§ (1) As from the passing of this Act, Part I. (4) of the Fifth Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall be read as though the words "or veterinary surgeon" were inserted therein after the words "medical practitioner," and Part I. of the said Schedule and Section eighty-five of the said Act shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
2540§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
§ Mr. PETOThis new Clause, and the others which stand in my name on the Paper, raise a comparatively small point, but I think exactly one of those points which merits the most careful consideration of those who are responsible for the imposition of taxation in this House. I think it is evident from the Finance Act, 2541 in which first the Petrol Duty was imposed, that it was never intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a very heavy impost upon the profits of trade and industry, and still less was it intended to be, what it really becomes, proportionally, a gigantic charge on very small professional incomes. In the Finance Act of 1910 provision is made for a remission of the duty where the motor spirit is used for the purposes of trade; and there is a provision that where doctors have to employ motor cars in the pursuit of their profession they are to get a remission of half the duty on the spirit consumed. It is a very cumbrous process getting back this remission to which they are entitled; at the same time, this law is laid down perfectly clearly in the Finance Act of 1910, and all I want to do by this new Clause is to include a class of doctors who are omitted, a class of doctors who have to work quite as hard, if not harder than those who attend men, women, and children—I refer to the veterinary surgeons. Veterinary surgeons, as a rule, have to travel over larger areas of the country, and have to traverse by-lanes in order to meet their clients, farmers, small holders, and others—even the small man engaged in the smallest kind of agricultural industry—and in doing that, in the course of the last two or three years, even since the passing of the Act, all the conditions have changed. Motors began by being a rare luxury of the few; they then became more or less of a necessity in larger businesses and the better paid professions, and now you find throughout the country their use becoming more and more general. Veterinary surgeons find that it has become absolutely necessary, in order to carry on their profession, that they should be equipped with some sort of car, if only a motor-bicycle or a tri-car, or a two-seated runabout, to cover the large areas they have to get over.
Sometimes we have a little doubt as to the soundness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's head, but I do not think anybody on either side of this House can have the slightest doubt about his heart being right in the matter of the imposition of taxes upon those who can least well afford to pay them; and one could not imagine for a moment that it could possibly be his intention in framing the Budget to put an enormous burden on a very deserving class of people. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a simple illustration of how the tax works out in the case of a veterinary surgeon. The gentleman to whom I refer 2542 has a business extending over an area of at least fifteen miles radius, and occasionally he has to go to further points still. He travels in his little motor car over 22,000 miles a year. Giving him 300 days in the year—I know of my personal knowledge that there are no Sunday holidays in the veterinary surgeon's profession, and I think I am understating the figures—it works out at seventy-three miles a day. Assume that he uses three gallons of petrol—which is an exceptionally low allowance, but I am purposely understating the figures—the tax, quite part from the cost of the petrol, works out at £11 5s. a year. I do not know exactly what the income of that particular veterinary surgeon is, but I am certain that I am well within the mark in saying that there is a vast number of veterinary surgeons doing good business in the agricultural districts of this country who would be very well pleased if they could show an average income of £225 a year. The tax of £11 5s. on an income of £225 amounts to an Income Tax of 1s. in the £—double the Super-tax. All I am asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do, in the administration of this Act, which is intended to put a tax upon a luxury, is not to charge the veterinary surgeons at a higher rate than 6d. in the £ upon an income of £200 a year in respect of this petrol tax. I do not think that is an unreasonable request to make. The remission of half the Petrol Duty is already made in the case of doctors. I would remind the Chancellor of the Duchy that all the doctors of this country do not work on contract work at 6s. a year. There are doctors who would not look at contract work at the post office price with selected patients at 8s. 6d. a year. There are a great many doctors in this country whose professional income must amount to above the Super-tax level, yet these are the people for whom provision is made in the Act in order that they shall have a remission of half the duty on petrol used in their motor car, motor landaulette, or whatever it may be, in which they visit their patients, whether in the West End of London or anywhere else.
Why leave out these men who are struggling to do what is absolutely necessary work? If agriculture is to be kept up even at its present level, it is absolutely essential that you should have these veterinary surgeons scattered throughout the whole length and breadth of the country. If farmers and others had not their assistance it might 2543 almost spell ruin. The prompt attendance of the veterinary surgeon often saves them from sustaining a heavy loss, and the veterinary surgeon should have the means of getting to a case in the quickest time possible in order to render his assistance effective. There is one other question I desire to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. A large number of hon. Members in this House take a very great interest in the question of the provision of horses for the Cavalry of the Regular Army and for the Territorial Force. This subject has occupied a good deal of time during the present Parliament, and very rightly so. It is one of the most important and most burning questions in connection with our military defence. What sort of encouragement do you give to agriculturists for the breeding of horses throughout the country, if you put this heavy duty on petrol, originally intended as a tax upon a luxury, so that the veterinary surgeon has to pay what is equivalent to an Income Tax of 1s. in the £ on his small income, while at the same time you are seeking to give encouragement to horse breeding in this country, in connection with which it is absolutely essential that you should have the services of good veterinary surgeons. On the ground that it is absolutely an injustice as it is worked at present, that it is an overdue remission, and that we have a class practically of doctors of our animals instead of doctors of ourselves who are left out, and probably accidentally left out, on those grounds I make my final appeal, and also on the ground that it is of the utmost importance that you should do nothing to discourage, but everything possible to encourage not only a sufficient number of veterinary surgeons, but to encourage them to equip themselves with the means of getting quickly to the cases where there may be hundreds of pounds of loss, as there is sometimes in the case of horse breeding. I hope we shall be able to find that the Clause which I propose will meet with no opposition from the Treasury Bench, but rather that they will be grateful to me for having pointed out to them this obvious omission in the remissions they have arranged for in the Petrol Duty.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI should like to associate myself with this Clause, which, in my opinion, is one which it is very difficult for the Government to answer, on the footing that it presents a very fair case, since you admit a special concession 2544 under the Finance Act to another branch of the medical profession. My hon. Friend has not referred to the humanitarian standpoint, but there are a very large number of cases of serious accidents to animals, and particularly to horses, which involve an enormous amount of pain which might be avoided if only that pain were not so prolonged in consequence of the difficulty of obtaining veterinary assistance and treatment. I wish to support this Clause mainly for two and somewhat different reasons. In the first place, there are serious diseases of which we hear from time to time amongst our farm stock. One of them is rampant, I am sorry to say, in the country to-day, and there is the necessity, above all, of promptitude in attending to them if they are not to become national scourges. We all know that as regards foot-and-mouth disease, and the same applies to pleuro-pneumonia and cattle plague, that promptitude is of the very essence of success in stamping out those extremely contagious diseases. As regards the veterinary profession, it is common knowledge that we do not get the best men coming into the veterinary profession owing to the very little encouragement which they receive from the Government, either by way of suitable education or by way of facilities to help them in carrying on their practice under favourable conditions at the least possible expense. The result is that we have, taking the profession generally, a comparatively incompetent body of men attending to the maladies of our animals. Another matter which is not generally realised is that the bulk of the smaller farmers in the country simply cannot afford to pay the fees which the veterinary surgeons have to charge if they are going to make a living out of their profession, and the result is they would rather allow their animals to die than send for veterinary surgeons to treat them. It comes to this, that this is essentially a case where you ought to make it as easy and as cheap as possible to bring relief to those who are least able to afford to pay high fees.
There is another reason why I should like to impress the importance of this Clause upon the Committee, and it is that a very large number of these animal diseases are fatal to human beings, such as anthrax, glanders, or even tuberculosis. There are many cases, particularly of anthrax, where, if you had a veterinary surgeon at the earliest possible moment, the whole danger of the disease spreading, not merely among farm animals, but of 2545 being disseminated amongst human beings and resulting possibly in death, might be avoided. My hon. Friend has pointed out that, unlike doctors, veterinary surgeons cover in their practice very large areas of territory. It really means that the bulk of them without a motor car cannot attend promptly to serious cases arising at any great distance from the town in which they may happen to live. I know from my own experience and from what veterinary surgeons have told me that many of them would extend their practice and reduce their charges if only it were possible to them, instead of having the usual trap or gig, to obtain a motor car, if they could pay the maintenance expenses without so large a drain on their pockets. For this, amongst many other reasons, I desire to support this Clause, and I venture to think that the small amount which the Treasury, I was going to say would lose, but as there would likely be more motors employed for this purpose there would probably be a gain, but even assuming that they were to lose by this proposal, what they lost would be out of all proportion to the enormous gain, both to animals and to human beings, that would result from the concession.
§ Mr. BARNSTONI desire to support this Clause. I do not suggest that the profession of veterinary surgeons is in any way equal to the profession of an ordinary doctor, but I do at the same time say that a veterinary surgeon's profession is a very noble profession—that of healing and mitigating the pain of poor dumb animals. They lead a very strenuous life; they have got immense distances to go in our country districts, and, as a rule, they make comparatively very small incomes, however scientific or however clever they may be. I do not suppose there is really any class of men who have been so injured by the advent of the motor car as veterinary surgeons. In days gone by humble country people, like myself, who probably kept two, three, or four carriage horses, have now entirely done away with the horses, and do all their carriage work by motor car. I do not say that the veterinary surgeons are ruined by that, but the practice must have been materially decreased by the advent of the motor car all over the country. It is not only on behalf of the veterinary surgeons that I support the Clause of my hon. Friend, I urge it quite as much on behalf of the farmers of the country and the animals they have to treat, because it must be of the greatest advantage that in cases of sickness and in cases of disease the veterinary surgeon 2546 should be able to get to the spot quickly. Surely many diseases amongst animals, if they were attended to quickly, might be cured, while, if there is delay, the animal dies. The matter is in very small compass, but it is important to the farmers and to the veterinary surgeons, and on behalf of the farmers and veterinary surgeons I support the Clause.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse)A proposal similar to this was made in connection with the Finance Act of 1909–10, and was then discussed at great length. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, while expressing his sympathy with the views which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), pointed out with great force that the moment you began to make remissions of this sort to one class of persons engaged in trade and industry, the pressure from all other similar classes engaged in travelling about the country would become quite irresistible. Everyone who has been in any way responsible for the conduct of the financial business of the country must agree in principle with that proposition. At first sight the argument of the hon. Member excites some sympathy. If you decrease the cast of the motive power you make possible an increase of the speed at which a man will travel, because he can afford to use more motor spirit. But, as a matter of fact, I am not quite sure whether in the interests of veterinary surgeons themselves the proposed change would do much good. The hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) rather suggested that very little loss would be incurred by the Treasury if this remission were made, because it would probably lead to an increased use of motor cars. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Barnston) pointed out that nothing had done the veterinary surgeons of this country so much harm as the introduction of motor cars.
§ Mr. BARNSTONIndirectly.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI think directly, because the use of motor vehicles has reduced the number of horses used as a means of getting about the country, and the veterinary surgeon's business is to look after horses and not after motor cars.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTAt any rate their own motor cars would do them no harm.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI am not quite sure about that. It would be setting a bad example from their point of view. I think that the argument of the hon. Member for 2547 Eddisbury is a sound one, and that the use of motor cars by individual tradesmen has really dealt a serious blow at the practice of veterinary surgeons. It is argued that the loss to the Treasury would not be a serious one. From one point of view it might be, but if the loss to the Treasury is small the burden inflicted upon the individual is not great, and therefore the remission—
§ Mr. PETOThe whole point of my argument was that the loss to the individual was enormous in proportion to the income he was able to make, but that the amount from the Treasury point of view was a mere bagatelle, because there are not a large number of veterinary surgeons, and they employ only one motor car apiece at the outside.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI heard all that, but I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that to grant a remission to one comparatively small class of traders, however excellent may be the trade or profession in which they are engaged, would at once lead to a similar demand from classes like commercial travellers and local tradesmen, who are every year more and more using motor cars, and from farmers themselves who employ veterinary surgeons, and whose payments to veterinary surgeons will not be lowered because the duty paid by them is less, until eventually you would get a whole class of interests rising against the continued full imposition of the tax on motor spirit, and so far from the loss being small there would be a very large gap in the Revenue so far as this particular tax is concerned. For these reasons, and for those urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the matter was first raised, I regret that I am not able to accept the proposed new Clause.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIf the reasons against the new Clause have been fully stated by the right hon. Gentleman, I think my hon. Friend will be well advised to press his proposal to a Division, for a weaker defence I have never heard in support of a Government position. At the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and for some time after I thought he had got hold of the wrong notes, and was discussing a new Clause lower on the Paper. What showed me that he was dealing with the question of veterinary surgeons was the delightfully ingenuous suggestion that it was inexpe- 2548 dient to lessen the rate of duty on motor spirit so far as veterinary surgeons are concerned lest they should be tempted to give up their own horses and keep motor cars. Since the historical report in which it was stated that certain people lived by taking in each other's washing, I have never known a more peculiar idea than that of a veterinary surgeon who expects to make an income out of attending his own horse. What did the right hon. Gentleman say on the merits of the new Clause? He said, and this is true, that it is always difficult to draw the line when you begin to make exceptions from a general rule, that wherever you draw the line there is bound to be some case excluded which more or less approximates to those which are included, and gradually the line is thrust further and further out until the tax is whittled away altogether. That is a good argument for making no exceptions if you can avoid them, but it is no reason for making your distinction in an entirely illogical fashion. The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that in the case of doctors this exemption or abatement is already allowed. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would talk of doctors as traders, probably not. He would call them professional men. Surely veterinary surgeons should also be classed as professional men, rather than as traders. But in the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly described them as traders; he likened them to commercial travellers, and compared the motor-cars they employ in pursuance of their profession to the vans which the big stores send out from a large town twenty or thirty miles into the country delivering goods all along the road.
§ Mr. PETOThe big van that a trader would send out into the country is already given a remission of half the Petrol Duty.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am much obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact. What then comes of the right hon. Gentleman's defence?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe right hon. Gentleman is putting into my mouth an argument which I did not use. I never spoke of the great stores sending out big vans; I spoke of local tradesmen.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe right hon. Gentleman spoke of commercial travellers?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSECertainly.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINTravelling, I presume, on behalf of big houses as well as little local firms. What the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, attempted to do was to draw a distinction between the exemption made for the doctors attending human patients on the ground that they are professional men and the proposal to make an exemption on behalf of veterinary surgeons on the ground that they were classed as traders. I say the veterinary surgeon is much more comparable to a doctor who attends on human patients than he is to a
§ trader. I cannot agree that he is not a professional man; but even if you class the veterinary surgeon as a trader, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as I was reminded by my hon. Friend a moment or two ago, that the big traders have already a rebate in respect of their trade motor cars, and that is what we are asking for in the case of the veterinary surgeon.
§ Question put, "That the proposed Clause be added to the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 207.
2551| Division No. 192.] | AYES. | [2.10 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Foster, Philip Staveley | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Gardner, Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Ashley, W. W. | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Gilmour, Captain J. | Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Baird, J. L. | Goldsmith, Frank | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Barnston, Harry | Grant, J. A. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Greene, W. R. | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Gretton, John | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) | Quilter, Sir William Eley C. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamersley, A. St. George | Rawlinson, J. F. P. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Harris, Henry Percy | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bird, A. | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Royds, Edmund |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Hickman, Col. Thomas E. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Boyton, J. | Hills, John Waller | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hohler, G. Fitzroy | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Campion, W. R. | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Stanler, Beville |
| Cassel, Felix | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Starkey, John R. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Houston, Robert Paterson | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Cator, John | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Cautley, H. S. | Ingleby, Holcombe | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Cave, George | Jackson, Sir John | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r. | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Thyne, Lord Alexander |
| Chambers, J. | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Tobin, Alfred Aspinall |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Larmor, Sir J. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lewisham, Viscount | Warde, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Cripps, Sir C. A. | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Dalziel, D. (Brixton) | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Macmaster, Donald | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Dickson. Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Dixon, C. H. | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Malcolm, Ian | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Yerburgh, Robert |
| Faber, George Denison (Clapham) | Middlemore, J. T. | Younger, Sir George |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Newman, John R. P. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Peto and Mr. C. Bathurst. |
| Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Newton, Harry Kottingham | |
| Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Arnold, Sydney | Booth, Frederick Handel |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Boyle, D. (Mayo N.) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Brace, William |
| Alden, Percy | Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George) | Brady, P. J. |
| Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) | Bentham, G. J. | Brocklehurst, W. B. |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Black, Arthur W. | Burke, E. Haviland- |
| Armitage, R. | Boland, John Pius | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Malley, William |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Shee, James John |
| Clough, William | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Joyce, Michael | Palmer, Godfrey |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Keating, Matthew | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Kellaway, Friderick George | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Kelly, Edward | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kilbride, Denis | Pointer, Joseph |
| Cullinan, J. | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Dawes, J. A. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| De Forest, Baron | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Delany, William | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Radford, G. H. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leach, Charles | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Devlin, Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Reddy, Michael |
| Dillon, John | Lundon, T. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lynch, A. A. | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Esmonde, sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | McGhee, Richard | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Essex, Richard Walter | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Falconer, J. | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Wacpherson, James Ian | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Ffrench, Peter | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Field, William | McCallum, Sir John M. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. [Leics.) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Gill, A. H. | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Glanville, H. J. | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Sheehy, David |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Shortt, Edward |
| Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Meagher, Michael | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Gulland, John William | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Hackett, J. | Molloy, M. | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Tennant, Harold John |
| Hancock, J. G. | Mooney, J. J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Morrell, Philip | Thorne, wiliam (West Ham) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morison, Hector | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Wadsworth, J. |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Muldoon, John | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Munro, R. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Wardle, George J. |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Hayward, Evan | Neilson, Francis | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nolan, Joseph | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Henry, Sir Charles | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Higham, John Sharp | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hinds, John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Doherty, Philip | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Hogge, James Myles | O'Donnell, Thomas | |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Down, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest. |
| Hope, John Deans (Haddington) | O'Grady, James |