-sheet to pay dividends, then they can refuse to remit the amounts, but where the system is adopted in pursuance of a policy and where that policy is finally adhered to, there the Commissioners are empowered to make such deductions as they think just and reasonable. Of course, that is necessary for the purpose of those continually and definitely inherently wasting assets, because I do not want the result of granting exemption to be extended to any case in which it is not really agreed by any competent business man that exemption ought to be allowed. Therefore I define these wasting assets in the strictest possible way and in the way in which Mr. 2618 Leake has drawn it in his interesting book on "Wasting Assets." I add a proviso to prevent any other exemption being introduced by saying:—Provided always that such wasting assets are not of the value of transfered rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made.In that way I eliminate leaseholds, patents, and copyrights and other things not truly entitled to immunity, because by transfer and sale it would be possible in these cases to avoid paying revenue which ought to be paid. That is the scheme of the Clause, which has been drawn with a very great deal of care. It is in the hope that it may be a contribution towards getting over what is really an injustice, and has been admitted from the Front Bench opposite more than once to be an injustice, in connection with which I think all sides of the House will be glad to see a way out, and so that we may have Income Tax collected in a manner which would increase prudent finance and which would cease to deter capital being invested in companies over here that I move this Clause. I hope I have been able to make my meaning clear. All I can say is that it is a difficult and intricate subject, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept it from me that my desire is not to create chaos in the system of Income Tax, but to try and get immunity for those cases where it ought to be granted, and to prevent any escape in those cases where immunity ought not to be granted. I have left the Assistant Commissioners masters of the situation, therefore the matter will really be in the hands of the revenue authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to grant a Clause of this kind I feel sure he will earn the thanks, and I know he will get them, of a large portion of the business community who are constantly finding these difficulties in the way of carrying on their business as they ought to do, and as they wish to do.
§ Mr. PETO
I wish to add a few words to what my hon. Friend has said. The Clause as drawn covers the ground which I wanted to cover with one of my proposals, which was ruled out of order last night. Although I could not compete with the lucid manner in which my hon. and learned Friend has put his point of view, I think it would be to the advantage 2619 of the Committee that a word or two should be said from the strictly business point of view. The whole of the definition of the rules on which the Income Tax is now collected dates from the Act of 1842. I would remind the Committee that 1842 was before the dawn of really scientific accountancy in this country. It was before any of the Limited Companies Acts had been passed, and when the whole condition of trade and industry in this country was entirely different from what it is to-day. Beyond that it is well worth remembering that the Act of 1842 imposed an Income Tax Duty on the profits of trades, profession, offices and emoluments of 7d. in the £ for three years only. The first remission for wasting assets was granted in 1878 when the Income Tax was 5d., and it was not then anticipated that the Income Tax would continue to be a regular tax in the country. We now have an Income Tax of 1s. 2d. in the £ as a permanent tax. In this respect I could quote a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only a very short time ago in another connection to the effect that if you are going to have a heavy duty of this kind of at least 6 per cent, on all profits, it is of the first importance that you should make sure you are levying that tax on the profits of the business as understood by chartered accountants to-day. If you only give spasmodic, casual relief here and there, in the matter of these wasting assets, that will not meet the case. First of all by that process you discourage proper business management. The thing we have to recollect in this country is that the size of the scrap heap is a very good measure of progressive business management in any industrial affair. If you do not allow full relief or proper depreciation for machinery you distinctly discourage proper business management on progressive lines. If you do not do that you encourage bad accounts, and you encourage people to evade the taxes, because you are charging them on an unjust basis. I would like to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a simple illustration from my own personal experience. The hon. and learned Member referred to nitrate deposits. I have never had anything to do with nitrate deposits, but I have had to do with the mining of a mineral of a wholly different character. There was a lot of development work to be done at considerable expense before we came upon something worth mining. The proper accountancy was to say: "Here is a capital expenditure of 2620 £800 to be spent in sinking a shaft. We estimate we shall get £1,000 worth of mineral, and we shall do it in three years. The profit is the difference between the development work required to get at the mineral and the realisable sum of the mineral." In this simple case the true profit of the industry which ought to be taxed is £200. What happens? When you go to the Income Tax Commissioner, and ask him to make some allowance by way of depreciation on this work of development you will be very fortunate if you get 5 per cent. You say the whole work will only last three years, but he brushes that aside and you do not get relief. You pay on £1,000, with a very small reduction,, whereas you ought only to pay on £200. You, therefore, have got to say this is not capital expenditure, it is revenue expenditure; you are forced to bad accountancy in order to evade the injustice of a tax levied, not on profits as was originally intended, but on something far beyond the profits of the industry. May I read to the Committee a brief definition of this question given by Mr. Leake, whom the hon. and learned Member has already quoted, and than whom there could not possibly be a better authority:—No annual profit arises until the inevitable annual wastage in the assets in which the capital was originally invested has been fully provided for out of gross receipts,If you go upon that principle you will, actually be collecting your tax on the lines laid down by the Act of 1842. Practically the whole trouble has arisen from, the interpretations of learned judges, in various cases, of what is stated in the Third Clause of Schedule D of the Act of 1842. In estimating the balance of profits and gains chargeable under Schedule D certain things may not be deducted, and this is one of them:—Nor on account of any capital withdrawn therefrom.There is the basis of the whole trouble. It has always been held that anything of this kind which is claimed is a withdrawal, of capital. It is a wholly erroneous idea that it is a withdrawal of capital at all. If you have a mine and sell a portion of a mineral deposit, or if, in another wasting asset you put aside an annual depreciation, you transfer from one form of capital to another certain of your assets. The minerals you were getting as soon as they were marketable became capital in liquid form—book debts or cash—It is not a withdrawal of capital from the business. What was the intention in passing the Act of 1842 under those primitive condi- 2621 tions of industry which I have indicated. They wanted to stop all possible leakage. They knew they were imposing an unpopular tax. Industries were carried on by individual management spread much more widely and generally over the country, and everybody would try to find some means of escaping payment. The one simple and most obvious means would have been when money was taken out of the business for the man engaged in the business to tell the tax collector that it was not really a withdrawal of profit, but that it was really a withdrawal of capital; and in the primitive method in which accounts were kept in those days it could not have been very difficult on these grounds to evade the imposition of the tax. Consequently the withdrawal of capital was specifically named as one of the things for which the deduction was not to be claimed. Yet on these simple words the whole of this case has been built up—a case which twists and distorts the intentions of the original Act; which causes a monstrous injustice, and which handicaps trade all over the country. It drives capital away which would otherwise be invested here; it discourages ability; it encourages unsound finance, and it discourages the expenditure necessary to maintain the efficiency of the plant on which so much depends in this country.
Therefore I wanted to put in my word from the business point of view in support of this Amendment. We have reached a point at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be obliged, under the new conditions under which the Income Tax is now levied, to seriously consider whether it is a fair or just basis for the collection of the tax, keeping at 1s. 2d. in £1, and collecting it from one man, while another man gets off to a certain extent. It would be better if necessary to raise the rate to 1s. 3d. and collect it on a fair basis. If it is necessary to do that, in order to make good the unjust operation of the tax, it would be a better way and one which would injure the trade of the country less than by collecting Income Tax on hypothetical profits of industry, and in many cases on gross profits which are never realised at all. I want to add my entire agreement with the hon. and learned Member as to the things which have to be left out of consideration under this Clause. He did not mention all of them. Practically, we would say that any form of property, even if it is apparently a wasting asset, in which there is a free market where it could be disposed of, and in which 2622 it is perfectly clearly understood by the purchaser what are the terms on which he purchases, namely, that the property is subject to an annual deduction for Income Tax, should not be brought under this, Clause. This would include patent rights, goodwill, copyright, and leaseholds and all things which can be bought and sold in the open market where, what my learned Friend would call, the doctrine of caveat emptor comes in. It would be fair to say, "It is your own look out." But if you did not exempt these things you would be altering the whole basis of Income Tax collection. In any such transaction what happens is this: The purchaser says, "I estimate I shall get so much profit for so many years, and I will give so much as a lump sum for these anticipated profits." In estimating these profits he is bound to take into account the consideration that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will charge him 1s. 2d. in the £ upon the gross profits. It is perfectly easy, therefore, for him to make a calculation in advance. The things that we want specially to betaken into account in the interest of the trade and industry of the country are machinery, office furniture, buildings, or other structures erected simply for the purpose of trade, and all those things which have a depreciating annual value, making full allowance for obsolescence. These should be allowed at the discretion of the Income Tax Commissioners. I am certain that if a clear guiding line is given by the passage of this Clause into law, we shall not have any difficulty in getting them to agree as to what constitutes a true profit, and what is the proper and legitimate deduction to be made in accordance with the principles of correct accounts.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
As those who have taken part in the discussions on the Finance Bill during the last few years must be aware, this is a hardy annual. It is one of those problems which have embarrassed and perplexed every Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, on the face of it, there is a case to be met. In fact I go? beyond that and say that there is a real case that has got to be dealt with. That case was presented fully by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock). I fully recognise that this Clause is a better Amendment than that which was moved by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Peto) on the same subject some time ago. It is more moderate, and it is presented in form much mote difficult to resist. But 2623 the effect of this Clause is rather underestimated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is much more far-reaching than he seemed to imply in his speech, although I acknowledge that it is more restricted in its operation than the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. This Clause will involve a loss to the Revenue of at least £2,000,000. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think he could confine it to foreign minerals. He could not. Every principle he lays down here would have to be applied to the British mineral field, and the result would be that it would involve a loss to the revenue of something like £2,000,000. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peto) very courageously is willing to meet that by saying "put up the Income Tax over the rest of the taxpayers of this country." That is a very serious proposition.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has really observed in the Clause the very restricted power we give. In the case of coalfields over here, is that practice adopted? I think it is only adopted in cases where there is obviously a limited life to the concern, but if he is advised that it is adopted as a matter of practice over periods of years I shall be glad to be corrected.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am only advised by those who are responsible for the collection of Income Tax that the principle laid down here would involve a very considerable measure of loss in covering all the Income Tax in the mineral fields in Great Britain, and their estimate is that the total loss on the foreign and British interests would come to something like £2,000,000 a year. I received a very important deputation from leading business men on the subject two or three years ago, and I should like to point out why it is almost impossible to do it without a complete readjustment of the whole machinery of the Income Tax and without complicating that machinery to an extent which might even be fatal to its success. The hon. Member has given the case of ships, which are wasting assets, and says there you have made arrangements. It is much more easy to do with regard to ships. You can there lay down a general rule. But take the case given by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) and the case given by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Pollock). How are you to deal with mines in this country and mines in India? You 2624 cannot lay down a rule of general application which would cover those cases. I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman would apply the same rule to any two mines.
I am perfectly certain you could not apply the same rule to two mines with different minerals. You are entirely in the hands of those who prepare the account. The hon. Gentleman calls it scientific bookkeeping. That costs a good deal of revenue, and I think scientific bookkeeping is just the risk you have to guard against in the acceptance of an Amendment of this kind, and unless I am mistaken, if we accepted this, it would be so scientific that there would be no Income Tax left, and therefore you have to to proceed upon a principle which may be a crude one, but which is the only principle which is possible of application in the case of a tax. In a tax you ought to make the machinery as simple as is compatible, at any rate, with fairness and with the collection of revenue. It would be quite impossible to do it if we accepted the principle laid down here. There is no Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am certain, who, in dealing with this problem would not like to be able to redress the inequalities which are caused by such instances as he has submitted to the House with such great force; but I am equally certain that every Chancellor of the Exchequer ends as he begins by feeling practically that it is almost impossible to redress the grievance without having a complete reconstruction of the Income Tax—such a reconstruction as would involve a great loss of revenue, especially in regard to these foreign mines. It would be entirely in the hands of those who are preparing the accounts. Under these circumstances, however much I sympathise with the general objects of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall have to give the same answer that every Chancellor of the Exchequer has given up to the present. I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
I hope I have made it quite plain that I was not in the least wedded to these particular words. I have only endeavoured, and I think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that, to try to get a step forward on the lines on which something could be safely done. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this would involve the reorganisation of the Income Tax, I reply that I have been trying to get some organisation out of the chaos which at present exists. It would 2625 be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman could get the Income Tax reorganised, because it is high time that the methods under which the tax is imposed and collected were put on a better basis. We ought to have far simpler methods adopted. I do not think that what I would call the Departmental answer given by the right hon. Gentleman meets the case. I did hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that he would endeavour to have the Clause remodelled in some way which would meet the difficulty. Having officials of experience and ability at his command, I hoped that he would be able to say that he would bring up a Clause to meet the difficulty.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite realised, or that he has had any official reports made to him, as to what
§ the revenue is he is losing to-day owing to registration abroad. In consequence very largely of the difficulty which this Clause is intended to meet, a large and increasing proportion of companies registered in London to-day are being registered in South Africa, Newfoundland, the United States, and the Colonies, as well as in foreign countries—Russia very largely, and also Belgium. I think from what I can see that it is very likely the Chancellor of the Exchequer is losing more money to the revenue, both in Income Tax and in other ways, by refusing to redress this simple grievance than he is gaining by insisting upon an unfair exaction in regard to this alleged income which is not income at all.
§ Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 172.2627
|Division No. 196.]||AYES.||[6.45 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gilmour, Captain John||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Goldsmith, Frank||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Ashley, W. W.||Goulding, E. A.||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Grant, James Augustus||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)|
|Baird, J. L.||Greene, Walter Raymond||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Gretton, John||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Barnston, H.||Guinness, Hon. Robert (Essex, S.E.)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Barrie, H. T.||Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Haddock, George Bahr||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell||Hamersley, A. St. George||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Harris, Henry Percy||Spear, Sir John|
|Burn, Col. C. R.||Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)||Stanier, Beville|
|Campion, W. R.||Hills, John Waller||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Cassel, Felix||Hohler, G. F.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cator, John||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Chambers, James||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.||Thompson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Clyde, James Avon||Kerry, Earl of||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Touche, George Alexander|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Larmor, Sir J.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lewisham, Viscount||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud.|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Faber, George D.||Macmaster, Donald||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Younger, Sir George|
|Fell, Arthur||Malcolm, Ian|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Peto.|
|Gibbs, George Abraham||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Duffy, William J.|
|Acland, Francis Duke||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)|
|Alden, Percy||Clancy, John Joseph||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Clough, William||Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)|
|Arnold, Sidney||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Essex, Richard Walter|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Cotton, William Francis||Falconer, J.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Crooks, William||Ffrench, Peter|
|Barnes, George H.||Crumley, Patrick||Field, William|
|Boland, John Pius||Cullinan, John||Fitzgibbon, John|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Delany, William||Gill, Alfred Henry|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dillon, John||Gladstone, W. G. C.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Donelan, Captain A.||Glanville, Harold James|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lundon, T.||Palmer, Godfrey, Mark|
|Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Lynch, A. A.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Guest, Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||McGhee, Richard||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)|
|Gulland, John W.||Maclean, Donald||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Hackett, J.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. T. J.||Radford, G. H.|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Macpherson, James Ian||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||McKean, John||Reddy, M.|
|Hayward, Evan||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Henry, Sir Charles S.||Meagher, Michael||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Hinds, John||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Molloy, M.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Hodge, John||Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||Mooney, J. J.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Hope, John Deans (Haddington)||Morgan, George Hay||Sheehy, David|
|Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Morison, Hector||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Shortt, Edward|
|Hudson, Walter||Muldoon, John||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Munro, Robert||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Snowden, Philip|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Thomas, James Henry (Derby)|
|Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nolan, Joseph||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Keating, Matthew||O'Connor, J. (Kildare, N.)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Kelly, Edward||O'Doherty, Philip||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||O'Donnell, Thomas||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.|
|Kilbride, Denis||O'Dowd, John||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lansbury, George||O'Malley, William||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||O'Shee, James John|
|Leach, Charles||O'Sullivan, Timothy||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones.|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Outhwaite, R. L.|
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (5th August).
§ And, it being after Half-past Five of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Nine minutes before Seven o'clock.