§ In lieu of the duty of excise payable in respect of beer brewed in Great Britain or Ireland there shall, as from the twentieth day of April nineteen hundred and twenty, be charged, levied and paid, the following duty (that is to say):—
|For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees … … …||5||0||0|
§ and in lieu of the drawback of excise payable in respect of beer exported from Great Britain or Ireland, as merchandise or for use as ship's stores, there shall be allowed and paid in respect of beer on which it is shown that the increased excise duty charged by this Act has been paid a drawback calculated according to the original gravity thereof (that is to say):—
|For every thirty-six gallons of beer of an original gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees the drawback of||5||0||3|
§ Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BLAIR
I believe it is the desire of every hon. Member that the basis of taxation should be so designed as to be fair to all classes of the community. In this Clause there is a very heavy burden placed upon the consumer of beer. Our tax revenue, which is almost £1,000,000,000, or, to be exact, £998,000,000, is five and a half times our pre-War tax revenue. The proposal in the Bill is to put a duty on the standard barrel of beer of 100s. instead of 7s. 9d. what it was in pre-War times. Therefore the beer consumer has been burdened to the extent of thirteen times although the yield is now only eight and a half times. I maintain that this is a very unfair burden. The few figures I have given prove conclusively to my mind that the burden has been most inequitably distributed and that this is very oppressive taxation which has added very materially to the reduction in consumption of beer. If my hon. 1266 and gallant Friend should decide to go to a Division I shall have great pleasure in supporting him.
§ Brigadier-General WIGAN
I should also like to support the opposition to this proposal. The hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) has pointed out that the duty now proposed to be placed on beer is twelve times the pre-War amount, and that the consumer has to pay three times as much for a pint of beer as he did in 1914. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that the amount of beer consumed in this country depends upon employment and wages.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain)
I should have included the weather as an important factor.
§ Brigadier-General WIGAN
No doubt the weather is an important factor, but employment and wages are rather more important. I believe beer to be the cause of very little drunkenness, and that drunkenness in the years gone by was caused almost entirely by raw spirits sold in a certain class of public-house. I do not in the least quarrel with the proposal to tax spirits or luxury champagne as far as they will bring in revenue. Beer is hardly a luxury. A man who is doing a hard day's manual work is, in my opinion, all the better for a glass of beer, and I do not see why, through the direct action of the State, he should be asked to pay three times as much now as he did in 1914.
It might be interesting if I told the Committee the experience that we had in Palestine in 1917. When the Army was right up country, there was a very great deal of sickness owing to septic sores, and when we were able to get beer, the sickness decreased by something like 80 per cent. As soon as this was realised, the Army authorities gave every facility for beer being got up to the men. It was appreciated by the men, and their health very greatly improved. These are facts which can be borne out by those who were there. Further, I believe that the Government would do a great deal more good if they would do what they could to encourage the growing of barley and hops in this country, thereby preventing very large sums of money going out to America and elsewhere for articles which 1267 we might very well produce at home. I believe that by increasing the taxation on beer up to 100s per barrel the right hon. Gentleman will largely defeat his own ends. Therefore, on that ground, and on the ground that you are taxing the working man's beverage, I shall support the Amendment.
§ Mr. CLYNES
In addressing the Committee, I must be taken as speaking for the constituency that I represent rather than on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, because here, as in other parts of the Committee, there are differences of opinion on this question. I want to make my observations mainly because of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last night in the few observations which he addressed to the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. His view was that if beer drinkers did not pay in this manner then, being taxpayers, they would have to pay in some other form. Therefore, they might just as well pay in this form, as in any case they would have to find the money. Naturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks at all these questions from the standpoint of revenue, but there is one aspect of the question which, I think, has escaped him. While persons in all classes of the community drink beer more or less, there is one considerable section, being rather poor people, who drink beer to a degree greater than others. They drink beer largely because of their occupation and because of their pockets. They cannot afford the more costly drinks. The extent to which taxation on this article has been increased is such as to require the Chancellor to call a halt. At any rate, I would not like him to be under the impression that in increasing the duty to 100s., and perhaps a higher figure, he has the full approval of the House. The tax upon beer has been raised from something short of 8s. pre-War, to 100s. now. That is a greater increase than scarcely any other article has been called upon to bear. It is taxation which is really too heavy, and it falls with most unjust incidence upon the class of the community that I have in mind, such as gas workers, factory operators, men employed in chemical works, in brickmaking, in the building trades, and in steel works I should say that millions of men in these laborious occupations have become beer 1268 drinkers partly because of their occupations and partly because of the price. Beer now, however, is so heavily taxed that, as in the case of these persons, it forms a very serious item in the increased cost of living. I do not know whether the figures show that consumption has appreciably declined, but it is clear that while this enormous increase has occurred in the price, the quality has very greatly declined. This has ceased to be a brewers' question. The conflict now is not between the brewer and the retailer, though they have their own quarrels and their own interests, and the Committee ought to consider the matter from the standpoint of the consumer. We ought, therefore, to have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some more reassuring statement than that which he gave us last night. He ought to take into account the particular articles which weigh very heavily on those with low wages and whose past habits and customs require them to be considered as beer consumers.
Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL
I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It is not a question of the brewers at all; it is a question of the consumers. I have a suspicion that this tax may not be imposed altogether for revenue purposes. It may be part of a big policy to make England "dry" by making liquor so expensive that nobody can buy it. Feeling as I do that beer is part of the sustenance of a very large number of people in this country, I think that this enormous increase from 70s. to 100s. per barrel is savage taxation, and for that reason I shall support the reduction.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clynes) and with the opening observation which fell from my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir R. Hall) that this is, in fact, a question between the Government and the consumer. It is a question how the revenue should be raised, and it is not now a question between the Government and the trade, because the great bulk of the duty will be collected by the increased charge to the consumer. My right hon. Friend opposite seemed to think that I was harbouring the idea that the beer barrel was an inexhaustible source of wealth. I do not think so. I admit the onerous character of the charge which we 1269 have put upon it, but I beg my right hon. Friend to remember that there is not a single tax, or hardly a tax, which escapes criticism.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
So I am told in relation to every tax, not by the same people, but by those who suffer or who think they suffer, or by the representatives of those who suffer. The same kind of arguments are employed. If it be any reassurance to my right hon. Friend and the other hon. Gentleman who have spoken for me to disclaim that you can go on increasing the duties on beer and spirits indefinitely, I can make that disclaimer. If, on the other hand, he asks me here and now to say that within a given time, irrespective of any change in the circumstances, I will reduce this duty, that is a pledge which I cannot honestly give. I should be misleading him and the Committee if I gave it. All I can say is that, as regards the ability of the trade to meet that portion of the charge which they are expected to meet, I must watch the conditions. They are not any longer allowed to recoup themselves without Government interference from the public, and therefore we must watch things. I feel, in the circumstances of the day, that I must call upon the beer drinker, as I have done upon the spirit drinker, the wine drinker, the payer of direct taxation, and the contributors of taxes which fall upon industry, to make these great sacrifices in the interests of national credit and stability. Yet I shall be as happy as anybody if the time comes within my tenure of office when, instead of having to add to taxation, I can begin to think about the relief of taxation.
§ Mr. MYERS
It cannot be denied that all legislation upon this question since the outbreak of the War has played right into the hands of the brewer. Every time that any extra tax has been put on, it has been passed on to the consumer, and has meant another addition to the brewer who has produced the commodity. When the Government restricted the quantity of liquor which could be brewed, the brewer, like the hypothetical workman about whom we have heard so much, brewed less and got more profit. The The next step was to reduce the gravity of the liquor. I cannot speak from experience, but I am told that the gravity 1270 got so serious that it was not safe to have a glass of beer in the dark. I heard the same point put in another way. A gentleman called at a village inn for a glass of beer, and opened a conversation with the publican, who said, "It looks like rain?" "Aye," said the consumer, "and it tastes like it too." Down went the quantity and the quality, and up went the profits of the brewer! Every time that additional taxation has been imposed it has been passed on to the consumer, who has had to pay the brewer more than the tax. I am not so much concerned in this matter with the consumer, because he can dodge both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the brewer. If he cares, he can adopt the policy of evasion or direct action to escape it, and he can beat both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the brewer in the operation. Generally, the facts are as has been stated. Every attempt that is made plays right into the hands of the people who deal in this stuff, and the consumer pays all the time.
If this duty on beer be imposed purely as a revenue duty, why will not the right hon. Gentleman put a similar duty on ginger beer and lemonade and other noxious liquors that do more harm to the consumer than good honest beer. I have no interest whatever in beer, but there is a feeling right throughout the country that the Cabinet have been cornered by the temperance crowd, and that they are not putting on this taxation purely for the purpose of producing revenue.
§ Viscountess ASTOR
The hon. Member who has just sat down asked why they did not tax the sellers of lemonade and such drinks, but would he kindly look at the profits made out of beer and the profits made out of lemonade. He would see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right in taxing beer. When it is asked why are they all complaining of the tax on beer, the working man is complaining because the brewer is not being taxed enough. If anybody has any doubt about what the trade has made, I will ask them to go round the country and they will see that while other houses have fallen into disrepair, they will not see a public-house that is not painted up to the nines, and that is the reason why I join in asking that, if it is possible, the tax should fall 1271 on the trade, which has never been more flourishing than it is at the present moment. I only regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been captured by more of the temperance party, and my fear is that he has been captured by too much of the trade.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I understand that this tax is expected to bring in £112,440,000 and that it is going to put up the price of a glass of beer to the working man by a penny a glass, and the only observation I would like to make, as one strongly in favour of temperance, is that I think that is an unfair incidence on the class of manual workers, who are, after all, in the aggregate the principal consumers of beer. I know that people who drink wines also consume beer in many cases, but it will not be disputed that the principal consumer of beer is the manual worker, urban and rural, and that this tax is going to take a good deal of money out of his pocket. There may be fanatical temperance reformers who would welcome that, but strongly as I am in favour of temperance, I think it will hit that class of the community particularly hard. I hope it will be understood that the money that is produced for the Exchequer from the beer tax is not going to the reduction of debt or to social services at all; it is not going indeed to meet the cost of the Government's wicked, indefensible expenditure in Russia alone.
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
There have been words spoken in this Debate which have seemed to me to display a certain amount of ignorance on this question, and we have heard a reference to the rain-water brewed by the publican. I think it is only fair to say that the Government decides what is the price and what is the strength of the liquor which is sold, and it is not fair to throw that out as if it is any other party than the Government which is responsible. With regard to the gravity, this has been fixed by the Government since 1915. My own view is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in this cast adopting a policy which is going to re-act like a boomerang before very long. I believe it is true what the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has said, that there has been a temporary prosperity in certain branches of the trade in this country, but I would ask her to remember that 1272 years ago, perhaps before she gave us such great delight in visiting this country as a permanent resident, there were many years in which thousands of people in this country lost large sums of money which had been invested in this industry, and it is very doubtful if those disadvantages have ever been made up by any advantage obtained in the last two or three years. If the Chancellor continues with this policy, it is not going to make this country happy, and I put it to him, with the possibility of a great trade depression which may come at any time, that it is a tremendous hardship to the working man to have to pay this enormous sum of money for his legitimate refreshment. This change is actually putting up the price of beer by a penny through the order of the Food Controller, and these are facts which ought to be realised. People are entitled to hold the view that it is wrong to drink a glass of beer, but the fact remains that to the vast majority of the ordinary good, honest, working men in this country it is the staple drink, and in many cases it is regarded as the staple food also, and when it is suggested that all other forms of drink should go free—
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
No, I do not mean that the Government are suggesting it, although I am sorry to see that there are omissions in the right hon. Gentleman's speeches with regard to ginger beer, etc.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
They are taxed. Mineral waters and ordinary forms of non-alcoholic drinks do pay taxation at the present time.
§ Lieut.-Colonel CROFT
I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman has taken part in making consumers of these drinks pay through taxation on sugar, for instance, but sugar is very largely used in these other commodities, and I do not think he would endeavour to maintain in Debate that the drinker of lemonade is really bearing an equal burden compared with his fellow working man who is a drinker of beer. I think he realises that this is a penal taxation which is casting an enormous amount of taxation on the average worker and depriving him of his legitimate pleasures.
§ Captain O'GRADY
You cannot get down to the bed-rock of this question without finding that it is the workman who pays every time, and I suggest that no class in the community is so severely taxed as the working man. As a matter of fact, I am astonished that the Chancellor did not take his courage in both hands and transform the whole system of creating this revenue. On these benches we have for years been in favour of direct taxation, and personally I would tax even the servant girl on her wages, because then I think you would get equity and justice in these matters, but here you have a Budget in which every single tax is of a punitive character, and the result is that everyone grumbles. Take this tax on beer, which has gone up from 7s. 9d. per barrel in pre-War days to 100s. I suggest that there is no single tax in this Budget that equals that in amount. Last year the estimated revenue from this tax was £71,000,000, while this year it is £112,400,000. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that that is not equitable or fair. I represent a constituency in the great city of Leeds, where the great bulk of the men are iron founders or men in foundry works, mainly unskilled men, gas stokers, and so on, and it is no use burking the fact that these men must have beer. By the very nature of their industry the great bulk of these men are beer drinkers. During the War, a man came home from his work at 8 o'clock and walked two or three miles to his home, and when he got to the place where he had his usual pint, he found that somebody had come down in the meantime and had drunk up the average, with the net result that the man took to whisky drinking. Seriously, I suggest that one of the greatest dangers with which this country is faced is the possible diversion of the working man from being purely a beer drinker into a whisky drinker. I have known men tired and worn out after being in the munition works in Leeds, going to the usual place before they went home, and instead of spending about 1s. in beer, they have spent 4s. in whisky, and the net result is that you are gradually diverting men from drinking beer, which is requisite in the nature of their occupation, to drinking this wretched stuff that is sold as whisky. The effect of this tax will be something similar. The working man will say, "If I have to pay so much for my beer, I will take to whisky drinking," and I say quite 1274 seriously that that is a great danger. Having regard to the fact that the tax has risen from 7s. 9d. in pre-War days to 100s. a barrel now, I shall go into the Lobby against the tax, and I hope it will be defeated.
I do not believe in a purely destructive policy, and in destroying the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer without providing some source from which I can find him a revenue. I am interested in the trade, and I should not have risen to speak on this subject, because the Chancellor has to find the money, and I am quite willing to pay my share, unless I can find an alternative, which I cannot, but I wish to make two points quite clear. I am not here defending the brewers or anyone, but I do not think it ought to go forth throughout the country from this Committee that the brewers are responsible for the gravity of the beer which is brewed to-day. It is not the brewers who are responsible, but the Food Controller, and we brew it as we are told, and have no option to brew it either stronger or weaker. An hon. Member suggested that the tax ought to be borne by the trade itself, but that is too absurd for words. There would not be a brewery open to-morrow if it had to bear the tax. The Chancellor wants to get his revenue, and I am here to assist him to get it, but I say there is not a brewery which would be open to-morrow if this tax was not allowed to be passed on. Take my own case. I signed a check myself yesterday for £27,800 for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for less barrels of beer than I signed a cheque in pre-War days for £1,700 for, but I am finding no fault. I only say it is impossible to have asked the trade to stand out of their own profits for the whole of this tax, and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would expect them to do so, because I am certain that in my own case, for instance, in two or three months' time, the whole of the profits we have ever made would be taken by this extra tax. I simply make my point in fairness to the trade.
§ Captain W. BENN
A very interesting sidelight on the change of opinion in this Committee has been provided by the Debate we have had to-day. It seems to me an amazing thing that the House of Commons appears almost unanimous in 1275 standing up for the consumption of beer, at a time when our great trade rival over the water has decided to go dry. This tax will have an effect on the consumption of alcohol, and I say, although I do not suppose it will be a popular thing in the House, it is a very serious thing continually to ignore the commercial threat at the supremacy of this country which is involved in the United States going dry.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That opens up a large question. We might Debate that for a week. It is not relevant to this Bill.
§ Captain BENN
I was simply dealing with the effect of the tax on the consumption of alcohol in this country, but I will not pursue that, after your ruling. It certainly deserves the serious consideration of the Commitee. This time yesterday we attempted to get a reduction in the tea duty, and the women of this country are taking note of these things. All those hon. Gentlemen who have risen to-day to protest against the tax on beer were absolutely silent when there was a protest against the tax on tea.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Commitee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 71.1277
|Division No. 185.]||AYES.||[4.31 p.m.|
|Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.||Dawes, Commander||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.||Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.||Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow,. C.)|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Doyle, N. Grattan||Lewis, T. A.(Glam., Pontypridd)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Duncannon, Viscount||Lister, Sir R. Ashton|
|Astor, Viscountess||Edge, Captain William||Lloyd, George Butler|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.||Lansdale, James Rolston|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Falcon, Captain Michael||Lyle, C. E. Leonard|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.||Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Farquharson, Major A. C.||M'Guffin, Samuel|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Fell, Sir Arthur||McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Forestier-Walker, L.||M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.|
|Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)||Forrest, Walter||Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||M'Micking, Major Gilbert|
|Bennett, Thomas Jewell||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Galbraith, Samuel||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Gange, E. Stanley||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)||Gardiner, James||Mallaby-Deeley, Harry|
|Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland||Gardner, Ernest||Mallalieu, F. W.|
|Blake, Sir Francis Douglas||Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)||Marriott, John Arthur Ransome|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Glanville, Harold James||Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Glyn, Major Ralph||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.|
|Briggs, Harold||Goff, Sir R. Park||Morris, Richard|
|Brown, Captain D. C.||Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.|
|Bruton, Sir James||Grant, James A.||Mosley, Oswald|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Mount, William Arthur|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Greig, Colonel James William||Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)|
|Burdon, Colonel Rowland||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Murray, Dr. D.(Inverness & Ross)|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Murray, John(Leeds, West)|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness)||Murray, Major William (Dumfries)|
|Campbell, J. D. G.||Haslam, Lewis||Neal, Arthur|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)||Newbould, Alfred Ernest|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hills, Major John Waller||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Casey, T. W.||Hinds, John||Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Cautley, Henry S.||Holmes, J. Stanley||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)||Hood, Joseph||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)||Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)||O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.|
|Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill||Hopkins, John W. W.||Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark|
|Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)||Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.|
|Clough, Robert||Howard, Major S. G.||Pearce, Sir William|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)||Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)|
|Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips||Hurd, Percy A.||Philipps, Gen. Sir I.(Southampton)|
|Collins, Col. Sir G. P. (Greenock)||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Jephcott, A. R.||Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Jellett, William Morgan||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Coote, William (Tyrone, South)||Johnstone, Joseph||Pratt, John William|
|Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Prescott, Major W. H.|
|Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Pulley, Charles Thornton|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Joynson-Hicks, Sir William||Purchase, H. G.|
|Curzon, Commander Viscount||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George||Rae, H. Norman|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Randles, Sir John S.|
|Raper, A. Baldwin||Sugden, W. H.||Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)||Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.||Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald|
|Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)||Sutherland, Sir William||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Remer, J. R.||Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)||Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert|
|Renwick, George||Taylor, J.||Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)|
|Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)||Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)|
|Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)|
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Tickler, Thomas George||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Rodger, A. K.||Townley, Maximilian G.||Wilson-Fox, Henry|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Tryon, Major George Clement||Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)||Turton, E. R.||Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)|
|Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Wallace, J.||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John||Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)||Woolcock, William James U.|
|Shaw, William T. (Forfar)||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Yate, Colonel Charles Edward|
|Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)||Waring, Major Walter||Yeo, Sir Alfred William|
|Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander||Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.||Weston, Colonel John W.||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Starkey, Captain John R.||Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.||Young, Robert(Lancaster, Newton)|
|Stephenson, Colonel H. K.||White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)||Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)|
|Stewart, Gershom||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Sturrock, J. Leng||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Parker.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Preston, W. R.|
|Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Atkey, A. R.||Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Hayday, Arthur||Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Hirst, G. H.||Robertson, John|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Irving, Dan||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Sexton, James|
|Bromfield, William||Kenyon, Barnet||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kidd, James||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)||Lawson, John J.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Lunn, William||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Swan, J. E.|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Matthews, David||Tootill, Robert|
|Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)||Murchison, C. K.||Waterson, A. E.|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry||Myers, Thomas||Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.|
|Foreman, Henry||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson|
|Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.||Nield, Sir Herbert||Wignall, James|
|Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||O'Grady, Captain James|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)||Colonel Gretton and Mr. Blair.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Perkins, Walter Frank|