In addition to the duties of customs payable on tobacco imported into Great Britain and Ireland, there shall, as from the twentieth day of April nineteen hundred and twenty, be charged, levied, and paid on cigars a duty of fifty per cent. of the value of the cigars:
Provided that in the case of the duty charged by this Section the preferential rate under Section eight of the Finance Act, 1919, shall be two-thirds of the full rate.
§ Mr. HOOD
I beg to move to leave out the word "fifty" ["duty of fifty per cent"] and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty."
The duty at present levied on tobacco is 8s. 2d. per lb. on the leaf tobacco imported and 15s. 7d. upon the imported manufactured tobacco—the cigar. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes a further ad valorem, duty of 50 per cent. on the imported cigar. That means that as between the British manufacturer who brings in his tobacco at a duty of 8s. 2d. per pound and the manufacturer abroad who imports at 15s. 7d., and if this Clause is passed will import at something like 30s. 7d. per pound, a very important descrimination in favour of the British cigar manufacturer. 1301 In future the tax on the imported cigar instead of being 3d. per cigar will amount to about 10½d. In response to a request that I made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading, he was kind enough to see a deputation of the importers of cigars; very reputable firms who have been in the trade for many years and who almost entirely devote themselves to the cigar trade. Their submissions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer were that there will be a very large reduction in the sale of cigars in future in consequence of this duty, that the effect will be that instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer benefiting by the increased duty, he will get no more than if the duty is not increased; that the effect so far as their business is concerned will be that they will be unable to carry on because they will be unable to make any profit, and that they will be seriously financially embarrassed if this duty is thrust upon them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer listened very carefully to the deputation and I hope that their views have made a favourable impression on him and that he will be able to announce some concession.
I am in some doubt how to treat this matter, and I should like to have further time for consideration if the Committee allow me. I will tell the Committee frankly the position. There has been the same kind of misunderstanding through a miscalculation, for exactly the same reason, in regard to the effect of this tax as there was in regard to the effect of the champagne tax. That is to say, that the value habitually given to the Customs for statistical purposes proved not to be the real value upon which the duty would be levied. Whereas in the case of champagne the values declared were higher than the real tax and, therefore, the actual 50 per cent. ad valorem duty would have been a smaller tax than I had anticipated; in this case the values declared are lower than the real tax and, therefore, 50 per cent. ad valorem would be a higher tax and bring in more money than I had supposed. According to the best calculation that we can make the 33⅓ ad valorem duty on the true value of the cigar would produce as much money as I anticipated would be received from the 50 per cent. ad valorem duty on the basis of values which were inadequate Therefore, for a different reason from that which actuated me in the case of the 1302 champagne duty, I feel that there is a case to be made out for a reduction of this duty. I am a little concerned lest with the high values which I find to be the true values a 50 per cent. ad valorem would be too high a duty for the trade to stand, and would result in a loss rather than in a gain. I came to the House not prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but favourably inclined towards a proposal to make the ad valorem duty in the case of cigars 33⅓ per cent.; but I have been rather shaken by the result of my last concession. The Committee did not receive it in an altogether friendly spirit, and instead of my being taken to task for being obstinate and obdurate I was accused of lacking backbone. That does not encourage one to make further concessions. I am rather doubtful as to what would be the wise course to pursue in this case, and I should like a little more time to consider the matter.
I should like to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to cigars in bond. There is a tremendous amount of cigars in bond. Owing to circumstances arising from war cigar merchants have not taken their cigars from bond, and I think we should be making a genuine and proper concession if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider adopting a lower ad valorem duty in regard to the stock now in bond. I am sure his attitude is perfectly sympathetic. There is a large trade which is depending very much upon his decision, and I feel sure he does not want to kill the goose which lays the golden egg or put any embargo on the industry which might interfere with the real course of trade. I thank him on behalf of those for whom I speak in taking further time for mature thought, and I hope he will consider whether in regard to the cigars actually in bond he could make a concession different from the concession in regard to the Budget generally.
§ Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD
I want to make a few observations upon the ad valorem tax. As one who has had more years' experience in smoking cigars than one cares to remember, and who has had to buy cigars from all parts of the world, it has been a matter for reflection that the best cigars in the world were always to be got in London, and, in spite of the duty being higher, as it was before the 1303 War, than anywhere else in the world, you could get the best cigars in the world in London, and upon the best terms. The curious thing about it was that it left me with a problem to solve, but that problem is not very difficult to solve, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are considering the imposition of a further duty upon cigars will be good enough to bear in mind what the true solution of the problem is. It is this, that if you put a duty of so much a pound upon imported cigars, supposing it is 15s. now or 30s., as it is to be, the effect of any such duty will put a stop to the supply of rubbish. If a cigar is only worth 10s. a pound to start with it cannot stand a duty of 30s. or 15s. a pound; but material that is worth 100s. to start with can easily stand that duty. When the duty was raised to 15s. it was not worth while paying that taxation on poor stuff, and it will not be worth while paying increased duty now upon each pound of imported rubbish, and we shall continue to get the best cigars in the world. But if you have a system of making it ad valorem you are immediately opening the market to rubbish. It is a curious problem, but I state it as a fact, and I challenge anyone to deny it, that before the War under the old taxation of so much a pound, which was higher in England than anywhere else in the world, you could get the best cigars in the world on the best terms. By altering that form of duty to ad valorem duty you are running the risk of reversing the position and flooding the British market with rubbish I hope that this consideration, which has not occurred to anybody who has not had the necessity and opportunity of trying to buy first-class cigars in most countries of the world, as I have had, will not be lost sight of.
§ Sir R. COOPER
The right hon. Gentleman is making a great mistake in making concessions on these particular proposals, because there is a prevalent feeling in the country, which I certainly share, that the Government has got a bigger task than it cares to recognise in raising the amount necessary to meet the actual expenses which are being incurred, and we already realise there are other points in this Bill which are to be brought forward in Debate as to which it is going to be shown that heavy taxation is going to be 1304 accompanied by a great injury to our national prosperity from the point of view of the people as a whole. If we are going to raise the money necessary to meet the ever-increasing expenses of the Government we have got to tax luxuries of every description and to tax them as high as they can stand. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir W. Rutherford) I am a considerable smoker of cigar, and I like the best, but people who want luxuries like champagne and cigars ought to be made to pay a very high duty and make a heavy contribution to the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman took the point of view that if he was not careful he might be unduly hitting the trade. I maintain that if he did that it is going to be for the national good. If he is going to stop people spending large amounts on champagne, cigars and luxuries of that sort the money will be saved or will be used in other directions which will be useful to the country. We have got to aim at raising the largest possible amount we can in those directions, and it is the duty of the Government to frame their Finance Bill in such a way as to compel people to stop this enormous expenditure on un-necessaries and luxuries, and when the right hon. Gentleman suggests that he will reduce this tax he suggests a step which he would himself regret later on, and I hope that it will not be taken.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is apparently very anxious that larger taxation should be imposed. I would suggest that the proper method of dealing with the situation is that expenditure should be reduced. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose between now and Report stage to consider whether it is possible to make this concession? If that is so, I suppose it is understood that he will not reduce the duty so that it will produce less than he had intended that it should produce?
Yes. I ask the Committee to give me time between now and Report further to consider the matter. The lowest that I should be prepared to say is 33⅓ per cent. to produce approximately the same revenue as I had anticipated would be received from the 50 per cent. When I ask for time for consideration, of course, that means that I have not made up my mind. My hon. Friend must not take me as in any sense pledged to make that concession or any concession 1305 at all. Frankly, I want to weigh the various facts of the case.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I rose because that consideration weighed with a great number of us in the last Division.
§ Sir I. PHILIPPS
I am very glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accept this Amendment to-day. I hope that, on further consideration, he will stick to his Bill. If there is to be any concession in the matter of tobacco, I hope that he will make it on the tobacco smoked by the great mass of the people. I do not like to see him come down to this House and surrender all those taxes on luxuries. This is the second time to-day he has threatened that. There are one or two taxes in the Budget which we think damaging to the trade of the country, and those we shall press him to alter, but these are taxes on luxuries, which we welcome. But since then somebody has been getting at him. I had to give way not to vote against his proposal in the last case, but if he had not been able to make that appeal, there is a very large number of Members who would not have supported him. Here is another case. He is not going to accept the proposal to change 50 into 20, but he does threaten the House that he is going to be weak-kneed in the matter, and give way from 50 per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. The taxes of this country are bearing very heavily on the poor man, and no proposal is put forward in the Finance Bill to reduce the taxes on the poor man. The proposals, so far, have been to reduce the taxes on the rich man. I am not prepared to support the Government in that policy. Two things we demand—that he should uphold the taxes on luxuries, and increase them if necessary. He will get the support of the Liberal party.
§ Sir I. PHILIPPS
I am a supporter of the Government, and always have been. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that quite well. But there is a Liberal party in the Coalition Government as well as a Conservative party, and I speak for many of those Liberals who are just as keen supporters of the Government as any of the Conservative Members and Liberal Members, who want to take the taxes off those articles that are paid for by the great mass of the people and put them on to those who can well afford to pay. 1306 The right hon. Gentleman did that in the Budget as he brought it in, and we all cheered him. He is gradually giving away everything. He is taking taxes off champagne and is reducing his proposals on cigars. Where are the proposals to reduce the taxes imposed on beer or tea?
§ The CHAIRMAN
We must not go into, a general discussion in Committee. We must deal with one thing at a time.
§ Sir I. PHILIPPS
I apologise, and conclude by saying that I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not give way in this matter.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL
I am very glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has tentatively decided to make some alterations. The reason which he gave is perfectly fair. A mistake was made in calculating the revenue. He finds that the values upon which he made his calculation were lower than the actual values. He was budgetting for a certain amount, and finds that he will probably get it by making a smaller demand on these people who are in the habit of smoking what are called these luxurious cigars. You can go to a certain point in taxation, but after that you reach breaking point, and if you go to such enormous taxation, it is not a business proposition. Not only are you not going to get anything like the amount for which, you budget, but you are not going to get anything like the amount which was obtained heretofore. It is all very well to say that this is a concession to the rich man, and that there is no concession to the man who drinks beer and smokes his "baccy." We have all got to bear a reasonable proportion of the taxation. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Phillips) will remember this when he gets his demand for Income Tax and Supertax. He will not say then that the rich man has not been called, and rightly called, upon to bear his fair share of the taxation of the country. We are all prepared to do so, but do not let us lose our heads and say that you are only taxing one class of man against the other. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is coming to a reasonable idea with regard to some of these taxes. I hope that this is only a small portion of the favours which we shall receive later on in the Budget, and many of us have hopes that we shall have assistance given to the 1307 country as a whole when we come to other matters a little later on.
I utterly fail to follow the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman when he tells us that he made a miscalculation as to the duty, and for that reason he is reducing it still further. I am more than surprised at some of the arguments for a reduction of this tax. Not a word has been said as to the tax levied on the worker as against the tax levied on the man who can well afford it. Taxation must be levied according to ability to pay. It is not a question of how much you pay, but how much have you left over after paying with which to get the wherewithal to live. That is the position as we see it. I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to stick to his Budget, and if he has anything to give away in relief of taxation, that he should turn to the things that are absolutely essential for bringing up an A1 people in an Al nation. The taxation borne by the workers is increasing by leaps and bounds, and here the people who can afford to pay have relief. I was surprised to hear the Member for Hull remark that miners in Yorkshire have drunk champagne, and was delighted to hear it, and if I live long enough perhaps I shall hear that the miners in Durham smoke these luxurious cigars. As regards this Budget, it is going to be said in the country that this is a rich man's Budget from top to bottom.
I was not quite clear from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to what consideration weighed with him in regard to the interval between now and the Report stage. What we would like to be assured about is that he will have regard only to the revenue produced by the duty. If he thinks a smaller rate of duty will produce the same revenue, and that that is the most which can be raised by the duty, I shall be satisfied, but we do feel strongly on this side of the House, that this is not the moment to reduce the duty on an article of luxury of this kind.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.1308
§ Mr. HOLMES
I beg to move, to leave out the wordsProvided that in the case of the duty charged by this Section the preferential rate under Section Eight of the Finance Act, 1919, shall be two-thirds of the full rate.It is not necessary to give the reasons why those on this side of the House object to a preferential rate on this or any other class of commodity. Of all cases, this is surely one where a preferential rate means a loss to the revenue, and nothing else. The man who smokes Havana cigars is not going to be driven by a lower preferential rate and a cheaper price to the smoking of cigars for which he does not care. No additional British-grown cigar will be sold, and no additional foreign cigar will be kept out of the country as a result of this preference. Another point in regard to this is, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the opportunity of improving the preferential rate to the Colonies on cigars. Last year it was five-sixths of the full rate, and he is now making it two-thirds of the full rate. So that gradually the preference to the Colonies is being increased. Those who are in favour of Imperial Preference are entitled to be gratified, but we, who are against preferential rates altogether, protest against it.
The reason for making the Preference two-thirds is that it has been made two-thirds in the case of all the other ad valorem duties. I do not propose to argue the principle again. As far as this House is concerned and as far as this Government is concerned, we are pledged as a Government to Imperial Preference. We were elected on that pledge and we stand by it.
§ Captain W. BENN
In supporting my hon. Friend and his Amendment, I would like to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to an answer he gave to a question put by an hon. Member on this side of the House on 24th June. The import of cigars at a non-preferential rate is largely increasing. So that there really is not anything in it from the point of view of assisting the producer of cigars within the Empire. Moreover, the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave on the same day, relating to the amount of duty collected at full and preferential rates, showed that as far as tobacco is concerned—the whole of tobacco, which, I presume, includes cigars—the amounts were, 1309 respectively, £35,421,000 and £884,000. You are not encouraging trade in cigars within the Empire, but are introducing an irritating and unnecessary interference with free commercial intercourse and no doubt complicating the working of this tax and adding something to the work of administration.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I find the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather extraordinary. He apparently referred us to the Debate of last year on Imperial Preference. This is the first Amendment raising the question of preference on this Bill. I do not wish to raise the matter by a frontal attack on the Government, but I do take exception to the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopting the view that the situation has not changed since last year. It
§ has. Since last year we have added considerably to the area of the Empire. We have also been subject to great criticisms—
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I hope that when the main defence of Preference is made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I am sure he will make it most ably and eloquently—he will not lose sight of the fact that the situation has changed very considerably since last year.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 65.1311
|Division No. 187.]||AYES.||[6.38 p.m.|
|Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.||Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill||Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Clough, Robert||Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Coates, Major Sir Edward F.||Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin|
|Atkey, A. R.||Coats, Sir Stuart||Haslam, Lewis|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)||Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Coote, William (Tyrone, South)||Higham, Charles Frederick|
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-||Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Hills, Major John Waller|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)||Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)||Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy|
|Barrand, A. R.||Curzon, Commander Viscount||Hood, Joseph|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)||Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)|
|Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)||Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Hopkins, John W. W.|
|Bennett, Thomas Jewell||Dawes, Commander||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.||Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere|
|Bigland, Alfred||Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)||Howard, Major S. G.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Doyle, N. Grattan||Hunter, General Sir A.(Lancaster)|
|Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)||Duncannon, Viscount||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland||Du Pre, Colonel William Baring||Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.|
|Blair, Reginald||Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.|
|Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.||Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Falcon, Captain Michael||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Bowles, Colonel H. F.||Farquharson, Major A. C.||Jellett, William Morgan|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Fell, Sir Arthur||Jesson, C.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.||Jodrell, Neville Paul|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Foreman, Henry||Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)|
|Briggs, Harold||Forestier-Walker, L.||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Forrest, Walter||Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)|
|Brown, Captain D. C.||Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Joynson-Hicks, Sir William|
|Bruton, Sir James||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.||Gange, E. Stanley||Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.||Kidd, James|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Gardiner, James||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Burdon, Colonel Rowland||Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)||Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)|
|Burdett-Coutts, William||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Glyn, Major Ralph||Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)|
|Campbell, J. D. G.||Gould, James C.||Lister, Sir R. Ashton|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Grant, James A.||Lloyd, George Butler|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Green, Albert (Derby)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)|
|Casey, T. W.||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Cautley, Henry S.||Greer, Harry||Lonsdale, James Rolston|
|Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin||Greig, Colonel James William||Lorden, John William|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Lyle, C. E. Leonard|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)||Gwynne, Rupert S.||McLaren, Hon. H. D.(Leicester)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)|
|Macmaster, Donald||Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles||Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)|
|McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.||Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)|
|Maddocks, Henry||Pratt, John William||Taylor, J.|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Preston, W. R.||Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)|
|Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Prescott, Major W. H.||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Marriott, John Arthur Ransome||Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Martin, Captain A. E.||Pulley, Charles Thornton||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Matthews, David||Rae, H. Norman||Tickler, Thomas George|
|Middlebrook, Sir William||Randles, Sir John S.||Townley, Maximilian G.|
|Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Mitchell, William Lane||Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)||Turton, E. R.|
|Molson, Major John Elsdale||Reid, D. D.||Waddington, R.|
|Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.||Remer, J. R.||Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)|
|Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.||Renwick, George||Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.|
|Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Morrison, Hugh||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.|
|Mosley, Oswald||Rodger, A. K.||Weston, Colonel John W.|
|Mount, William Arthur||Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.|
|Murchison, C. K.||Royden, Sir Thomas||White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)||Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)||Whitla, Sir William|
|Murray, Major William (Dumfries)||Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)||Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.|
|Nall, Major Joseph||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Neal, Arthur||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.||Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)|
|Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Nield, Sir Herbert||Seddon, J. A.||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)|
|Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)||Wilson-Fox, Henry|
|Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Simm, M. T.||Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.||Smith, Harold (Warrington)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander||Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)|
|Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.||Stanier, Captain Sir Beville||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Parker, James||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.||Yate, Colonel Charles Edward|
|Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry||Starkey, Captain John R.||Yeo, Sir Alfred William|
|Pearce, Sir William||Steel, Major S. Strang||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Pease, Rt. Hon Herbert Pike||Stewart, Gershom||Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)|
|Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)||Strauss, Edward Anthony||Younger, Sir George|
|Perkins, Walter Frank||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)||Sugden, W. H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.||Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.||Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley|
|Pilditch, Sir Philip||Sutherland, Sir William||Ward.|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Hirst, G. H.||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hogge, James Myles||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Blake, Sir Francis Douglas||Irving, Dan||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Johnstone, Joseph||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Kenyon, Barnet||Spoor, B. C.|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Kiley, James D.||Swan, J. E.|
|Bromfield, William||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Lawson, John J.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Lunn, William||Tootill, Robert|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray||Waterson, A. E.|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.|
|Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)||Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)||Wignall, James|
|Glanville, Harold James||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Myers, Thomas||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||O'Grady, Captain James||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Rendall, Athelstan||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hayday, Arthur||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Mr. Holmes and Lieut.-Commander|
|Hinds, John||Robertson, John||Kenworthy.|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.