§ (1) Section forty-three of the principal Act(which relates to Excess Mineral Bights Duty)shall have effect as if forty per cent. of the excess were substituted as the rate of duty for eighty per cent. for any accounting year commencing on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nineteen, or, in the case of an accounting year which commenced before that date but ends after that date, as if forty per cent. were substituted for eighty per cent. as respects so much of the excess as may be apportioned under this part of this Act to the part commencing on that date.
§ (2). The proviso to Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1917, shall apply to any accounting year in respect of which or any part of which Excess Mineral Rights Duty is payable at the rate of forty per cent., as it applies where the said duty is payable at the rate of eighty percent.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed
That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. HOGGEThis Clause deals with the decrease of rate of the Excess Mineral 286 Rights Duty and substitutes 40 per cent. for 80 per cent. as in the case of the Excess Profits Tax in Clause 24. Since this Clause has been set down and circulated we have had the Report of Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission on the question of the nationalisation of the coal mines and on the question of royalties on minerals in general, and there is one significant thing about that Report which, I think, we ought to bear in mind in connection with this Clause, and that is that, on this point at any rate, every member of the Sankey Commission was unanimous as to the basis upon which royalties should be purchased by the State. The suggestion there made was that the basis of acquisition should be the actual amount received by way of royalties, minus this Excess Mineral Eights Duty. If that is so, let us look and see what the result will be to the State if Clause 25 is allowed to- 287 stand as it is now. What the Clause does first of all is to give a reduction from 80 to 40 per cent., and that must, obviously, mean a reduction in revenue to the State. In the second place, it is bound to increase by the same 40 per cent. the amount which the owners would receive, and that means that when the State carries out the Sankey Commission Report, to which the Government is committed, the State is going to have to pay by way of compensation an amount increased by the 40 per cent. by which the 80 per cent. is now being reduced.
What is the suggestion in the Report of the Sankey Commission? It is a fifteen years' purchase of the amount of these royalties, and therefore, if my right hon. Friend vends 40 per cent. now in this Excess Mineral Rights Duty, he gives the owners of these royalties the vending of an extra 40 per cent. later on, and if the State purchases them on the basis of fifteen years' purchase, he afterwards pays fifteen years' purchase of the full amount. I am certain my right hon. Friend has not looked at it from that point of view. He may reply that the Government have not explicitly given to the House their decision as to what they are going to do as the result of the Sankey Report, but I am putting this to them, that the Government are committed to the nationalisation of royalties in any event. If, therefore, the Government is committed to that, my right hon. Friend is giving the royalty owners a great concession now and is imposing upon the State in future, by purchasing at a huge rate, a value which is much greater because it gives this concession Therefore, I am suggesting now that if previous arguments are not weighty enough here is a special argument dealing with a subject which is obviously in the melting-pot, which is at the root of a great many social questions, involving arguments that we have had in this House over and over again. Why cannot he, therefore, leave this in this case until the Government have absolutely given a decision with regard to nationalisation, because unless they do he is making a present of this reduction to the owners of royalties, a reduction which I do not think they are entitled to have, and I feel again that it is our duty to oppose this Clause standing part of the Bill.
§ Mr. RAFFANI hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not persevere with this 288 proposal. I am quite sure he would not have agreed to any reduction of the Excess Profits Tax, when revenue is so urgently necessary, had it not been for the arguments which were adduced from all parts of the House in the Debate just concluded. We were told that if this sum passed to the Exchequer it could not be retained for purposes of business expansion, which are still more necessary, and that therefore, urgent as it is to maintain the national revenue, it is still more urgent that industry and commerce should be fructified by these sums being utilised for the purposes of capital expenditure. I must say that I felt that that was a very strong argument, but it does not apply in this case. In the case of mining royalties that is not an ordinary profit from industry. That in its present form is a levy upon industry. It may be true that in. certain special cases the person who is in receipt of that income may apply it for the purposes of investment. Still, in the main he is not a person engaged in industry, and it may well be that he may use this concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes to him merely for his own personal expenditure, and matters of that kind, which I am sure we have no desire to encourage. On the other hand, it was argued with very great force that the Excess Profits Tax upon industry has had a very material effect in raising prices and that, therefore, it was necessary to allow this concession to be made, but here again there can be no question about the price of coal being raised in any way whatsoever because this duty persists.
Therefore it appears to me that altogether apart from the considerations raised by my hon. Friend there is no reason in the national interest why the concession should be made. It is a concession which is made to the landlord interest- It is a large sum of money, and whatever the sum may be it is a sum presently accruing to the Exchequer, and there is no national benefit which can be offset against that because of any assistance given to the development of commerce. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate, to hold his hand for the present year, because whatever this sum may be, it does mean that if you are to nationalise royalties and pay compensation to royalty-owners, I say quite frankly for myself that, if this matter comes before the House, I am in agreement with the representatives of the Labour party and the Commission who 289 say that in their view mining royalties ought to accrue to the State, and that compensation ought not to be paid. I am not sufficiently sanguine to think that we should be able to carry that through the present House of Commons, and I assume, at any rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not likely to advise action upon those lines. Therefore, if you purchase at fifteen years' purchase, or at ten years' purchase, it means that if this remission now amounts to, say, £100,000, the right hon. Gentleman is not merely making a present of £100,000 to the landowners, but he is also making a present of £1,000,000 if he purchases at ten years' purchase. Therefore, I appeal to him not to persist in this proposal. If it is persisted in, I hope, in spite of the logical dilemma in which the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual ability, placed the Committee, that as a protest against this concession to the landlord interest, at any rate, a Division will be registered. But I should hope that on fuller consideration the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see his way not to proceed with the proposal at present, and if he cannot do that may I ask whether he can give some assurance to the House that, if he does persist in the proposal now, the sum will not be capitalised when you come, if you come, during the present year to buy out the royalty-owners?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINWhat the hon. Gentleman calls the logical dilemma in which I placed the House is, I am afraid, a logical dilemma which confronts me also, only it confronts me with more force than it does the hon. Member, because I am in a position of greater responsibility at the moment than are he and the hon. Gentleman who expressed his desire to vote against the Clause as a demonstration. I vote against the Clause, the Clause will go out, and if the Clause goes out the tax goes altogether—not 40 percent., but the whole 80 per cent. of the tax. That does not disturb the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They can record a protest knowing perfectly well that their vote will have no consequences, and—
§ Captain W. BENNWhat the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN—and relying upon a majority of the House to prevent it having consequences which they would be the first to deplore. Now, having 290 finished my sentence, if either or both of the hon. Members would like to interrupt, I shall be pleased to hear what they have to say.
§ Captain BENNI apologise for any apparent discourtesy, but what the right hon. Gentleman does not state is this: He has got the power to move that the tax should be imposed at the rate of 80 per cent., and we have not got that power.
§ 7.0 p m
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Gentleman would be glad to have us out in any case, even if it resulted in the royalty-owners getting relief from the tax. That would be a small evil to him, compared with the Government, with a majority of I do not know how many, continuing in office. But I cannot undertake at this stage to recast the Budget, to bring in new Resolutions, and to propose an altogether different tax. It is, therefore, this Clause or no tax at all, so far as I am concerned. But hon. Members raised a point which I will not say is out of order, or not germane to what we are doing, but which is really concerned with the arrangements which may be made in certain hypothetical contingencies hereafter, connected with the nationalisation of the mines, or, in particular, with the nationalisation of the ownership of the minerals as apart from the mines. If the Sankey Report is adopted as a basis for such a proposal, I think that quite clearly the intention of the Sankey Report ought not to be perverted by any changes which, in the interim between the presentation of their Report and the action of the House of Commons upon it, we may think it right to make, not in connection with the purchase of royalties, but in connection with the gentral system of taxation. Whatever may be the intention and meaning of the Sankey Report, if that Report is to be acted upon it ought not to be prejudiced by anything that we do now, and we ought not, by anything that we do now, to let it be supposed that there will be guaranteed to anyone something more than the Sankey Report recommended that he should have. What we do now ought not to prejudice the position through an incident which was not contemplated by the Sankey Commission or by us.
§ Mr. ADAMSONThe point that we are discussing at the moment is one which I 291 think demands more serious attention from the Chancellor of the Exchequer than it has received up to the present. The reason why there is excess profit so far as royalty owners are concerned is because in many cases the royalties are fixed on an ad valorem basis. The price of coal having increased during the course of the War, their royalties have increased. That has placed the royalty owners in the position of being able to maintain their average royalties notwithstanding the fact that the output has very seriously fallen. The income from royalties is one of the things that has remained stationary through the many changes that have taken place in the coal trade during the War. Undoubtedly, if the ideas of the majority of the Sankey Commission are to be given effect to, the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reducing the Excess Profits Tax from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. will increase the price that is to be paid for buying out the royalty owners in the very near future. I do not think there is any doubt about that. There is so little doubt about it that, as I have said, it requires very serious attention. I quite agree that no action should be taken meantime, particularly by the Government, that will prejudice the case when that change is brought about, as I believe it will be in the near future. I think that, if the Chancellor finds it impossible to make the necessary change during the Committee stage, he could give us his undertaking that it will be done on Report. I do not think that any change should be made here in the Excess Profits Duty, in view of what is about to transpire. All the arguments that the Chancellor has used hitherto in favour of a reduction in the Excess Profits Tax, for the purpose of enabling employers of labour to have more money to develop their businesses, disappear, as was pointed out just now, so far as concerns the particular matter we are now discussing. Those arguments do not hold here, and, while voting against this Clause will put us in an illogical position, as the Chancellor has pointed out, unless we can get some assurance from him, to vote against the Clause is our only means of protesting against such a foolish proposal on the part of the Government. I hope that, before this discussion closes, we shall have some assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that before we part with the Finance Bill 292 this matter will receive more serious consideration at his hands than it has secured up to the present.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife, and also other hon. Gentlemen, are suffering from some confusion of thought. I cannot imagine that the Sankey Report intended that any mineral rights duty should be taken into consideration in respect of the purchase value of royalties, except such a mineral rights duty as would be an absolutely permanent part of our finance, and was, therefore, in the view of those who framed the Report, not to be reckoned as part of the property of the royalty owner.
§ Mr. RAFFANI think that if the Noble Lord will refer to the Report he will find that that was not dealt with, but that they desired that the Excess Profits Duty now in force should be taken into consideration.
§ Lord H. CECILThere really is no clear distinction that can possibly be drawn between property in coal or land or any other of the gifts of nature. You may object to property in any gift of nature, but it certainly is mere muddle-headed-ness to say that property in coal is more or less open to criticism than property in the natural fertility of land. The idea, therefore, that you should first levy a tax of 80 per cent. on a particular form of property, and then estimate the purchase value of the whole property on the basis of what is left from the tax, really is to veil confiscation under confusion. It is merely to rely on the supposition that people are too stupid to understand that you are as dishonest as you are. Personally I should have thought that the reasonable way of valuing any property would be on its value irrespective of taxation. In any case, of course, what we do here, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, does not affect in any degree what we may afterwards do in our legislative capacity on the Report of the Sankey Commission. Whether we agree or disagree with it, we are not prejudiced by what we decide now. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife is mistaken in suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do this on Report. No one can propose an increase of taxation, not even the Ministers of the Crown, except in Committee of the Whole House. There is no means, happily, of forcing a Government to levy a heavier tax on the subject than they 293 feel bound to advise the Crown that it ought to levy; and for hon. Members to vote against this Clause by way of protest is merely to maintain the doctrine that it ought to be possible to tax people even against the will of the Ministers of the Crown
§ Captain BENNThe Noble Lord's speech comes to this, that the power of this House of Commons to decide the incidence of taxation is nil. We are told that we cannot vote against the Clause, because if we do we wipe out the whole tax. No one desires to do that, but we consider it to be very unfair to reduce the tax on mineral rights, and we wish by voting to give expression to our opinion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that if we vote against the Clause we are simply taking away the whole tax. We say, "Why do you not increase it? "The Noble Lord says, "We cannot make him increase it." Where are we?
§ Lord H. CECILThe Chancellor sits here to defend the rights of the taxpayer, not to add unnecessarily to his burdens.
§ Captain BENNThe Noble Lord is a great constitutional authority, but it is in order to defend the rights of the poor taxpayer that we desire that the House of Commons should decide the incidence of taxation, and so the Noble Lord's smoke-screen over the whole proposal does not really disguise it. He said that he never heard of any one taking into account the charges incumbent on property. Surely taxation is a charge. We cannot agree that, when a valuer values mineral rights, those rights would be equally valuable whether the taxation were 80 per cent. or only 40 per cent., and, therefore, we say that the action we are taking to-day in this matter is really prejudging to some extent the price which the public will have to pay for the mines if the Government makes up its mind to buy them and decides to nationalise the royalties. Another important point is with regard to oil. Oil is being produced as a result of expenditure voted by this House. I think £1,000,000 was given to the Ministry of Munitions for the purpose. Whose is that oil going to be, and, when it is got up, is it going to be taxed?
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter for future legislation. I feel certain, from what happend last year or the year before, that there is no existing right to levy a 294 royalty on oil, so that we cannot go into that now. It could not be dealt with unless the House contemplated some future legislation.
§ Captain BENNDo I understand you to say, Mr. Whitley, that this Clause, if passed, will confer no right on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a tax on the oil produced from this private property?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIt would give no right to anybody—neither to the Government nor to any individual—to levy a charge on the property.
§ The CHAIRMANMy point was that, remembering what happened on a certain Bill, it is really the case that in the absence of legislation there would be no such thing as a royalty on oil, and, there-tore, it cannot be brought into the present case except as a matter of future legislation.
§ Captain BENNSupposing that the oil were raised, it would surely be a mineral, subject to all the rights and duties of an ordinary mineral. Do I understand that, even, then, if this Clause is passed, the Government would have no power to levy a royalty on it?
§ The CHAIRMANThere would be no royalty.
§ Captain BENNSupposing that the oil were held by the competent authority to be the property of the surface owner, does this Clause confer a right on the Government to levy a tax on the royalty?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is putting to me a supposition as to something which does not exist. It seems to me, in the present state of the law—and what happened on the previous occasion shows it to be the case—that there is no such royalty right at present existing on British oil.
§ Captain BENNI am sure the Committee will agree that this is a matter of some substance. Supposing we should desire that a tax of 80 per cent. or 40 per cent. should be levied on the royalties payable to the surface owners of such oil, what course should we take? Is it covered by this Clause or not?
§ The CHAIRMANThat you cannot put now.
§ Captain BENNIt is a very great point of substance. Suppose, when the oil is raised, it is held that the owner is entitled to charge royalty—will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be entitled to tax the oil under this Clause?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is supposing something you cannot tackle without legislation.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMSThe Noble Lord opposite seemed in his speech to be quite unable to understand that anybody who differed from him could be either intelligent or honest. He laid down the extraordinary proposition that no intelligent person could think that there was any difference between the ownership of the natural fertility of the surface of the land and the ownership of the minerals. One great difference is this, that the owner of the minerals, if he avails himself of the ownership to any purpose, destroys them, uses them up, and they are gone for ever; the ownership of the natural fertility of the surface which, no doubt, is an advantage to the owner at times in the using of it, does not destroy the property. There is therefore a grave difference, and it is astonishing that the Noble Lord, laying
§ down the law with such positiveness, entirely failed to appreciate it. There is the great difference, so far as the present tax is concerned, between the Excess Minerals-Tax and any other Excess Profits Tax that this tax cannot be said to interfere with trade or enterprise, whereas the Excess Profits Tax. on ordinary proprietors of businesses, has many advantages, but the disadvantage that it interferes with trade and enterprise. No such reason applies to the reduction of the tax on Excess Mineral Duties. Nothing of the sort applies. To continue it is no interference with the trade or enterprise of the country, and to remove it is simply throwing away so much revenue at a time when it is very greatly wanted and when it certainly could not fall upon any shoulders more able to bear it without suffering than the owner of the royalty on minerals. Therefore, it seems to me that it is quite unjustifiable to abolish this tax at the present time, and I for one shall register my vote as a protest against so doing.
§
Question put,
That the Clause stand part of the Bill
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 57.
297| Division No. 70.] | AYES. | [7.20 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Casey, T, W. | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Allen, Colonel William James | Cayzer, Major H. R. | Gange, E. S. |
| Archdale, Edward M. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Ganzoni, Captain F. C. |
| Armitage, Robert | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh (Oxford U.) | Gardiner, J. (Perth) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com, F. W. | Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) | Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor) |
| Astor, Major Hon. Waldort | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Gilbert, James Daniel |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Clough, R. | Gray, Major E. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick) | Clyde, James Avon | Green, J. F. (Leicester) |
| Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood- | Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Gretton, Colonel John |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. N. (Gorbals) | Coats, Sir Stuart | Griggs, Sir Peter |
| Barnett, Captain Richard W. | Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Gritten, W. G. Howard |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E, (Dorset, E.) |
| Barrand, A. R. | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (southend) |
| Barton, R. C. (Wicklow, W.) | Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan) | Hallwood, A. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich) |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff | Hallas, E. |
| Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W. | Courthope, Major George Loyd | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham) |
| Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth) | Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim) | Hancock, John George |
| Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich) | Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.) | Haslam, Lewis |
| Bentinck, Lt.-Col. Lord H. Cavendish- | Croft, Brig.-General Henry Page | Henderson, Major V. L. |
| Betterton, H. B. | Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy) | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) |
| Birchall, Major J. D. | Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H. | Herbert, Denniss (Hertford) |
| Bird, Alfred | Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon |
| Blades, Sir George R. | Davies, T. (Cirencester) | Hickman, Brig-General Thomas E. |
| Blair, Major Reginald | Dawes, J. A. | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F. |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F. | Doyle. N. Grattan | Hope, Harry (Stirling) |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Du Pre, Colonel W, B. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Bowles, Col. H. F. | Edgar, Clifford | Hopkins, J. W. W. |
| Brassey, H. L. C. | Edwards, A. Clamant (East Ham, S.) | Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley) |
| Breese, Major C. E. | Eyres-Monsell, Commander | Home, Edgar (Guildford) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Howard, Major S. G. |
| Briggs, Harold | Farquharson, Major A. C. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Brittain, Sir Harry E. | Fell, Sir Arthur | Hurd, P. A. |
| Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hen. F. S. (York) |
| Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James | FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A. | Jephcott, A. R. |
| Butcher, Sir J. G. | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Jesson, C |
| Campbell, J. G. D. | Forestier-Walker, L. | Jodrell, N. P. |
| Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester) | Foxcroft, Captain C. | Johnson, L. S. |
| Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nail, Major Joseph | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Junes, J. Towyn (Carmarthen) | Neat, Arthur | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Jones, Wm. Kennedy (Hornsey) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Nield, Sir Herbert | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J. | Sugden, w. H. |
| King, Commander Douglas | Oman, C. W. C. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H. | Taylor, J. (Dumbarton) |
| Knight, Captain E. A. | Parry, Major Thomas Henry | Thomas-Stanford, Charles |
| Knights, Captain H. | Pearce, Sir William | Townley, Maximilan G. |
| Lane-Fox, Major G. R. | Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Law, A. j. (Rochdale) | Perkins, Walter Frank | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow) | Perring, William George | Waddington, R. |
| Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.) | Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester) | Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Wardie, George J. |
| Lloyd, George Butler | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green) | Pulley, Charles Thornton | Weston, Colonel John W. |
| Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don) | Ramsden, G. T. | Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H. |
| Lorden, John William | Ratcliffe, Henry Butler | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Lort-Williams, J. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Whitla, Sir William |
| Lowther, Col. C. (Lonsdale, Lancs.) | Reid, D. D. | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend) | Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V. |
| M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.) | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury) | Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.) | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Rodger, A. K. | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Maddocks, Henry | Rowlands, James | Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel. | Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Mallalieu, Frederick William | Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey) | Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading) |
| Martin, A. E. | Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney) | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B. | Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Mitchell, William Lane- | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone) | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde) |
| Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Seager, Sir William | Woolcock, W. J. U. |
| Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) | Worsfold, T. Cate |
| Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Morris, Richard | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Smithers, Alfred W. | Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon) |
| Mount, William Arthur | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander | Younger, Sir George |
| Munro, fit. Hon. Robert | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville | |
| Murchison, C. K. | Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. |
| Murray, William (Dumfries) | Starkey, Capt. John Ralph | Dudley Ward and Lord E. Talbot |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Grundy, T. W. | Short, A. (Wednesbury) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York) | Sitch, C. H. |
| Arnold, Sydney | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Smith, W. (Wellingborough) |
| Bell, James (Ormskirk) | Harbison, T. J. S, | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Bonn, Capt. W. (Leith) | Hayday, A. | Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey) |
| Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W. | Hayward, Major Evan | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E) |
| Bramsden, Sir T. | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Tootill, Robert |
| Briant, F. | Holmes, J. s. | Wallace, J. |
| Bromfield, W. | Johnstone, J. | Wignall, James |
| Carter, W. (Mansfield) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander | Williams, A. (Consett, Durham) |
| Crooks, Rt. Hon. William | Lunn, William | Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.) |
| Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe) | Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles) | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Newbould, A. E. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Rae, H. Norman | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Rattan, Peter Wilson | Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | Rendall, Athelstan | Young, Robert (Newton, Lanes.) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Richardson, R. (Houghton) | Young, William (Perth and Kinross) |
| Glanville Harold James | Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich) | |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh) | Sexton, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Griffiths, T. (Pontypool) | Shaw, Tom (Preston) | Hogge and Mr. Spoor |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clauses 26 (Extension of Belief in Respect of Colonial Excess Profits Duty), 27 (Apportionment of Accounting Periods and Years), 28 (Interpretation), 29 (Suspension of New Sinking Fund), and 30 (Construction, Short Title, and Repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.