HC Deb 08 July 1914 vol 64 cc1115-72

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [7th July], "That the remainder of the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and the necessary stages of any Resolutions in connection therewith, shall be proceeded with as follows:—

(1) Committee Stage.

Four allotted days shall be given to the remainder of the Committee stage of the Bill (including the necessary stages of any Resolutions in connection therewith), and the proceedings on each such allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the first part of the table annexed to this Order, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of the first part of that table.

(2) Report Stage.

Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings on each such allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the second part of the table annexed to this Order; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of the second part of that table.

(3) Third Reading.

One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading of the Bill, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. on that day.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After this Order comes into operation any day after the day on which this Order is passed (other than a Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day, or on which any stage of any Resolution in connection therewith is put down as the first Government Order of the Day followed by the Bill.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Motion, Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Motion, Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

The Chair shall have power to select the Amendments to be proposed on any allotted day, and Standing Order No. 26 shall apply as if a Motion had been carried under paragraph 3 of that Standing Order empowering the Chair to select the Amendments with respect to each Motion, Clause, or Schedule under debate on that day.

A Motion may be made by the Government to leave out any Clause or Schedule or consecutive Clauses or Schedules of the Bill before consideration of any Amendments to the Clause or Clauses or Schedule or Schedules in Committee, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without Amendment or Debate.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and shall be treated as Government Business.

On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to re-commit the

Part I.
Proceedings on Committee Stage.
Allotted Day. Proceedings. Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.
First The remainder of Clause 3 and Clause 4 7
Clauses 5 to 8 and Committee stage of any Resolution in connection with the Bill 11
Second Clause 9 7
Clause 10 and Report stage of any Resolution in connection with Bill 11
Third Clauses 11 to 14 5.30
Clauses 15 and 16 8
New Clauses
Fourth New Clauses, Schedules, and new Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion 11
Part II.
Proceedings on Report Stage.
Allotted Day. Proceedings. Time for Proceedings to be brought to a Conclusion.
First New Clauses 11
Second Clauses and Schedules of the Bill, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report Stage to a conclusion 11
—[The Prime Minister.]

Bill, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

  1. (a) prevent any proceedings under which this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
  2. (b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

Which Amendment was in paragraph (1), Committee Stage, to leave out the word "Four" ["Four allotted days"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Eight."—[Mr. Pollock.]

Question again proposed, "That the word 'Four' stand part of the Question."


Under that part of the Guillotine Resolution which deals with Clauses 5, 6, 7, and 8, we are only allowed four hours' discussion. Clause 5 contains the new provision for the taxation of income in respect of foreign property outside the United Kingdom, and I think that an hour for that can hardly be considered adequate. In view of the fact that there will probably be very considerable Colonial jealousy if we exercise taxing power over those who live in the Colonies, I think the time given for the discussion of this important Clause is entirely inadequate. We have got to consider the fact that those who reside in Canada and Australia are in the habit of coming to live in this country, and we welcome them. In regard to the part of their income which they bring over here we charge Income Tax, but that part which remains in the Colonies is left free to fructify and develop in the Overseas Dominions. I think Clause 5 requires much more time for discussion than the Resolution accords to it. Notwithstanding the assurances which have been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I know there is great uneasiness amongst merchants engaged in foreign trade as to the liabilities which this Bill attaches to the incomes they earn.

The members of the London Chamber of Commerce in the Eastern section are full of anxiety on this point, and if the Guillotine Resolution is carried in its present form, those important questions cannot possibly be adequately discussed, and possibly they may not be discussed at all. This is not a party question. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir G. Baring) has asked questions with regard to Indian investments which I hope are occupying the attention of the Treasury. These are all points which affect our foreign trade, and in view of the fact that many foreigners live in this country, including Germans, Japanese, and Americans who carry on business in active rivalry with our own people, we feel that if the Treasury spreads its hand over the whole universe to collect money from British subjects wherever they may be working, it may amount to a tax on the Britisher and a bonus on his foreign competitor. The principle involved is very widespread in its possibilities, and I wish to add my protest to the others put forward as to the inadequacy of the time given for a discussion of this important Clause. There is another reason why I think we are justified in asking for more time, and it is the very interesting fact that after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spent four days in explaining his Budget to this House, he went to a meeting at the National Liberal Club to listen to an explanation of the inwardness of his own Budget from the Lord Chancellor. I think that is a clear admission that he is unaware of the true inwardness of his own Budget. In the "Times" of the 27th June there was a report of the speech made on that occasion by Lord Haldane, in which it was stated that— Lord Haldane claimed that there is latent in the Budget the making of a complete system of caring for the child from its birth to the time its school life is completed. If the Guillotine Resolution is passed as it now stands we shall never hear a true explanation of the real inwardness of this Budget. If Lord Haldane's remark was merely the remark of the bachelor speculating as to how to bring up other people's children it would be a very interesting question to contemplate. Lord Haldane said:— This Budget brought about a system whereby the State became the parent, and the parent was more or less relieved of his responsibilities. If such important questions as these are involved, I maintain that we have not been granted by any means sufficient time to discuss them. A point which I specifically wish to raise is the very drastic principle in Clause 5, about taxing those who live outside the United Kingdom. The last few words in Clause 5 read as follows:—

"Provided that this Section shall not apply in the case of a person who is not a British subject, nor in the case of a person who satisfies the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that being a British subject he is ordinarily resident in a British possession."

The words "ordinarily resident in a British Possession" seem to me to require a good deal of explanation. It seems to me that there is a possibility of a preference being given to Englishmen according to the place they may live in. I am one of those who believe in preference being given to Englishmen as against foreigners, and I do not believe in giving a preference to one Englishman over another. In the part of the world with which I am well acquainted—


The hon. Member is arguing the Clause, and that will not be in order until we reach the Clause.


I was only discussing that point because I do not think there will be time under the Guillotine Resolution.


The hon. Member has said that once or twice already, and it is quite unnecessary to discuss it any further now.


There are two points dealt with in that Clause—(1) the question of taxing people outside the United Kingdom, and (2) the question of the residence of the British subjects wherever they may make their money. Those are points which are causing great uneasiness amongst the commercial community, and if in addition this Budget contains the inwardness which Lord Haldane referred to, I wish to enter my protest at the rapid and arbitrary manner in which the proposals in the Budget are going to be thrust upon the country without any discussion.


I ask the House to consider that under this proposal it is not really four days that we are giving to the discussion of this part of the Bill. I agree that four days out of seventeen seems rather short having regard to the nature of the business that is taken on the first day. Clauses 5 to 8 would practically have to be taken in four hours. I do not ask the Government to give more than seventeen days, and I think they have apportioned the time better by giving a short time to the opening of the Budget and a larger time for the Committee stage, where Amendments can be moved. I have supported the Government all through in reference to its financial proposals, and I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he can see his way to substitute one o'clock in the morning for eleven o'clock. That is not taking up any more Parliamentary days, and it would give us practically another day. I am sure the House is perfectly willing to sit up until one o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Hear, hear!"] There is only four days during which hon. Members will be asked to make this small sacrifice. When I first came here the sittings of the House were very much later than they are now, and they never adjourned before twelve o'clock.


The next Amendment on the Paper raises that point, and therefore the hon. Baronet had better not discuss it until we reach that Amendment.


I did not notice that Amendment on the Paper.


It was handed in in manuscript.


I want to make one more appeal to the Prime Minister with regard to the allocation of these four days. Could he not see his way to give us five, even if he cannot give us eight? The hon. Baronet has mentioned the first day. I wish particularly to call attention to the third day. On the third day, in addition to a very drastic guillotine, the hour of 5.30 is interposed as well as eight and eleven. The Clauses are divided in the most drastic and unfortunate way. It means that from 3.45 to 5.30 we are to discuss Clauses 11 and 12. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that ample time is given because these are relieving Clauses, but I maintain that it is just those relieving Clauses that require discussion in detail. We want greater time more particularly in the early part of that day, because otherwise the whole of the one and three-quarter hours given to the discussion of two effective Clauses will be taken up with Clause 11, which raises the question of the quick succession, and of course Clause 12 will never be reached at all. I do not know who is responsible for drafting Clause 12, but I think it requires most careful examination by the Committee of the House. It deals for the first time with the question of mortgages, and, as it at present stands, it only deals with Death Duties on properties which are mortgaged up to the hilt, properties which are mortgaged for full consideration in money or money's worth. That Clause contains points which must be discussed in detail. They are complicated legal matters, and under this guillotine arrangement the Clause will not be reached at all. There will not be a word of discussion on it, because Clause 11 will occupy the whole of the time.

The guillotine falls at 5.30, and we may expect to get the Division over by twenty minutes to six. From that time till eight o'clock, two hours and twenty minutes, we have to discuss Sinking Fund questions. That will be the only opportunity we shall have of raising those vitally important questions of national finance, not concerned in this case with individuals. I admit that there has been some discussion on the general question, but it is most unsatisfactory to have a Committee of this kind. I would suggest, in addition to giving half a day more on Clauses 5 to 8, that we should be given another half-day on Clause 15, and then rearrange Clauses 11 and 12. It seems to me that these Guillotine Motions are drawn up without any consideration for the subjects raised in purely watertight compartments. It is too much to put down two Clauses for one compartment if you want the latter Clause discussed in any way. We have had experience of these Committee stage guillotines on the Home Rule Bill and on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. What happened on both those Bills? The first Clause in the compartment was discussed either adequately or in part, but the subsequent Clauses were never reached at all. You really must give a separate compartment to each Clause if you are going to have the Clauses discussed at all. There are points, at any rate in drafting, which it is only right that the House should consider. A great deal of our slipshod legislation and much of the need for amending Bills of Insurance Acts and things of that kind are due to Guillotine Resolutions, which involve the discussion of part of one Clause and the passing without a word of discussion or any amendment of whole blocks of other Clauses. I hope that the Prime Minister will see his way to give some further concession on the Committee stage of this Bill. The Committee stage is important, and it does require more time than he has at present given to it.


The particular Amendment before the House is apparently based upon the sincere conviction that the time allocated to particular portions of this measure is in itself inadequate. I have no doubt that the Mover of the Amendment may accurately represent the views of his Friends when he supports his proposal on that ground. Speaking for myself—and I think I may venture to say for some of my Friends on this side of the House—I may say that my quarrel is less with the particular details of the allocation of the time than with the principle, against which I entered in the most direct way possible my protest yesterday. So far as that is a protest against the principle, I am personally quite prepared to leave it where I left it yesterday. I am not sure, so far as the purpose of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment and those who sympathised with him is concerned, that it would not be more fully secured if the Prime Minister would give us an assurance that the promised Committee on the anomalies of the Income Tax—it is those portions of the Bill most likely to be prejudicially affected by this Resolution—would be set up at the earliest possible moment. I am perfectly satisfied that any discussion of the points that should properly arise in connection with the Income Tax Clauses which would be possible even under the play of the normal Rules of the House would not be adequate to satisfactorily deal with the numerous and complicated questions involved. I would therefore press upon the Government that they would satisfy some conscientious objections in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the House, and probably of hon. Members on the other side of the House, by giving us a definite assurance that if the House passes this particular measure they will at the earliest possible moment set up that Committee, so that we may be sure that whatever decisions are arrived at on points of detail they will in the nature of things be more or less provisional and subject to the review and conclusions of the Committee. I hope before the Debate closes that we may have some definite assurance from the Government Bench that course will be taken.


I am largely in agreement with the hon. Member who last spoke in pressing the Government to announce their intention at an early date to appoint this Royal Commission which has been promised to inquire into the anomalies of the Income Tax, but I cannot agree that is any justification for the Government not allowing sufficient time for the discussion of all the various matters which arise out of this Bill. There are very important Clauses dealing with the Death Duties which will not be discussed at all under the consideration of that Committee, and we all know that it takes considerable time before a Royal Commission reports, and that it even takes longer time before effect is given to its Report. Therefore, while I agree with the hon. Member in asking for the speedy appointment of that Commission, I think it in no way affords an excuse for not allowing adequate time for the discussion of these Clauses. The question is whether we are to have four days or any larger number of days, and the root of that lies in another question. The Prime Minister, in allowing such a short time for the discussion of these important matters, based the whole of his case on the fact that the Finance Bill had to receive the Royal Assent by 5th August. If that goes, then he has no further argument for limiting the period to so short a time. On another occasion I ventured to express the opinion that the Finance Bill had to receive the Royal Assent by 5th August. I was very severely taken to task by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I was told that I was all wrong; he had advice exactly to the contrary. He did not tell us from whom that advice came, but I must presume that it came from the Law Officers of the Crown. We are, therefore, driven to this conclusion: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Law Officers of the Crown take one view upon this matter, and the Prime Minister takes an entirely different view. Before we settle what are to be the number of days allowed for the discussion of the Finance Bill, we are entitled to some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Law Officers. I ventured to express the view that 5th August was the date when the Finance Bill had to receive the Royal Assent. I met with the most emphatic and flat contradiction from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, has himself set a precedent which shows that in his view it is not necessary to have the Royal Assent by 5th August. Last year, after the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act had been passed, and when it was already in operation, the Finance Bill only received the Royal Assent on 15th August.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he now agrees with the Prime Minister that I was right in the view I originally put forward, and which he then contradicted, that 5th August was the date by which the Royal Assent had to be obtained to the Finance Bill, how it was that the Royal Assent last year was only obtained on 15th August? According to the Prime Minister's view the whole of the Income Tax from 5th to 15th August was illegally collected last year, and between those dates anybody could have reclaimed any Income Tax which had already been paid since 5th April. This lies at the root of the whole question of allocating time for the Finance Bill, and of the number of days we ought to have for its discussion, and I do think that we are entitled to some further explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the change in his opinion in this matter, and as to his own precedent last year when the Finance Bill only received the Royal Assent on 15th August. There is one particular part of this time-table which I think requires further consideration, and that is in connection with any further Resolutions necessary for the purposes of the Bill. I am not sure whether I ought to raise it now or whether I can raise it on any later Amendment. If I ought to raise it now I would say that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having put down the Resolution carrying out the pledge which he gave me last Session. I certainly do not wish to use it in any way to embarrass him, but I would point out that the Resolution is something very different from what I expected. The Resolution and the Clause based upon that Resolution go so far as to actually give power to the Commissioners to distrain upon the wife's goods for the purpose of collecting the husband's Income Tax. I quite agree that in some directions it modifies the grievance under which married women are subject at present, but the right hon. Gentleman has put into both the Resolution and the Clause a most stringent provision giving a power which previously did not exist—on the one hand, to distrain on the husband's goods for the wife's Income Tax, and on the other, the power which previously did not exist to distrain on the wife's goods for the husband's Income Tax—a thing absolutely unheard of before. If that is to be carried through by the guillotine it becomes an entirely different matter from merely carrying out, by that procedure, a formal Resolution for the purpose of enabling a discussion of the question whether the Income Tax of husband and wife ought to be separately assessed.

It goes further than that. It is not confined merely to a particular Resolution to be put down under this time-table, but the right hon. Gentleman can put down any other Motion as well, and he has actually threatened us with another Resolution. He could put that Resolution down now, and it need not be the subject of discussion at any stage of the Bill. There would be no chance of its being discussed on the Committee stage, or on the Report stage, because it comes, at the end of the compartment in both instances, and it would stand very little chance of being discussed as a new Clause, because the new Clause, with regard to husband and wife, is likely to take all the time allocated for that purpose. It is not confined to that. The right hon. Genteman, as I have said, can put down any other Resolution he pleases. Let me put an extreme case. I do not suggest he would do it, but he could put down a Resolution to the effect that persons whose incomes were only £40 should be liable to Income Tax, and he could carry that through without any opportunity for discussion, either on the Committee or Report stages of the Resolution, or on Committee or Report stages of the Bill. Being a Government Clause it would go through with a mere vote in Committee, and on the Report stage it would probably never be reached. This is really a serious matter, and I think we are entitled to insert some words to make it perfectly clear that no other Resolution will be put down by the Government except the one which is already on the Paper, and that even with regard to that the right hon. Gentleman will omit from it that portion of the Resolution which proposes for the first time to make the wife's goods liable to distraint for her husband's Income Tax. I think that should be cut out of the Resolution at any rate

We ought also to have an undertaking that no Resolution other than that on the Paper will be put down and forced through under this time-table. I have some reason for urging that because the right hon. Gentleman has already threatened us with the possibility of another. If he were allowed absolute latitude in this matter he could put down any Resolution in connection with the Income Tax, Death Duties or National Debt, and could carry it without discussion at any stage of this Bill. These are matters upon which we are entitled to demand some further explanation from the Government before we assent to such a short number of days being fixed for the discussion of this Bill. We are also entitled to some further explanation of the difference in the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister as to the date by which the Finance Bill must become law—is it the 5th August or the 5th September?


I will not enter into the question which the hon. and learned Member has raised between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend will deal with that. But there are one or two points in the discussion upon which I wish to say a few words. The question is whether four days is sufficient for the Committee stage, and the first suggestion made by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that inadequate time is allowed for the discussion of Clauses 11 to 14. I think if the hon. Gentleman will pursue his researches a little further he will see that two of these Clauses are common-form Clauses which have already appeared in the Finance Acts of 1894, 1907 and 1910, and they have always been the same. It would, I think, be a waste of Parliamentary time that such a well-established precedent as that should be made the subject of discussion. Under the circumstances I do not think it is unreasonable that this portion of the Bill should be disposed of by 5.30 p.m. I come now to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) with regard to the structure and scope of the body which I propose to set up to investigate the question of Income Tax. I thought that in the speech I made on the Second Reading of the Bill I had clearly explained the intentions of the Government on that point, but if that be not so I will repeat to-day, without enlarging or amplifying it, what I then said. It is our intention to appoint, without delay, a tribunal of investigation, not a Committee of this House—I do not think that would be well adapted to the purpose, and I should not at this moment like to prejudge the question as between a Royal Commission and what is commonly termed a Departmental Committee—but a tribunal of that character and of that authority, to examine from its very foundations our present Income Tax law, with the object, if it be possible, not only of codifying that law in a simple and intelligible form, but of reducing to something like scientific simplicity and practical convenience the net work, I might call it the jumble, which has grown up over the whole ground connected with exemptions, abatements, and various relaxations in one direction and another.


Will it cover the foreign investor?


Yes, it will cover the whole scope of Income Tax law, and nobody will be exempt from the ambit of its inquiry. It would be very much out of order on a Resolution of this kind for me to go into the merits of this question, and I only want to assure my hon. Friend that it the intention of the Government to have an inquiry by as competent and authoritative a tribunal as possible, which shall extend over the whole scope of Income Tax law.


I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), who has taken a very independent attitude on this question, that while the promise of the Prime Minister is no doubt very satisfactory, yet the Committee would probably take two years before it can report.


Oh, no!


Well, say a year at any rate. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest a Royal Commission or Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole system of Income Tax from its very foundation, and that is a very big thing indeed, and will take a very long time. What I want to ask the hon. Member for Huddersfield is this: How does the appointment of a Committee, even if it can report in a year's time, touch his objection to closuring and so shortening the time given under this Guillotine Resolution to the discussion on the Budget?


I thought I had explained that, but I will reassure the hon. Baronet. My objection, as already expressed, is to the principle of applying a guillotine time-table to the Finance Bill; and, as far as the other questions are concerned, the appointment of such a Committee as the Prime Minister has indicated is an assurance to me that any defects that may be left in this Finance Bill will be of a provisional character and may be remedied.


Yes, but the principle of the guillotine will remain, and not only that, but it will have been established for the first time. The fact that there is to be a Commission does not touch the question at issue at the present moment. We all know that when this Commission or Committee reports a considerable interval must elapse in order that the Government of the day, which may not be the Government sitting on those benches now, may consider what it should do under the circumstances. A variety of questions will arise, and a considerable amount of time must necessarily be taken up. It seems to me that four days for the Committee stage is very much too short a time. It would not be in order for me to go into the question of the guillotine and whether or not it is the right thing to do, as that point has been discussed already, but the question whether four days is sufficient for the Committee stage—the most important of the three stages—is one which deserves very serious consideration. If we are going to be limited to seven days it will be far better to have five days on the Committee stage, a day and a half on the Report stage, and half a day for the Third Reading. But cannot the Government give us two or three more days for the Committee stage? My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) pointed out that only two hours and twenty minutes would be left for the discussion of the Sinking Fund—a very important subject, as nobody knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It would be an absolute farce to attempt to discuss it in that short time. My hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) suggested that the right hon. Gentleman could, under this Resolution, bring in any Resolution that he liked, and that he could bring in a Resolution to impose additional taxation, and to do all sorts of things. That is really a dreadful vista to open out to us. But I am bound to point out this: Suppose there is another mistake—and it is not impossible—ought we not to leave a loophole for the right hon. Gentleman to creep out? Might it not be necessary to give him power to bring in another Resolution in order to rectify mistakes already made? I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press that point too much, for it may really be in the interests of the State that we should allow the right hon. Gentleman to have as many opportunities as possible of correcting the mistakes which he is so often making.


I was objecting that there would be no opportunity for discussing such Resolutions.

6.0 P.M.


It is not, perhaps, in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman to have discussion, and that is possibly one reason why so short a time is allowed under the guillotine. I rather hope we shall have a little support from hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question. I believe a considerable number of them think some further number of days should be allotted to the Committee stage, and at any rate, I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) will support me on the question I raised just now, that it will be utterly impossible to discuss this question of the Sinking Fund in two hours and twenty minutes. That has never yet been discussed. It was not discussed on the Resolution dealing with the National Debt. I tried to raise it, but I was out of order and did not persevere, Mr. Speaker telling me that an opportunity would arise on the Committee stage. It looks as if that opportunity will not arise, or at any rate I may not be called upon, and the consequence will be that a matter of vast importance to the country will be hurried through with inadequate discussion. There are many other questions which require further discussion. One of them, the taxation of incomes outside this country, raises a very serious question, some aspects of which have never been brought before the House. They concern people who have business in the city and other places, and who have had experience of the very bad effect of proposals of that kind on the general commerce of the country. I hope that even at the last moment some alteration will be made in the time allowed.


Like my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) I was unable to support the guillotine proposals, which certainly were not commended to me by the suggestion made by the Prime Minister that I was presenting the Opposition with a rod with which to beat the Government. That, however, is not the question before us. The question is, whether the Committee stage should occupy four days or a longer period. There appear to be three very important purely Committee points on Clauses 5, 10, and 11, and the question of the National Debt. I should have thought that if the Government had adhered to the ordinary Standing Order with regard to the Eleven o'clock Rule, and had taken power to use the Kangaroo Closure, the whole thing might have been got through in four days, although I admit that something special would have to be done with regard to new Clauses. If we had freedom to go beyond eleven o'clock four days would not seem an unreasonable allowance for the Committee stage of this Bill, especially as the Prime Minister has made an announcement with regard to the Income Tax Committee which certainly gives a great deal of satisfaction to many of his supporters on this side, and which will entail the full and complete discussion of all the intricacies of the Income Tax law which have for so long been so unsatisfactory to everyone concerned. I think the Prime Minister is wrong in saying that he is not going beyond what he said on the Second Reading. I have looked the matter up. He then said that the thing ought to be done, which is very different from promising to do it, which is the position he has taken up today. There is one suggestion which I would commend to my right hon. Friends, and which has been made by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury), that, if the time is to be curtailed, the best thing to suppress is the Third Reading discussion. On a Bill of this character, when all the details are settled—they must be settled because they cannot be altered in the House of Lords—the Third Reading discussion becomes very much like the operations of a hen after she has laid an egg—there is a great deal of noise with no possible result. Under the peculiar circumstances, one speech from each Front Bench after eleven o'clock would do full justice to all that is required on the Third Reading of the Bill. If the day allotted to the Third Reading could be withdrawn with the consent of the whole House, and that amount of time given to much more fruitful discussion on the Committee or the Report stage of the Bill, that would put us in a much better position, and we should be spending our time to greater advantage. If the party opposite approve of that idea, which has been propounded from their own side, it may be possible to arrange with them, but if it is not, I believe we can manage to get through the Committee stage in four days.


The House has not quite paid enough attention on this Amendment to the position of the people outside the House who are going to pay these taxes. We have considered our position in the Debates here, and how much time we should have to complete the Committee stage of the Finance Bill; but we have lost sight of the real point, which is that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is perhaps the most important business this House has to do, because we then impose taxes upon every subject of the Crown, and, as the hon. Member who has just spoken remarked, the other House cannot in any way amend our legislation. I would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that by allowing only four days for the Debase, and by compartmenting the Bill, as he has done, he is putting a premium—I do not use the word offensively—on slipshod legislation and hasty drafting. I do not say that it involves extra direct taxation upon the subject, because the House is aware of the exact nominal amount of the taxes it is imposing. But what is a most serious matter, and one to which this House has not given enough attention, which arises directly on this Amendment, is the serious expense to which people outside the House are put in going to the Courts of Law for an interpretation of phraseology which this House passes under the conditions to which we are going to be subjected here. If it were possible to obtain an estimate of the direct expense and of the enormous indirect loss of time and energy which the subjects of the Crown have to undergo in consequence of financial legislation passed under these conditions, I am quite certain the country and the House would be appalled at their magnitude.

Take a Clause such as Clause 5. There you have a totally new proposal of a most complicated and difficult character. While we are all ready to admit that the Treasury officials who draft such a Clause as that have great knowledge of the subject, have done their very best and have drafted the Clause as well as, or better than, any other body of persons could draft it in the circumstances, neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Treasury would claim for one moment that the Clause will prove water-tight. It is of the utmost importance from every point of view that hon. Members in this House, many of whom have very wide experience of finance and of the ramifications of this particular subject, should have ample time given to them for Debate, not only upon the apparent effects of the Clause but its real effects as they may be when the Clause comes to be interpreted not on what we intend or what is expressed by our words in Debate, but by a Court of Law when the Bill becomes an Act and is administered. That involves a great deal of time. Clause 8 is also a difficult Clause. We do not know what that Clause means. I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that Clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8 are to be disposed of between seven and eleven o'clock on the second day. We shall be unwise and neglecting the interests that we are sent here to safeguard if we do not give the whole of those four hours to Clause 5. We shall not even be able to discuss the whole bearings of the Clause and the results it will have to individuals, to the finance of the country and to subsequent legislation in the four hours allotted to the Clause. Yet we have three other Clauses, including the difficult questions raised by Clause 8, to be discussed in that time. Probably they will not be discussed at all. That is the way this House of Commons, under the direction of the Government, is to fulfil its responsibilities to the nation. It is nothing short of a scandal that we should be put in that position. Whatever may be the duty of the Government to the time-tables they have prepared, and whatever may be their duty as to the convenience of Members of this House, their first duty is to the taxpayers and the nation upon whom these burdens are being imposed. The Government are absolutely bound to give full and sufficient time for a discussion of the effect of these burdens, both actually and so far as they concern litigants. The Government are betraying their trust to the nation. I am not putting it too high. In closuring this Finance Bill according to this time-table the Government are really betraying the interests of the taxpayers outside, whom they are sent here to serve. I protest most strongly against this course.

Even now I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give more time, at least one extra day or two days, on the grounds I have stated. Unless he does so the sole responsibility for the course they are taking will rest upon him and the Prime Minister. The country will know it, and everybody who is subsequently put to considerable expense, loss and inconvenience from this hasty legislation, will know upon whom to put the blame. There is one other point with regard to new Clauses. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to keep the pledges he has given. Under this time-table we have one and a half days for the Schedules and the whole of the new Clauses. The Prime Minister spoke rather contemptuously of the new Clauses; but in what position do we stand in regard to them? New Clauses afford the only opportunity the House has of reviewing general taxation. The very first duty of every Member of the House of Commons is to come here and state grievances, particularly financial grievances, on behalf of his constituents, but every Member of the House has been deprived of that opportunity for the last two or three years. Last year, for the first time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer separated the Finance Bill into two halves, and thereby deprived us of that opportunity. He removed the general opportunity of proposing Amendments to the law from the Finance Bill, which he must have, into the Revenue Bill, which he did not care whether he got or not. He brought in his Revenue Bill at the very fag-end of the Session. There was no time to carry it through, and it had to be dropped. When it was dropped, the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeatedly gave me across the floor of the House the most solemn pledges that the Revenue Bill of this year should be introduced at an early date in the Session, and should be carried through its important stages at an early period of the Session. Here we are in July, and the Revenue Bill has not yet been read a second time! What opportunities are we going to get to discuss it early in the Session?


That is not relevant to this Motion.


Our only opportunity now of getting the amendment of the law of which we have been deprived is on the new Clauses, and, therefore, I am asking for extra time to discuss the new Clauses. That is the point to which I am leading up.


The Amendments which the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss to the Revenue Bill would clearly not be in order on the Finance Bill, and, therefore, could not come under the new Clauses on the Finance Bill.


If I am out of order it is because the confusion of our finance is such that it is impossible to know where our real opportunities come; but I am under the impression that we have an alternative opportunity of raising some of these matters either on the Finance Bill or the Revenue Bill. That was the ground upon which I was making these observations—that we have not got an opportunity on the Revenue Bill, and that the pledges which were given to us have been, I do not say wilfully, but absolutely broken, and we were looking on the new Clauses to this Bill for some opportunity for raising these matters, which are very important to our constituents, and which we desire to discuss. Now we are again to be deprived of that opportunity, and we have not even got a pledge that we are to have a Revenue Bill at all. Therefore, on the highest ground, quite apart from our discussions here, I appeal to hon. Members opposite, who evidently have some feeling on the matter, and I say the House of Commons will fail in its duty if it decides that the Committee stage of the Finance Bill—the one detailed opportunity which we have for discussing our principal business of the whole Session—is to be cut and compartmented and we are to have four days only for this discussion, and any hon Member who supports the Government in that proposal is, in my opinion, not acting in the true interests of his constituents or the country.


Would the hon. Gentleman agree to give up the Third Reading if he got another day on Report?


That is not for me to say. We are not able to discuss that now. It will depend a great deal on the time which the Government may give later on. Any proposal which is made by the hon. Member or the Government will have respectful consideration on this side of the House.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)

The last suggestion which has been thrown out by my hon. Friend is one which, I understand, was made yesterday by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), and I indicated then that if the Opposition preferred to take that day in discussing the details of the Bill, the Government certainly would assent to it. Moreover, I agree with my hon. Friend that the time would be much more usefully spent than in a Debate upon the Third Reading, because everyone knows exactly what happens in that case. For three-fourths of the day there is a very small House, and there is only a full attendance very late in the evening when the Division is expected, and I am certain the House would much more usefully occupy its time in examining the details of the Bill, and there the hon. Gentleman will get his extra day. I will tell him where he can get another day. If he and his Friends assent to this now being taken, we can proceed to the Finance Bill to-day, and that will not be an allotted day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Private Bill!"] I do not know anything about a Private Bill. In that case I agree it will only be a couple of hours, but, at any rate, it would be two hours. There would be another day which would be added if the Third Reading was taken out after a protest on behalf of the Opposition and the defence of the Government. That I should be perfectly prepared to accept. I come to another point, which was raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel). He must remember this. I do not profess to interpret Acts of Parliament. I never did. Whenever we, in my profession, were in doubt, we always placed our material before a gentleman learned in the law, but I never remember two of them agreeing under any conditions. What happened in this case was this: This was not a point which the Government introduced in the House of Commons. This point was introduced at the instance of the Opposition. I am not at all sure that it was not the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) who suggested the whole of this proposal for a time limit for the Finance Bill. It is a proposal which was pressed upon us by the whole Opposition, and we accepted it, and it is not a question of interpreting an Act of Parliament drafted by the Government. I was advised that the date is in September. There are other legal gentlemen who take a different view of the position, and who think it is the 4th of August. The Prime Minister naturally thinks that if there is any doubt about it it is best to be absolutely right by taking the first date rather than the later date. I do not think I am entitled to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman whose advice it is, but I will give him the name, and if he likes to discuss it with the legal gentleman, it is open to him to do so. The hon. Member (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) complained that we were not giving sufficient time for the discussion of Clause 12. Clause 12 is a common form which has been introduced into every Act of Parliament which has altered the Death Duties in order to protect the interests of those who for a valuable consideration have purchased upon the position, as it then was, and we have simply incorporated this in the present Act of Parliament in order to protect purchasers and mortgagees.


Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about the Closure being taken at one o'clock instead of eleven?


One o'clock, I think, is a pretty serious time to keep Members here, and I am not at all sure that it would conduce to the real discussion of the Finance Bill. It would simply mean that you would get very important Amendments being discussed at one o'clock in the morning. If there were a general desire to extend it beyond eleven o'clock, that is another matter. If there were a feeling that an extension after twelve o'clock would be a real improvement upon the proposals of the Government, I should offer no opposition, but I should like to know a little more about the general feeling of the House on the subject before I go to the extent of accepting a proposal of that kind. The hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman) complained in terms which are common form—it is not simply for my Budget, but for every Budget that I have ever read about—that some of the drafting was slipshod. I read yesterday passages from Conservative papers in which exactly the same phrase was used about Mr. Gladstone's Budgets of 1853 and 1860. That is the common form of Parliamentary opposition, and I do not complain of it. What he meant was that it is necessary to repeat that formula which every Opposition has used in regard to every Budget which has ever been introduced into the House. He suggested—and here I agree with him—that we have to take into account the view which will be taken by the taxpayer who has to pay the tax, and I understand his point is this: You have to make it as clear as possible what his liability is. Does the hon. Member really think, after his experience of Parliamentary life, that a Committee of the House of Commons makes any clearer any Clause which has ever been subjected to Debate?




No one complained more about the complexities of the 1909 Budget than the hon. Gentleman. The House of Commons took into its own hands the passing of that Budget. There was very little Closure moved. I was taunted with that yesterday. We discussed it for weeks and months, but we moved very little Closure. The kangaroo was moved on the 4th or 5th Clause. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that what was done on that occasion in the slightest degree helps to make clearer the purport of those Clauses? I will tell him my observations about it. Most of our difficulties have come from Amendments introduced by the House of Commons into that Bill. The old House of Commons method in regard to Budgets was to discuss the general principle of the taxes upon the Ways and Means Resolutions. There was no discussion on Amendments in Committee, because it was recognised that a Committee of the House of Commons was the worst instrument in the world for the purpose of drafting a Bill. So it is, and I am perfectly certain that the suggestion which was pressed by my hon. Friend behind me for a Committee to consider these matters would tend far more to the clearing up of these complexities than any amount of discussion which you can have in the House of Commons.


made an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.


Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the difficulties of the Income Tax are created by the Finance Act of this year? He asked how we could tell that these Clauses would be watertight. There are Clauses in the Bill of 1842, and Bills which passed in 1853, in 1870, and in 1880, which are evaded at the present moment.


I did not say anything of the kind. What I said about watertight was that the time-table was divided into watertight compartments.


I think the hon. Gentleman was talking about Clause 5, and I have got his words actually written down. He said that Clause 5 is not watertight. I think he will find to-morrow morning from the OFFICIAL REPORT that that is what he said. If I am wrong, I will apologise to him; and if I am right, perhaps he will admit that I have quoted him accurately. Let me now look at the Clauses in any Income Tax Act. They are not watertight. There are constant evasions, and that is one of the difficulties in the administration of those Acts. I believe a Committee sitting upon them will help enormously to get some sort of consolidating Bill to make these Clauses far more watertight than they are at present. I think I have dealt with all the points which have been raised, but if there are any other points I shall be very glad to answer them.




The right hon. Gentleman has already exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment because he spoke before the Adjournment of the Debate was moved last night.


I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to justify what is now proposed in the Resolution by referring to what happened in the old days in discussions in Committee of Ways and Means. I think it would be rather hard to go back to the practice of those days, seeing that the House now takes more interest in the details of a Bill than it used to do at the times referred to. I rise to protest against the allotment of only four days for the Committee stage of the Bill: I do so on two grounds which were stated by my hon. and gallant Friend (Mr. Pretyman) with regard to the first day and the last day. As to the first day, he brought to the attention of the House that there would be no opportunity at all for discussing Clause 8. That Clause is not very clear, and it is one which many of us on this side of the House, while we are grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing it in, would like to have an opportunity of saying something about, and of making it, if possible, a little clearer. I think there is a special reason why that Clause should be discussed. I do not want to go into the merits, but I think I shall be in order in reminding the House that it deals with houses under £8 in value. We had to-day at the commencement of business a Bill brought in by the President of the Board of Agriculture to make provision for the building of cottages to be let at economic rents. The whole tendency of Liberal policy in the rural districts is that the labourer should pay an economic rent for his house. If that is so, the £8 house would practically disappear, and if you are doing away with this limit I think we ought to have an opportunity of discussing Clause 8.

I turn now to the point with respect to the last day and a half in which we are to discuss the new Clauses. It has been found necessary more and more to put any proposal for relief of taxation in the form of new Clauses, and I think the discussions on them have generally been fruitful. They cover on the Amendment Paper something like eight pages. A considerable number of subjects of varying interest are involved, and they are to be moved, not on this side of the House alone, but also by Members on the other side. It is, in my opinion, a totally inadequate time which has been allotted for the discussion of those Clauses. I dare say hon. Members opposite will feel that it does not make much difference whether it is a day and a half or less, because there is little chance of those Clauses being added to the Bill. But there is one great value resulting from the discussion of new Clauses. It gives the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers an opportunity of thoroughly considering the subjects before the next Budget comes up. You will find that on many occasions new Clauses put down one year have been embodied in the Bill of the succeeding year. That has been the case this year, or, at any rate, it will be the case if the Clause dealing with the tax on the income of husband and wife is based on the Clause which was moved by the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) last year and is added to the Bill. That was moved as a new Clause last year. Clause 8 of this year's Bill was moved last year as a new Clause. Both of those Clauses got a good chance this year of being added to the Bill and placed on the Statute Book through being discussed last year. Therefore, it is essential that we should have adequate time to discuss the new Clauses.

With regard to the suggestion made that we should give up the day for the Third Reading and add that to the Committee stage, I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that I think it would be a very great mistake for the House of Commons to do that. What would it mean? It would mean that we were giving up as useless the Third Reading on a big Bill, and taking it for granted that a Bill, which has passed the Second Reading and gone through Committee, has received sufficient discussion. I beg to enter my protest against the short time allotted for the Committee stage.


Whilst I am reluctant to support this Closure Resolution on the Finance Bill, yet I recognise, as others have recognised, that the Prime Minister showed us quite clearly that it was a question of necessity in view of the time available. How that situation arose, or what is the past history of the matter, it is not for this side of the House to inquire. We recognise the necessity that the Finance Bill has to be got through in a certain time. I rise to express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not give way in the matter of giving the extended days which have been asked, otherwise it seems to me that we shall admit that the case is not so urgent, and that probably a longer period of days might have been allowed. But I do suggest that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider whether they can meet the wishes of the House in another way. Whilst the Closure is not brought forward in order to limit the length of the day, it is brought forward to limit the number of days for discussion of the Bill in the different stages. We recognise that the Finance Bill has to be discussed within a certain number of days, but we could sit extra hours on the days when it is discussed. [Indications of dissent.] If there is subject-matter which it is useful and desirable to discuss, we do not wish that the time should be limited, and I for one should prefer to see the Debate going on beyond eleven o'clock. While the Resolution proposes four days for the Committee stage it does not necessarily limit the length of those days.

Another point with reference to the days is the compartments. A great many Members object to the absolute division of compartments which is proposed. It is quite possible that hon. Gentlemen might prefer larger compartments, or no compartments, so that the Bill should be got through Committee on the fourth or fifth day. I would suggest that the compartments should not necessarily be limited to the subjects set down for particular days, and that two hours of the day allotted for the Third Reading might be added to the Committee stage. If there is a general desire to get as much time as possible to discuss Amendments which, I think, are more important than the new Clauses, we might get more time within the scope of the time-table already laid down by abolishing to a certain extent the proposed compartments, or by amalgamating the compartments, or by extending the sitting on each particular day until an early hour in the morning. I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can to meet the Opposition within the limits of the timetable already laid down.


I cannot help thinking that it is quite clear, after the discussion we have had on this Amendment, that whatever change may be made in response to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Wilson) by way of rearranging the compartments, it would be quite impossible to have sufficient time for all these matters to be discussed within the limit of four days. You may rearrange the compartments as you like, but I think it has been abundantly shown that if that is done there would still be a shortage of time in view of the number of subjects to be discussed. The only practical suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might extend the time up to which he would ask the Committee to sit at night. When the right hon. Gentleman made that suggestion I was shocked to hear cries of dissent from hon. Members below the Gangway at the idea of being asked to sit after eleven o'clock. I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take any notice of these cries, and that he will meet the wishes, not only of those behind him, but of Members in other parts of the House, who wish to give up a little of the time when they would be in bed, in order that these matters may be properly considered. I myself would be perfectly willing to stay a little bit later, in order to have an opportunity of raising a great many questions that otherwise we shall not be able to discuss at all. There was one train of thought which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply failed to pursue. It was the train of thought suggested by the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach). The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped to be able to revert to that. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech said that the House of Commons was a very bad place to draft Amendments, and my hon. Friend asked, "Why invite the House of Commons to consider Amendments at all?" The right hon. Gentleman omitted to answer that. I should be prepared to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the general principle that the House of Commons is a bad place to draft Amendments. I agree that a great many of our troubles in connection with Finance Bills have come from Amendments which have been hurriedly inserted in Committee in the course of discussion. But the right hon. Gentleman must know as well as I do that it is quite impossible, even if it were desirable to revert in that matter to the ancient practice. You have got for better or worse to face the fact that the average ordinary private Member will always cherish the right to make his views heard upon any part of a Bill from which his constituents may dissent.

You will always have these Amendments, and will have them discussed and from time to time accepted by the Government. The only point therefore is, assuming that you have got to have that state of things, is it not desirable to have it properly done rather than badly done? Assuming the necessity of discussing Amendments, is there anything more undesirable than to have that discussion scamped and curtailed in the excessive way in which it is under this provision of four days? The hon. Member for Denbigh said that he thought that one of the extreme cases of this time-table was on the third day, between 4 and 5.30, when Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14 were to be taken, and the right hon. Gentleman said that the only Clause that really came into discussion in that compartment was Clause 11, the ground being that Clause 12 was only a common form of Clause, and that Clauses 13 and 14 were automatically out of it. It is true that Clause 12 is a common form of Clause, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not counting his chickens before they are hatched to assume that we are to have no discussion on those Clauses 13 and 14? They really depend on what the House is to be asked to consider further down. I have an Amendment down to leave out the words which would empower the Government to put the question to leave out those Clauses without amendment or debate. It would be out of order to argue it here, but conceivably it might be a matter for argument which might induce hon. Members opposite to support us in our plea that there should be some further Debate on the general policy of the Government which relates to the omission of these Clauses before they are finally dismissed from the Bill. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman is not right when he tries to reassure the hon. Member for Denbigh as to the extreme shortness of time on that particular compartment by saying that all the time will be available for the discussion of one Clause—Clause 11. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that, and also to consider the representation made from both sides of the House as to the possibility of extending the hour of discussion from eleven o'clock until some hour considerably later.


In regard to the point referred to by my hon. Friend, arising out of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Amendments in Financial Bills are generally done very badly in the House of Commons—


The drafting of Amendments.


The question of drafting Amendments is only a question for the Government officials. Once the principle is accepted, the House of Commons will always accept the words suggested by the Government, so that it is not a question of the competence of the House of Commons. As I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made two suggestions. One was that the House should sit on the days when the guillotine falls until one o'clock—


That was the suggestion which was made. I protested against one o'clock for the convenience of the vast majority of Members, but I said that if there was a general desire to sit up to twelve o'clock the Government would not resist.


What we object to most of all is the fact there is any guillotine at all on the Finance Bill. We object, in the second place, on the ground that the time, however you allocate it, is too short, but undoubtedly even an extra hour would be an improvement, and, so far as the Opposition are concerned, we shall be glad to see that suggestion adopted. As regards the other suggestion, that there should be no discussion on the Third Reading stage, and that the time so saved should be applied to considering the Bill in Committee, we are altogether opposed to it. No one can tell what particular points may arise in Committee which would justify a very general discussion when the Third Reading comes. On the suggestion which I think was made, that speeches should be allowed only from the Front Bench, that is not a privilege which we claim, and I am sure that there would be general objections to it by private Members of the House. I know that the suggestion was not made by the right hon. Gentleman, but it was made. I understand that there is a suggestion not to take the Third Reading stage, but to that we are altogether opposed. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees to make the hour of closing the discussion twelve instead of eleven, we would gladly welcome the suggestion as giving us a little more time, however inadequate.


As a result of this discussion, which the right hon. Gentleman must agree has been conducted by us in a spirit of moderation and sweet reasonableness, may I say that if he cannot concede another four days, he might with reason and justice concede another one day. I desire to point out how these particular proposals will affect those matters under this Finance Bill in which the agricultural community, both owners and occupiers, are mainly interested. There is one Clause to be taken on the first day, and there is also the First Schedule to be taken on the last day, which are the parts of this Finance Bill which most closely affect the interests of agriculturists. That Clause, Clause 8, is to be taken last of the four Clauses that are proposed to be discussed between seven and eleven on the first day. We all know that with the important Clause 5 dealing with foreign investments, Clause 8 would never come into discussion at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has drawn attention to the fact, and we are very much interested in raising a discussion upon the question whether in future this so-called relief is going to be limited to cottages producing less than an economic rent. Another matter of even greater importance: We desire to raise on this Clause the question why we are not put now under Schedule D instead of being kept with limitations under Schedule A. That is a thing which I believe is a serious injustice to all owners of agricultural land. Then we come to Schedule I., which is going to be crushed out altogether, which we think the most important part of this whole Bill, certainly so far as owners of agricultural property are concerned. Schedule I. lays down the new table of Estate Duties. The Attorney-General yesterday said, speaking on this Motion in the House, that once you have passed Clause 9 you have recognised the principle contained in that Schedule, and that there is no reason to discuss the Schedule. I differ entirely from every word of that.

We may or may not recognise the principle that it is desirable to tax the capital of the country in this particular way by means of an annual tax, but it does not necessarily follow that the particular procedure by which this increased taxation is to be levied is a just procedure, and it was our intention to raise upon this Schedule, if it was possible to discuss it, the particular injustice that is going to be done to owners of agricultural estates of moderate size as we believe that such estates are going to be wiped out of existence in future, or else it is going to be utterly impossible for owners of them to make necessary improvements in order to maintain those estates in a rent-producing condition. It is a most important subject, and it is utterly impossible for us to discuss it under this time-table, and it has become all the more important because the Report stage, so far as the Schedules are concerned, or indeed so far as any Clause contained in the Bill is concerned, may be treated as not existing at all, because, as we all know, new Clauses are numerous, most of them are put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and those alone will be discussed on the Report stage. Therefore, it necessarily follows that none of the Schedules including the important First Schedule, will be discussed either in the Committee stage

or the Report stage, and the same will apply to Clause 8 or any other Clause coming at the end of the day's programme as laid down in this time-table. The two parts of the Bill which most affect the agricultural community will, under this table, if it is carried out, not be discussed at all, and an injustice will be felt in consequence.

Question put, "That the word 'Four' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 209.

Division No. 157.] AYES. [6.59 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Adamson, William Dillon, John Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Doris, William John, Edward Thomas
Agnew, Sir George William Duffy, William J. Johnson, W.
Alden, Percy Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Armitage, Robert Elverston, Sir Harold Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Arnold, Sydney Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Essex, Sir Richard Walter Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Falconer, James Jowett, Frederick William
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Farrell, James Patrick Joyce, Michael
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Kellaway, Frederick George
Barnes, George N. Ffrench, Peter Kelly, Edward
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) Field, William Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Kenyon, Barnet
Beale, Sir William Phipson Fitzgibbon, John Kilbride, Denis
Beck, Arthur Cecil Flavin, Michael Joseph King, Joseph
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) France, Gerald Ashburner Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry
Bentham, George Jackson Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Gelder, Sir William Alfred Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Black, Arthur W. George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Boland, John Plus Gladstone, W. G. C. Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Booth, Frederick Handel Glanville, H. J. Leach, Charles
Bowerman, Charles W. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Levy, Sir Maurice
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Goldstone, Frank Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Brady, Patrick Joseph Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Brocklehurst, William B. Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Low, Sir F. (Norwich)
Brunner, John F. L. Greig, Colonel James William Lundon, Thomas
Bryce, J. Annan Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Lyell, Charles Henry
Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O. Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Maclean, Donald
Byles, Sir William Pollard Hackett, John Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hall, Frederick (Normanton) MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Hancock, John George MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) M'Curdy, Charles A.
Chancellor, Henry George Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Hardie, J. Keir M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Clancy, John Joseph Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Manfield, Harry
Clough, William Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Clynes, John R. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Marks, Sir George Croydon
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Marshall, Arthur Harold
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Hayden, John Patrick Meagher, Michael
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Hayward, Evan Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Helme, Sir Norval Watson Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Cowan, W. H. Hemmerde, Edward George Middlebrook, William
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Molloy, Michael
Crooks, William Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) Molteno, Percy Alport
Crumley, Patrick Henry, Sir Charles Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Cullinan, John Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Money, L. G. Chiozza
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Kigham, John Sharp Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hinds, John Mooney, John J.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Morgan, George Hay
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hodge, John Morrell, Philip
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Hogge, James Myles Morison, Hector
Dawes, James Arthur Holmes, Daniel Turner Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
De Forest, Baron Holt, Richard Durning Muldoon, John
Delany, William Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Murphy, Martin J.
Needham, Christopher T. Reddy, Michael Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John
Nolan, Joseph Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Nuttall, Harry Rendall, Athelstan Toulmin, Sir George
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
O'Doherty, Philip Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Wardle, George J.
O'Donnell, Thomas Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Waring, Walter
O'Dowd, John Robinson, Sidney Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Ogden, Fred Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Roche, Augustine (Louth) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Roe, Sir Thomas Webb, Henry
O'Malley, William Rowntree, Arnold White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Shee, James John Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Whitehouse, John Howard
O'Sullivan, Timothy Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Thomas P.
Outhwaite, R. L. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Palmer, Godfrey Mark Scanlan, Thomas Wiles, Thomas
Parker, James (Halifax) Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. Wilkie, Alexander
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Sheehy, David Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Sherwell, Arthur James Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Shortt, Edward Williamson, Sir Archibald
Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Pirie, Duncan Vernon Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) Winfrey, Sir Richard
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wing, Thomas Edward
Pratt, J. W. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Yeo, Alfred William
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Pringle, William M. R. Sutherland, John E. Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Radford, G. H. Sutton, John E.
Raffan, Peter Wilson Taylor, John W. (Durham) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Clyde, J. Avon Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Crean, Eugene Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)
Astor, Waldorf Croft, Henry Page Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)
Baird, John Lawrence Currie, George W. Hewins, William Albert Samuel
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Dalrymple, Viscount Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.
Baldwin, Stanley Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Hill-Wood, Samuel
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Denison-Pender, J. C. Hoare, Samuel John Gurney
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Denniss, E. R. B. Hope, Harry (Bute)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Dixon, C. H. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Barnston, H. Du Cros, Arthur Philip Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Gloucs., E.) Duke, Henry Edward Houston, Robert Paterson
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Duncannon, Viscount Hume-Williams, William Ellis
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Du Pre, W. Baring Hunt, Rowland
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Faber, George Denison (Clapham) Ingleby, Holcombe
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Fell, Arthur Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)
Baresford, Lord C. Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Jessel, Captain H. M.
Bigland, Alfred Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Kerry, Earl of
Bird, A. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Blair, Reginald Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Lane-Fox, G. R.
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue Forster, Henry William Larmor, Sir J.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Foster, Philip Staveley Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Bowden, G. R. Harland Ganzoni, Francis John C. Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Lewisham, Viscount
Boyton, James Gibbs, George Abraham Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)
Bridgeman, William Clive Gilhooly, James Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gilmour, Captain John Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.
Burn, Colonel C. R. Goldman, C. S. Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Butcher, John George Goulding, Edward Alfred Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Grant, James Augustus Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Greene, W. R. MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh
Cassel, Felix Gretton, John M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Cator, John Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Magnus, Sir Philip
Cave, George Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Malcolm, Ian
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Haddock, George Bahr Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Moore, William
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth) Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Chambers, James Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Mount, William Arthur
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) Neville, Reginald J. N.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Newdegate, F. A.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Harris, Henry Percy Newman, John R. P.
Newton, Harry Kottingham Salter, Arthur Clavell Touche, George Alexander
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) Tryon, Captain George Clement
Norton-Griffiths, J. Sanderson, Lancelot Walker, Colonel William Hall
O'Brien, William (Cork, N.E.) Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Watson, Hon. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G. Weigall, Captain A. G.
Paget, Almeric Hugh Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Weston, Colonel J. W.
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Smith, Harold (Warrington) White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. Stanier, Beville Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Perkins, Walter Frank Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Peto, Basil Edward Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Wills, Sir Gilbert
Pole-Carew, Sir R. Starkey, John R. Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)
Pollock, Ernest Murray Stewart, Gershom Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green,S.W.)
Pretyman, Ernest George Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) Winterton, Earl
Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Swift, Rigby Wolmer, Viscount
Quilter, Sir William Eley C. Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Randles, Sir John S. Talbot, Lord Edmund Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Ratcliff, R. F. Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Worthington Evans, L.
Rawson, Colonel R. H. Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Rees, Sir J. D. Thomas-Stanford, Charles Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Rolleston, Sir John Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) Younger, Sir George
Ronaldshay, Earl of Thynne, Lord Alexander
Rothschild, Lionel de Tickler, T. G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Royds, Edmund Tobin, Alfred Aspinall Hicks Beach and Mr. Remnant.
Rutherford, John (Lancs, Darwen)

I beg to move to leave out the words "on each such allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the first part of the table annexed to this Order, and those proceedings," and to insert instead thereof the word "thereon." If this Amendment be accepted, I intend to move, after the word "conclusion" ["be brought to a conclusion"], to insert the words "on the fourth allotted day." I have to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and the House for not moving my Amendment exactly in the form it stands on the Paper. On further study of the Amendment on the Paper, I am convinced that the form of words proposed do not express the meaning I wanted to convey. I should like to see the first paragraph run as follows:—

"Four allotted days shall be given to the remainder of the Committee stage of the Bill (including the necessary stages of any Resolution in connection therewith), and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conlcusion on the fourth allotted day."

The effect of this change, if adopted, would be that the Government would, in effect, be saying to the House, "We have decided that four days are to be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, but instead of them being divided into cast-iron compartments, instead of saying that at eleven o'clock the abhorred shears of the guillotine shall fall, we give you the four days on the Committee stage, and at the end of the fourth allotted day the rest of the proceedings will be terminated." I am quite aware that there are objections to be urged to that course, and I want to try and meet them quite fairly. It may be said that the result of this Amendment would be that we would have an enlarged discussion on a very small portion of the Bill, and that a very large portion of the Bill would not be discussed at all. I think those who make that objection are building a little too much on past experience, before the instrument which is known by the euphonious name of the "Kangaroo Closure" came into operation. I believe it would be possible, under my suggestion, I do not say to discuss the whole Bill, because we have already protested that four days are utterly inadequate, but to get a much better and more simple application of the Closure than we would get by dividing the Bill into cast-iron compartments. That is one suggestion. My second point is that it at all events avoids what I think is obviously a very vicious precedent, the precedent which we are now setting, namely, of dealing for the first time in Parliamentary history with business which has hitherto been considered as exempted. The Finance Bill has always been considered as exempted business in the past, and the effect of my proposal would be that at least three of the four days would be occupied in accordance with the ancient practice of the House for treating the Finance Bill as exempted business.

It may possibly be said that it would be highly inconvenient at the end of the four days to have to come to a determination on a number of provisions, but what I press on the right hon. Gentleman is that he is breaking precedents and violating the traditions of this House, and I suggest that if we are given the four days on the Com- mittee stage in which "to go as you please," those four days being used in the sense in which they have always been used in relation to Finance Bills in this House, I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be violating the precedents much less than would be the case if the Government proposal is passed. There is one other objection which may possibly be urged. It might be said that in adopting my Amendment it is quite manifest that on the Committee stage, at all events, we would not have time to discuss the new Clauses. I agree that it is improbable that you would arrive at a discussion of the new Clauses in Committee. You have always got this to remember, however, that the new Clauses come first on Report. I would suggest that it would very likely happen under the amended procedure which I suggest that there would be in the Committee stage a discussion of Clauses of the Bill and it is quite possible of some of the new Clauses, while, on the Report stage, there would be a discussion of the remainder of the new Clauses. My hon. Friend (Mr. Bathurst) is anxious about the Schedules. I am afraid that not even this proposal will save the Schedules, which are the last thing in the time-table. But at least he would have an opportunity under this proposal of discussing Clause 8, which I gather he is anxious to have discussed. I submit that the suggestion which I make, if you are going to have the guillotine at all, would enable it to be used with as little violation as possible of Parliamentary traditions, and a much smaller violation of those traditions than would occur under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.


I beg to second the Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman has listened with very great attention to-day to the arguments advanced from all sides of the House, and on one or two occasions he showed a somewhat reasonable frame of mind, being really anxious to try to meet the House, if possible, without making any great surrender of time on the part of the Government. I cannot help thinking that this plan after all gives to the Government all that they want, and all that they can get, under this special gag and guillotine, while it gives to all of us who are opposed to any such scheme as they are suggesting a great deal more freedom to discuss those particular matters which we desire to discuss. I quarrel altogether with the Resolution, and I think it is a very great I mistake to apply this system to a Finance Bill. I do not think there was any just cause for it, but if we are to have such a scheme, I am quite sure it ought not to be divided up in this ridiculous way of very small compartments, but that we ought to be able during the four days to pick out those things and those questions which we really desire to discuss. Let me give one or two illustrations of what is likely to happen. Under the time-table we have five hours to discuss Clauses 5 to 8. Clause 5 alone would quite probably and reasonably take up the whole of that four hours, and I expect that the discussion would be quite evenly divided between the two sides. Under those circumstances, Clause 8 would not be discussed at all, and that is one of the complaints that we have to make. Clause 9 must be taken by seven o'clock on the second day. That gives three hours for discussing a Clause which settles the scale of increased Estate Duties. It is just possible we might not even get three hours discussion. Then take Clauses 11 to 14. They are to conclude by five-thirty o'clock. There is no real objection as to Clause 12, which is common form. The Prime Minister said that it was not unreasonable to close the discussion on Clause 11 by five-thirty o'clock. We do not agree with him, and we think it would be very unreasonable to do so. If the Finance Bill had been set down to-day under the time-table, what would have happened? We should not even have had the miserable amount of time between four o'clock and half-past five in which to discuss Clause 11, but we should have had exactly ten minutes.

Clauses 15 and 16 are given only two and a half hours in which to discuss a very important matter like the reduction of the Permanent Annual Charge. I am convinced that if we took away all the compartments and simply said that the Government must obtain the Committee on the Finance Bill by the end of the fourth day, and particularly if they extended the time to twelve o'clock, or, better still, one o'clock, we should have a far better chance of discussing this measure fairly. Hon. Members opposite must not take it that this is only to be applied to this one particular form of Finance Bill. You are setting up a precedent which will certainly be adopted by other Governments that come in. Closure Resolutions have a wonderful way of staying. They come to stay. There may be a time when hon. Members opposite will raise their voices quite as loudly as ours to some new Budget involving perhaps altogether new principles, and a great number of taxes set down to be discussed in closely and rigidly denned compartments, so that a great deal of those new taxes perhaps might escape discussion altogether. It may be a very convenient method for the Government when it wants to avoid awkward discussions and Divisions, but it is a very inconvenient form of measuring the time for Debate in the House of Commons, and the House of Commons ought to be very jealous of giving up the control which it has hitherto had over taxation in this country, and the way the taxes are raised and the methods and principles upon which they are raised. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will show himself a little bit alive to the arguments and see if he can get his Budget within the seven days from the time when we start the discussion, whether he would not be satisfied with that, and at the same time give us that liberty for which we ask in this Amendment of measuring our own pace in taking the discussion on the particular questions.


The remarks of the hon. Gentleman were, I think, really directed in support of the plan which has already been disposed of in the Division, namely, that adequate time should be given for the discussion of the Committee stage of the Bill. From that point of view his remarks were strictly relevant. The Amendment which has been proposed would really mean a reversion to the old and discarded form of guillotine in which a certain measure of time was allotted, and within that measure of time there was no specific allocation of a particular part. The result almost invariably was that a large number of important Clauses passed without any discussion at all, and that there was a great deal of discussion on relatively unimportant matters.


I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that was the effect, but it was in order to cure that defect, and with a view to doing something to mitigate it that the Kangaroo Closure was introduced, and that is a new development.


The Kangaroo Closure, though a useful weapon I agree, is inadequate for dealing with this particular purpose. The object with which this table has been framed is to secure a certainty that important Clauses which impose new taxes and alterations in the existing system of taxation, shall be discussed. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment, if carried, would not secure that end. There are, for instance, the Clause which deals with the taxation of foreign investments, and the Clause which deals with the new scale of Death Duties, and the Clause which deals with the abolition of Settled Estate Duties, and the Clause which deals with the Sinking Fund—every one of those, if the Amendment were carried, might pass without any discussion at all. Under the time-table as it appears on the Paper you may say there is not sufficient time, but we secure by that table that every one of those proposals shall be discussed. The timetable is so arranged as to secure that every one of those Clauses which imposes new taxes and substantial changes in existing taxes shall be discussed. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment were carried there would be no certainty that that would happen. That, I think, is a sufficient answer to his proposal. The other point raised is of a different kind. The effect of his Amendment, if carried, undoubtedly would be to get rid of the limitation which in this time-table closes the discussion at eleven o'clock. My right hon. Friend has already said, and the Leader of the Opposition seemed rather to favour that view, though I will not say that he committed himself to it, that if we could come to an agreement on this point we might substitute midnight for eleven o'clock.


There is still the vice of a fixed hour.


It would substantially enlarge the time given to the discussion on the various days. I do not know what the Rules of the House say upon that matter, but if there is a disposition to come to an agreement as to it we might be able to arrange it.


I am rather disappointed that the Prime Minister has not gone further to meet my hon. Friend, whose suggestion I cannot help thinking it rather a good one, and would really meet a good deal that has been said. I cannot really agree with the right hon. Gentleman that his time-table so arranged can secure adequate discussion of the details of the Bill.


I did not say adequate discussion.


The instance given by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) is an admirable one. To-day we should have had exactly ten minutes under one of the right hon. Gentleman's provisions, which brings a discussion to an end at five-thirty o'clock. The real vice, as the right hon. Gentleman knows probably better than anybody in the House, of all these arrangements is that you cannot tell what is important beforehand, as that depends so much on the course which the Government takes when you get into a discussion. I cannot help feeling, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said—that this would be a reversion to the older type of guillotine—that it would be a good thing under the circumstances. I think he does not allow enough for the Kangaroo Closure. I think that the Kangaroo Closure, coupled with the fact that you will have the automatic suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule on the first three days, would enable us to be fairly certain that the Bill would be, I will not say thoroughly but reasonably discussed in the time which the Government proposed to place at our disposal. I hope we shall have the support of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) because this is his suggestion as applied to the first three days to leave them open, and not to close them by a fixed wall at the end of the day. I cannot help thinking it would really make a very considerable difference to this Bill. We have had some experience of what takes place, and when there is a real difficulty in the way somehow or another it is turned by the fact that the guillotine falls. That kind of accident, if it be an accident, cannot occur if you have unlimited time before you, because no Government would be able, under those circumstances, to put an end to the discussion until that particular matter had really been brought before the House. It does appear to me that this is a very reasonable proposal, and that it would really make an alleviation in the stringency of this Resolution. I cannot help hoping also that the House as a whole will see that it is reasonable, and that we shall have a more satisfactory reply from some other Member of the Government who speaks later.


Much as I object to the guillotine generally, I do prefer what the Prime Minister calls the "old and discarded system" to the modern one. Under the "old and discarded system" the House, at all events, had a free right to choose what points they wanted to discuss, and the Opposition, no doubt, would have a very large voice in what particular points were taken. What is the plan of this new Closure? A programme and time-table is drawn up by the Government. I think that that is entirely objectionable. How on earth can the Government know what are the points which the House wants to discuss? I am well aware that the programme, as ultimately passed, is the Order of the House and not of the Government. But, after all, the programme is put on the Paper and very likely passed in exactly the form in which it is introduced, and we are bound to accept it. The result is that, instead of being able to pick the points that we want to discuss, we are limited by a programme drawn up by the Government, who cannot possibly know what are the points with which the House, and especially the Opposition, wish to deal. We have had experience of these Government programmes; they are nearly always faulty. There was a detailed time-table in connection with the Welsh Church Bill. What followed?

In the case of many compartments we had not time to discuss many important points. But there were other compartments where really too much time was given. I remember a particular case, right at the end of the Committee stage, where too much time was allotted, and it was almost impossible, notwithstanding all the ingenuity of my hon. Friends on this side, to fill up the time allotted. That must always be the case when detailed timetables are drawn up by the Government. It is far better for everybody, if the time is to be limited, that the Government should decide the limit, and within that limit give the House a free run. With regard to the other part of the Amendment, the extension from eleven to twelve o'clock would be useful, but I do not know why we should go home at twelve o'clock. If we are to have only four days, Members on this side would be quite prepared to sit up late. The real fact is that the Government cannot get their supporters to sit up. If they are really in earnest in desiring to pass this great Budget, and the other measures which depend upon it—we have had evidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that four days are not sufficient—if they will not increase the number of days, at all events let them lengthen the days by adopting the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and leaving us to make the best use we can of the nights that are given.


I suggested earlier in the afternoon that the House should be allowed to sit on the first three days until one o'clock. I understand that the Government have offered to make it twelve o'clock. The position might be met by the Resolution being taken in the form suggested by the hon. Member opposite. It would be within the power of the Government to report Progress between twelve and one. If it was understood that the time should not exceed one o'clock, I do not think the House would wish to be boumd down to the rigid hour, so that the discussion on any particular subject might be concluded. I suggest that the Opposition should put themselves in communication with the Government through the usual channels, otherwise we may lose the four hours which the Government have offered.


I hope the Government will consider this proposal on its merits. So far as the form of the guillotine is concerned, I am afraid that the matter is rather in the position of the proverbial hotels at Limerick: whichever you go to you will wish you had gone to the other. So far as the merits of the proposal go, the most important point is that not only every night, but two or three times in the course of the sitting, you have a particular moment when the discussion must come to an end. It is not only possible, but highly probable, that at any one of those points there may be a general feeling on both sides of the House that an important matter is being discussed, and that the discussion ought to be continued; but under a cast-iron Resolution of this kind it will be impossible to go on. I strongly support the remarks of my hon. Friend that the Government in framing their Resolution in this form are usurping functions which are the very last that a Government ought to undertake. In framing legislation, the Government have the sole discretion as to what proposals they will lay before the House, but they are the very last people who ought to guide the discussion which takes place. The selection of the points for criticism must be the function of any part of the House but the Government. That is one of the root principles of our procedure. By this form of Guillotine Resolution, the Government are really going outside their function, and trespassing upon the liberty and the right of the House as a whole, and especially of the Opposition, to select the particular subject to be discussed. There is no cherished liberty or tradition of this House which this particular form of procedure does not transgress. It ought to be the object of the Government to do what they can to minimise their trespass on the liberties of the House. What is the procedure in Supply? The Government propose how the money shall be spent, but it is recognised to be the right of the Opposition to select how and when particular expenditure should be discussed. In what respect does the principle here differ from that? The principle is exactly the same. If we are allowed to use the allotted days as we like, at any rate the Government will not have trespassed on the rights of the Opposition to the extent which they will do by the procedure as proposed. I attach the greatest importance to the fact that the Eleven o'clock Rule will not be suspended during the first three days of the discussion. That does not mean that we need sit all night. The responsibility for that does not rest with us. The Government will have their majority, and it will be within their competence to move the Adjournment of the Debate at whatever time they think it has proceeded long enough. The case put forward by the Prime Minister was that they must have the Bill within seven days. The right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to justify the division of the four days into these particular portions. Therefore, when the Government have it in their power, without altering the time which they have allotted, to reduce their trespass on the liberties of the House, I think they are bound to do so, and we are entitled, not only to ask for the free use of the four days but to claim it.


I hope the Government will not give way on this point. It is true that the Opposition should have as much power as possible in choosing the topics to be discussed, but if the Government give way on this point it may mean that new taxation will be imposed by Clauses which have never been discussed at all. If the Opposition are allowed to use the first three days as they like, I do not see how they can possibly guarantee that there will be a discussion on all the Clauses imposing new taxation. If we have a Guillotine Resolution it is only fair that those portions of the Bill under which new taxation is imposed should be given a certain amount of time for discussion.


My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if the Opposition were anxious to extend the period of discussion till midnight, the Government would be prepared to consent to an Amendment of that kind. But we can only do it by agreement, as the Resolution cannot go over to another day. Whatever arrangement is made must be incorporated in the Resolution before it is agreed to at 8.15. I understand that the Opposition are prepared to assent to that arrangement, but it must be subject to our reaching the Schedule and altering the figure before the Division is taken.


The right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly interpreted our

attitude in this matter. We would prefer twelve o'clock to eleven o'clock, as it would give us so many hours further discussion. But we consider the time so utterly inadequate that we must leave it to the Government to consider for themselves how it can be done without any arrangement on our part.


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 175.

Division No. 158.] AYES. [7.45 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Dillon, John Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Adamson, William Doris, William Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Addison, Dr. Christopher Duffy, William J. John, Edward Thomas
Agnew, Sir George William Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Johnson, W.
Alden, Percy Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Arnold, Sydney Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Essex, Sir Richard Walter Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Falconer, James Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Farrell, James Patrick Jones, Wiliam S. Glyn- (Stepney)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Jowett, Frederick William
Barnes, George N. Ffrench, Peter Joyce, Michael
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) Field, William Kellaway, Frederick George
Beck, Arthur Cecil Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Kelly, Edward
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Fitzgibbon, John Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Bentham, George Jackson Flavin, Michael Joseph Kenyon, Barnet
Bethell, Sir John Henry France, Gerald Ashburner Kilbride, Denis
Black, Arthur W. Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson King, Joseph
Boland, John Pius Gelder, Sir William Alfred Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry
Booth, Frederick Handel George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)
Bowerman, Charles W. Gladstone, W. G. C. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Glanville, Harold James Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Brocklehurst, William B. Goldstone, Frank Leacn, Charles
Brunner, J. F. L. Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Levy, Sir Maurice
Bryce, J. Annan Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Lundon, Thomas
Byles, Sir William Pollard Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Lyell, Charles Henry
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Chancellor, Henry George Hackett, John Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Hancock, John George Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Clancy, John Joseph Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Clough, William Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Clynes, John R. Hardie, J. Keir MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) M'Callum, Sir John M.
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) M'Curdy, C. A.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) M'Kean, John
Cotton, William Francis Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hayden, John Patrick M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Crooks, William Hayward, Evan M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Crumley, Patrick Helme, Sir Norval Watson Manfield, Harry
Cullinan, John Hemmerde, Edward George Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Marks, Sir George Croydon
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) Meagher, Michael
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Henry, Sir Charles Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Higham, John Sharp Middlebrook, William
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Hinds, John Molloy, Michael
Dawes, James Arthur Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
De Forest, Baron Hodge, John Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Delany, William Hogge, James Myles Mooney, John J.
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Holmes, Daniel Turner Morgan, George Hay
Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. Holt, Richard Durning Morison, Hector
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Radford, George Heynes Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Muldoon, John Raffan, Peter Wilson Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John
Murphy, Martin J. Reddy, Michael Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Needham, Christopher T. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Toulmin, Sir George
Nolan, Joseph Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Rendall, Athelstan Walters, Sir John Tudor
Nuttall, Harry Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Wardle, George J.
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Waring, Walter
O'Doherty, Philip Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
O'Donnell, Thomas Robinson, Sidney Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
O'Dowd, John Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Webb, H.
Ogden, Fred Roche, Augustine (Louth) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wlcklow, W.) Roe, Sir Thomas White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Rowntree, Arnold Whitehouse, John Howard
O'Malley, William Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
O'Shee, James John Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Wiles, Thomas
O'Sullivan, Timothy Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Wilkie, Alexander
Outhwaite, R. L. Scanlan, Thomas Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Parker, James (Halifax) Sheehy, David Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Sherwell, Arthur James Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Shortt, Edward Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Winfrey, Sir Richard
Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Wing, Thomas Edward
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Pirie, Duncan Vernon Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Yeo, Alfred William
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Pratt, J. W. Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Sutherland, John E.
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Sutton, John E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Pringle, William M. R. Taylor, John W. (Durham) Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Aitken, Sir William Max Croft, Henry Page Hume-Williams, William Ellis
Amery, L. C. M. S. Currie, George W. Hunt, Rowland
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Dalrymple, Viscount Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Denison-Pender, J. C. Jessel, Captain H. M.
Astor, Waldorf Denniss, E. R. B. Kerry, Earl of
Baird, John Lawrence Dixon, C. H. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Baldwin, Stanley Duke, Henry Edward Larmor, Sir J.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Du Pre, W. Baring Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M Lee, Arhur Hamilton
Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Faber, George Denison (Clapham) Lewisham, Viscount
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)
Barnston, Harry Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Bathurst, Hon. A. E. B. (Glouc., E.) Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Pltzroy, Hon. Edward A. Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh
Beckett, Hon. Gervasa Ganzoni, Francis John C. Magnus, Sir Philip
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Gardner, Ernest Malcolm, Ian
Bernett Goldney Francis Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Gibbs, George Abraham Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bigland, Alfred Gilmour, Captain John Moore, William
Bird, Alfred Goldman, C. S. Mount, William Arthur
Blair, Reginald Goulding, Edward Alfred Neville, Reginald J. N.
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue Grant, James Augustus Newdegate, F. A.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Greene, Walter Raymond Newman, John R. P.
Bowden, G. R. Harland Gretton, John Newton, Harry Kottingham
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Boyton, James Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Bridgeman, William Clive Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Butcher, John George Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) Perkins, Walter Frank
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N. Hambro, Angus Valdemar Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Cassel, Felix Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Pretyman, Ernest George
Castlereagh, Viscount Harris, Henry Percy Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Cator, John Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Randles, Sir John S.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Ratcliff, R. F.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Hewins, William Albert Samuel Rees, Sir J. D.
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Remnant, James Farquharson
Chambers, James Hill-Wood, Samuel Rolleston, Sir John
Clay, Captain H H. Spender Hope, Harry (Bute) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Royds, Edmund
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Horne, E. Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Crichton Stuart, Lord Ninian Houston, Robert Paterson Sandys, G. J.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Thynne, Lord Alexander Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G. Tickler, T. G. Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Tobin, Alfred Aspinall Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green,S.W.)
Smith, Harold (Warrington) Tryon, Captain George Clement Winterton, Earl
Stanier, Beville Walker, Col. William Hall Wolmer, Viscount
Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Walrond, Hon. Lionel Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Starkey, John R. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Stewart, Gershom Watson, Hon. W. Worthington Evans, L.
Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) Weigall, Capt. A. G. Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Swift, Rigby Weston, Colonel J. W. Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord
Thomas-Stanford, Charles Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.
Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Question put accordingly, "That the "words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 175.

Division No. 159.] AYES. [7.55 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Kelly, Edward
Adamson, William Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Addison, Dr. Christopher Essex, Sir Richard Walter Kenyon, Barnet
Agnew, Sir George Falconer, James Kilbride, Denis
Alden, Percy Farrell, James Patrick King, Joseph
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Ffrench, Peter Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)
Arnold, Sydney Field, William Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Fitzgibbon, John Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Flavin, Michael Joseph Leach, Charles
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) France, Gerald Ashburner Levy, Sir Maurice
Barnes, George N. Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs) Gelder, Sir W. A. Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Beek, Arthur Cecil George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Gladstone, W. G. C. Lundon, Thomas
Bentham, George Jackson Glanville, Harold James Lyell, Charles Henry
Bethell, Sir J. H. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Black, Arthur W. Goldstone, Frank Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Boland, John Pius Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Macdonald, John M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Booth, Frederick Handel Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Maclean, Donald
Bowerman, Charles W. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Brocklehurst, William B. Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorest, E.) M'Callum, Sir John M.
Brunner, John F. L. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Bryce, J. Annan Hackett, John M'Kean, John
Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O. Hancock, J. G. McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)
Byles, Sir William Pollard Hardie, J. Keir Manfield, Harry
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Chancellor, Henry George Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Marks, Sir George Croydon
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Meagher, Michael
Clancy, John Joseph Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Clough, William Hayden, John Patrick Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix.)
Clynes, John R. Hayward, Evan Middlebrook, William
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Helme, Sir Norval Watson Molloy, Michael
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Hemmerde, Edward George Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Cotton, William Francis Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) Mooney, John J.
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Henry, Sir Charles Morgan, George Hay
Crooks, William Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Morison, Hector
Crumley, Patrick Higham, John Sharp Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cullinan, John Hinds, John Muldoon, John
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Hodge, John Murphy, Martin J.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hogge, James Myles Needham, Christopher T.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Holmes, Daniel Turner Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Holt, Richard Durning Nolan, Joseph
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Dawes, James Arthur Hughes, Spencer Leigh Nuttall, Harry
De Forest, Baron John, Edward Thomas O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Delany, William Johnson, W. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Doherty, Philip
Dillon, John Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) O'Donnell, Thomas
Doris, William Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Dowd, John
Duffy, William J. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Ogden, Fred
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Jowett, Frederick William O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Joyce, Michael O'Malley, William
Elverston, Sir Harold Kellaway, Frederick George O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
O'Shee, James John Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Walters, Sir John Tudor
O'Sullivan, Timothy Roche, Augustine (Louth) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Outhwaite, R. L. Roe, Sir Thomas Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Parker, James (Halifax) Rowntree, Arnold Wardle, George J.
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Waring, Walter
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Webb, H.
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Scanlan, Thomas White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Pirie, Duncan Vernon Sheehy, David White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Sherwell, Arthur James Whitehouse, John Howard
Pratt, J. W. Shortt, Edward Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Wiles, Thomas
Pringle, William M. R. Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) Wilkie, Alexander
Radford, G. H. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Raffan, Peter Wilson Soames, Arthur Wellesley Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Reddy, Michael Sutherland, John E. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Sutton, John E. Winfrey, Sir Richard
Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wing, Thomas Edward
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Yeo, Alfred William
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Thorne, William (West Ham)
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Toulmin, Sir George TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Robinson, Sidney Trevelyan, Charles Philips Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Aitken, Sir William Max Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Amery, L. C. M. S. Faber, George D. (Clapham) Magnus, Sir Philip
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) Malcolm, Ian
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Mason, James F. (Windsor)
Astor, Waldorf Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Baird, John Lawrence Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Moore, William
Baldwin, Stanley Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Mount, William Arthur
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Ganzoni, Francis John C. Neville, Reginald J. N.
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Gardner, Ernest Newdegate, F. A.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Newman, John R. P.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Gibbs, George Abraham Newton, Harry Kottingham
Barnston, Harry Gilmour, Captain John Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Goldman, C. S. Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Goulding, Edward Alfred Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Grant, James Augustus Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Greene, Walter Raymond Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Gretton, John Perkins, Walter Frank
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S.Edmunds) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Bigland, Alfred Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Pretyman, Ernest George
Bird, Alfred Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Blair, Reginald Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Randles, Sir John S.
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) Ratcliff, R. F.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Hambro, Angus Valdemar Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bowden, G. R. Harland Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Rees, Sir J. D.
Boyton, James Harris, Henry Percy Remnant, James Farquharson
Bridgeman, William Clive Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rolleston, Sir John
Burdett-Coutts, William Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Burn, Colonel C. R. Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) Royds, Edmund
Butcher, John George Hewins, William Albert Samuel Salter, Arthur Clavell
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hill-Wood, Samuel Sandys, G. J.
Cassel, Felix Hope, Harry (Bute) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Castlereagh, Viscount Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.
Cator, John Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) Stanier, Bevilie
Cecil, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin) Houston, Robert Paterson Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Hume-Williams, William Ellis Starkey, John R.
Chambers, James Hunt, Rowland Stewart, Gershom
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Swift, Rigby
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Jessel, Captain H. M. Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Kerry, Earl of Talbot, Lord Edmund
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Croft, Henry Page Larmor, Sir J. Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Currie, George W. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Thynne, Lord Alexander
Dalrymple, Viscount Lee, Arthur Hamilton Tickler, T. G.
Denison-Pender, J. c Lewisham, Viscount Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Denniss, E. R. B. Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Tryon, Captain George Clement
Dixon, C. H. Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Walker, Colonel William Hall
Duke, Henry Edward Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Du Pre, W. Baring Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Watson, Hon. W. Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading) Wright, Henry Fltzherbert
Weigall, Captain A. G. Wilson,Maj.Sir M. (Bethnal Green,S.W.) Yate, Colonel C. E.
Weston, Colonel J. W. Winterton, Earl
Wheler, Granville C. H. Wolmer, Viscount TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) Mitchell-Thomson and Mr. Evelyn
Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) Wood, John (Stalybridge) Cecil.
Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud Worthington Evans, L.

I beg to move, "That the Resolution as on the Paper be the Resolution of the House."

Main Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 175.

Division No. 160.] AYES. [8.6 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Ffrench, Peter Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Adamson, William Field, William Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Addison, Dr. Christopher Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Lundon, Thomas
Agnew, Sir George Croydon Fitzgibbon, John Lyell, Charles Henry
Alden, Percy Flavin, Michael Joseph Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Allen, Percy A. (Dumbartonshire) France, Gerald Ashburner Macdonaid, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Arnold, Sydney Gelder, Sir W. A. Maclean, Donald
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Gladstone, W. G. C. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Glanville, Harold James MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford M'Calium, Sir John M.
Barnes, George N. Goldstone, Frank M'Curdy, C. A.
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) M'Kean, John
Beck, Arthur Cecil Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones M'Laren, Hon. F. W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Bentham, George Jackson Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Manfield, Harry
Bethell, Sir John Henry Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Black, Arthur W. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Marks, Sir George Croydon
Boland, John Pius Hackett, John Martin, Joseph
Booth, Frederick Handel Hancock, John George Meagher, Michael
Bowerman, Charles W. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hardie, J. Keir Middlebrook, William
Brocklehurst, William B. Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Molloy, Michael
Brunner, John F. L. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Bryce, J. Annan Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Mooney, John J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Hayden, John Patrick Morgan, George Hay
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hayward, Evan Morison, Hector
Byles, Sir William Pollard Helme, Sir Norval Watson Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hemmerde, Edward George Muldoon, John
Chancellor, Henry George Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) Murphy, Martin J.
Clancy, John Joseph Henry, Sir Charles Needham, Christopher T.
Clough, William Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Clynes, John Higham, John Sharp Nolan, Joseph
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Hinds, John Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Nuttall, Harry
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hodge, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cotton, William Francis Hogge, James Myles O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Crooks, William Holt, Richard Durning O'Doherty, Philip
Crumley, Patrick Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Donnell, Thomas
Cullinan, John Hughes, Spencer Leigh O'Dowd, John
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) John, Edward Thomas Ogden, Fred
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) Johnson, W. O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wickiow, W.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Malley, William
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Shee, James John
Dawes, James Arthur Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) O'Sullivan, Timothy
Delany, William Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Outhwaite, R. L.
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Jowett, Frederick William Parker, James (Halifax)
Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. Joyce, Michael Pearce, Robert (Leek)
Dillon, John Kellaway, Frederick George Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Doris, William Kelly, Edward Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)
Duffy, William J. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Kenyon, Barnet Pirle, Duncan V.
Duncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Kilbride, Denis Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) King, Joseph Pratt, J. W.
Elverston, Sir Harold Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Pringle, William M. R.
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Radford, G. H.
Falconer, James Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Farrell, James Patrick Leach, Charles Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Levy, Sir Maurice Reddy, Michael
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Webb, H.
Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Whitehouse, John Howard
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Sutherland, John E. Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Sutton, John E. Wiles, Thomas
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilkie, Alexander
Robinson, Sidney Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Roche, Augustino (Louth) Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Roe, Sir Thomas Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rowntree, Arnold Thorne, William (West Ham) Winfrey, Sir Richard
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Toulmin, Sir George Wing, Thomas Edward
Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Trevelyan, Charles Philips Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Walters, Sir John Tudor Yeo, Alfred William
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) Young, William (Perthshire, East)
Scanlan, Thomas Ward, W. Dudley (Couthampton) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Sheehy, David Wardle, George J.
Sherwell, Arthur James Waring, Walter TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Shortt, Edward Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Aitken, Sir William Max Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Amery, L. C. M. S. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Parker, Sir Gibert (Gravesend)
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Ganzoni, Francis John C. Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Astor, Waldorf Gardner, Ernest Perkins, Walter F.
Baird, John Lawrence Gibbs, George Abraham Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Gilmour, Captain J. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baldwin, Stanley Goldman, C. S. Pretyman, Ernest George
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- Grant, J. A. Randles, Sir John S.
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Greene, Walter Raymond Ratcliff, R. F.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Gretton, John Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barnston, Harry Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Rawson, Colonel R. H.
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Gloucs., E.) Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Rees, Sir J. D.
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Remnant, James Farquharson
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Rolleston, Sir John
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Ronaldshay, Earl of
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) Royds, Edmund
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Hambro, Angus Valdemar Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Sandys, G. J.
Bigland, Alfred Harris, Henry Percy Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bird, Alfred Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.
Blair, Reginald Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) Stanier, Beville
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Hewins, William Albert Samuel Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bowden, G. R. Harland Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Starkey, John Ralph
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Hill-Wood, Samuel Stewart, Gershom
Boyton, James Hope, Harry (Bute) Swift, Rigby
Bridgeman, William Clive Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Horne, E. Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Butcher, John George Houston, Robert Paterson Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Hume-Williams, W. E. Thynne, Lord Alexander
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hunt, Rowland Tickler, T. G.
Cassel, Felix Hunter, Sir C. Rodk. Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Castlereagh, Viscount Jardine, E. (Somerset, East) Tryon, Captain George Clement
Cator, John Jessel, Captain H. M. Walker, Colonel William Hall
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kerry, Earl of Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Larmor, Sir J. Watson, Hon. W.
Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Weigall, Captain A. G.
Chambers, J. Lee, Arthur Hamilton Weston, Colonel J. W.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Lewisham, Viscount Wheler, Granville C. H.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R. Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
Croft, H. P. MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S.W.)
Currie, George W. Magnus, Sir Philip Winterton, Earl
Dalrymple, Viscount Malcolm, Ian Wolmer, Viscount
Denison-Pender, J. C. Mason, James F. (Windsor) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Denniss, E. R. B. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Dixon, C. H. Moore, William Worthington-Evans, L.
Duke, Henry Edward Mount, William Arthur Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Du Pre, W. Baring Neville, Reginald J. N. Yate, Colonel C. E.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Newdegate, F. A.
Faber, George Denison (Clapham) Newman, John R. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord
Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) Newton, Harry Kottingham Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.
Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert