§ (1) If an individual proves that he is a widower, and that for the year of assess- 1162 ment a person is resident with him in the capacity of housekeeper, or for the purpose of having the charge and care of any child of his, he shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be entitled to a deduction of two hundred and twenty-five pounds in respect of that person.
§ Provided that—
- (a) No deduction shall be allowed under this Section unless the individual proves that no other individual is entitled to a deduction in respect of the same person under the provisions in Part II of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by any subsequent enactment, or, if any other individual is so entitled, that the other individual has relinquished his claim thereto; and
- (b) No deduction shall be allowed under this Section where the person is a married woman living with her husband, and the husband has claimed and been allowed a deduction of two hundred and twenty-five pounds under the provisions in Part II of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by any subsequent enactment.
§ (2) In this Section the expressioin "child" means a child in respect of whom a deduction is allowed under Part II of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by any subsequent enactment.
§ (3) This Section shall apply to an individual being a widow as it applies to an individual being a widower.
§ (4) Section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1920, is hereby repealed—[Mr. Spencer.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. SPENCERI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Bill as it reads now with regard to this point only gives a widower the advantage of the £225 abatement if he happens to have children under 16 years of age. The object of this Clause is to give a widower who has a housekeeper the same advantage in this respect as a married man. The operation of the Bill as it stands creates a very invidious distinction between taxpayer and taxpayer. You might have two married men living next to one another, the wife in the one case living, while in the other case the wife has died. The man whose wife has died may be engaging a housekeeper. If he happens to have a child under 16, then he is entitled to the £225 exemption, and in addition to that he has the relief for the child. As soon as the child passes the age of 16, he not only loses the abatement in respect of the child, but also a considerable part of the abatement in respect of the housekeeper whom he has engaged to look after his house. A man might easily have two or three children 1163 whom he has put out to apprenticeship, and whose earnings are very small. His wife may be dead, and in those circumstances he might have to have a housekeeper. For the purposes of Income Tax, he is treated as a single man, and, although he has all the expenses of a home establishment, he is put in an entirely different category from the man who happens to be married and whose wife happens to be living. This is the cause of a great deal of dissatisfaction among those who are thus affected. It is to them a very invidious distinction, and the fact that taxation is falling so heavily upon the working classes as well as upon other sections of the community at the present time, is an additional reason why we should ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give very careful consideration to this Clause. I do not know to what extent, if passed, it will affect the Revenue of the country, but I think that the effect will be very slight indeed, and I am sure that the measure of satisfaction that it will give to those who are smarting under the present provision will far outweigh any disadvantage there may be as far as the Revenue is concerned. There is an additional reason why this concession should be made. The indirect taxation upon each family of five last year amounted to over 14s. per week. Where you have a man who has lost his wife, and he has got one or two children wham he may have to put out to apprenticeship, and he loses the abatement in respect of those children after they have passed 16 years of age, and then he loses the abatement in respect of his housekeeper, it makes a considerable difference so far as his contribution to the State is concerned, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will endeavour to meet us with regard to this new Clause.
§ Captain BOWYERI beg to second the Motion.
I want to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the very great interest that is being attached to this Clause in the working-class constituency which I represent. I was there on Saturday, and I interviewed a great many people, all of whom came to see me about the matter. What we claim is that if a man has been unfortunate enough to lose his wife, or a woman to lose her husband, and either has children or is compelled to keep a housekeeper, he or she should be treated 1164 in exactly the same way as a married person and given the same deduction. It is futile to my mind to say to a man, "Because you have had the misfortune to lose your wife you shall not have any deduction except, possibly, the £45 which was allowed under Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1920." Only the other day a police magistrate in London took notice of what he called this grave injustice. It was a question of rent. He said:
All I can say is that it is very hard indeed. I have never looked at it in that light before. I am bound to make an order for payment of the amount due, but I shall allow a month in which to do it.If a man loses his wife and has got to keep the house going, the very fact that he himself in future is compelled to provide a home and keep it up is a disadvantage to him. He cannot do it as economically as if he had a wife. As a married man gets the abatement of £225, my point is that I cannot see for the life of me why a person who has lost his or her partner in life, who, after all, helped to keep the house going, should be penalised and should not be treated on exactly the same footing.
§ Sir F. BANBURYA married man may have more children, but a widower cannot.
§ Captain BOWYERA married man may have more children, but, on the other hand, a man who has lost his wife may have more children. His own may have grown up, and he may have one or two children over 16 living with him. He may be some years over the normal period of 70 to which a man lives, and he has got to keep a housekeeper.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat will not arise unless there are improper relations with the housekeeper.
§ Captain BOWYERI was afraid, almost as much as I am shocked, that someone would make a remark bearing on that. It seems to me a thousand pities to bring in that sort of thing when, after all, this is a very just grievance. If you take any workshop or factory in the land you will find the greatest anomalies existing. Two men may be getting exactly the same amount of pay, £200 or £150 a year. One of them has a wife and no children and pays no Income Tax. The other has just had the disaster of losing his wife, and immediately has to pay anything up to £24 a year. Surely that cannot be justi- 1165 fied. I should like to read a letter which puts the matter as clearly as it can be put:
I should like to draw your attention to the unjust Measures of the Government in the Finance Act of 1920 relating to the Income Tax provisions. I am a widower, and have a daughter who attained the age of 16 in February last, and who is doing her best to keep house for me. She is the only child I have, and I am prevented from allowing her to earn a livelihood owing to her having to be at home, and particularly I have to bear the expense of keeping her. As she attained the age of 16 previous to April last I am not entitled to the children deduction of £36, neither can I obtain the housekeeper's allowance of £45, because I have not a second child younger than her that she can look after. I am informed by the Income Tax authorities that if I had a younger child I should be able to obtain the children allowance and also the housekeeper's allowance for my daughter. As it is I am only granted the personal allowance of £135, and even were I to send my daughter to business and employ a housekeeper I should not benefit thereby. It seems to my mind most unfair that because a man has the misfortune to lose his wife he should be at once made to drop from the £225 to the £135 allowance, which means that he is brought back to bachelorhood only under very different circumstances.Why treat a man as a bachelor when the circumstances of his life are totally different from those appertaining to a bachelor? Last November at the Mansion House the Prime Minister made a speech in which the following words occurred:Believe me, if you want security in this country—and we must get it—you must give a sense of complete confidence to the workmen who constitute the vast majority of the people. This country means to deal fairly and squarely with them.I have had scores of letters from my constituency, and they can be multiplied by the number of constituencies that exist, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, Does he think this method of treating widows and widowers is dealing fairly and squarely with the people of this country?
§ Sir R. NEWMANDoes the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose that the bachelors should have the same advantages—
§ The CHAIRMANThis Clause relates to widowers only.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home)I fear, from the character of the two speeches to which we have listened, that an attempt is going to be made, upon this and perhaps other Amendments, to cite hard 1166 cases of people who are subjected to the burden of the Income Tax. There are very many hard cases. I do not believe it is possible to draw any Statute which will not give rise to hard cases. We are bound to have innumerable anomalies, no matter how well you construct your Income Tax system. A Royal Commission went into all these matters with very-great care, and only very recently reported, and the principles which they recommended have been adopted almost in toto by the Government. They were embodied in the Finance Act of last year, and they are precisely the same as we are endeavouring to enact once more this year. The system which was advanced by that Royal Commission was a very carefully considered system. It went into the whole matter upon the ground of general principle. It set up a very carefully graduated plan for the assessments of Income Tax, and it sought to make our Income Tax system one which would have strict regard to the capacity of people to pay, and would also take into consideration the character of their responsibilities. The system which it set forth and is now in operation is one of the best that could be conceived. Its effect may be judged from the fact that it let off the Income Tax payer something like £18,000,000, and while I have no doubt that you can still find hard cases, you have to look at what has been enacted as a general plan. If you begin to interfere with important elements in it, you are going to dislocate the whole system and set up not merely a change in the particular instance which we have now before us, but reactive changes throughout the whole plan devised by the Royal Commission. May I remind the Committee of one or two of the things they said? After recommending a particular arrangement which seemed to them to be wise, in the closing part of their report they expressed the opinion that:
A new line of graduation once fixed should not be liable to constant or partial alteration, but should remain unchanged in its main characteristics so long as the amount of revenue to be raised from Income Tax and Super-tax does not become very largely different from what it is now.I would therefore beg the Committee, in considering the various Amendments which may be sought to be made, to keep that well in mind, because a change in any one of these particular arrangements undoubtedly will involve many changes 1167 elsewhere. One is rather disappointed to hear the kind of expression which the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) used—I am not sure whether it was his own or whether it was read from a letter—about the injustice which the Government had wrought by its Income Tax arrangements. This has been the greatest attempt yet made to remedy injustices, and also quite the most successful. But what, unfortunately, happens is that every change that you make which relieves the burden or grants a concession is only made a jumping-off ground for further demands. I hope the Committee is not going to look at this matter from that point of view. On the merits of this particular Amendment, let us look at what it does. The Clause which it seeks to amend allows the particular concession of £45 to a widower who has children. The Amendment seeks to do away with that condition. It seeks to apply equally to a widower who has no children.
§ Captain BOWYERChildren or a housekeeper.
§ Sir R. HORNEI suppose the housekeeper under those circumstances would not be there in order to attend to any children, but simply to look after the needs of the widower himself.
§ Mr. SPENCERThe right hon. Gentleman must not misquote the Amendment. When he says children, it is children under 16. If a child is 16 and a day after the 1st April, he is not entitled to the £45.
§ Sir R. HORNEI am afraid that my hon. Friend does not understand the point with which I am dealing. The question is whether you are going to give the same allowance to a widower who has no children, and, therefore, does not require a housekeeper to look after children, as you give to a widower who has children and requires a housekeeper to look after them. The situation of a single man—a widower without children is in that position—is totally different from that which excited the sympathy of the Royal Commission, whose recommendation is put into force by the Section which it is now sought to amend. The situation of a widower left with young children excites the sympathy of everybody. They are deprived of a mother, and have nobody to look after them, and he has to employ a housekeeper to look after 1168 them. It was thought that such a man ought to have some concession in regard to the amount to which he was assessed for Income Tax. This Amendment seeks to give that concession to the widower who has no children and whose sole need for a housekeeper would be to look after him.
§ Sir R. HORNEI do not follow my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. SPENCERA man gets £45 allowance because of his children, but as soon as his last child is 16 years of age he loses his £45, notwithstanding the fact that he has the children to look after, and he also loses £36 in respect of the child.
§ Sir R. HORNEThat might be a question of further amendment in connection with the allowance upon a particular child when it emerges from the age of 16; but I am not so much moved with the case of a widower who has children who have emerged from the age of 16. If they are boys they are already at work, and if they are girls they are certainly capable of looking after the house. How many girls under 16 do we know who are performing very useful vocations in looking after their father's house? Therefore, this Amendment is a quite unnecessary extension of what is a proper principle to lay down, namely, that a man with children should have consideration afforded to him when he has to employ somebody to look after them. The Royal Commission specifically said that no such allowance should be given to the widower who had no children to look after. Some years ago allowances were made in respect of widowers with children. Thereafter, the same allowance was continued for a widower without children, but the Royal Commission, having the whole facts before them, and having given consideration to them, came to the conclusion that this allowance should be done away with in the case of a widower with no children, and they so recommended. That recommendation was put into legal effect in the Finance Act of last year. I submit to the Committee that we should not depart from that perfectly salutary principle. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that they hope that nobody 1169 will introduce an element into the Debate which seems to suggest that sometimes abuses are committed. There is no doubt that if you are going to give to every widower who has no children the right to a particular allowance in respect of a housekeeper, the situation will of necessity be open to abuse, and I have not the slightest doubt that in many cases it will be taken advantage of. This matter also would give rise to the question as to whether a bachelor is not just as much entitled to have an allowance made to him if he employs a housekeeper.
§ Sir R. HORNEIt may be because he has been a failure, and that all his efforts to gain that delectable situation have so far not been a success. You may have other claims made on behalf of other people if you once admit this principle. It is said that it would not cost the Exchequed much. It would cost the Exchequer £1,500,000 to do what I submit is not a very necessary thing at the present time. I am not sure that the Amendment recognises that an unmarried person—a widower is an unmarried person—will be entitled to his personal allowance of £135, so that although he is put forward as only getting £45 as against £225 for a man in the married state, in reality he has £135, plus £45 for a housekeeper if he has children to be looked after, making in all £180 as against £225. There is no reason why at the present time, especially when money is so difficult to find, that we should sacrifice revenue by making a large contribution to a particular class of people who are not in such necessitous circumstances as to require it.
§ Mr. HODGEI do not wish to go over the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend, but I should like to refer to one point which he made with respect to a widower and the girl over 16 who looks after her father's house. There is such a great surplus of women over men that all women cannot be married, and if that girl is compelled to look after her father's house she has not an opportunity of learning a profession or an occupation, so that if she should happen to be in the unfortunate position of being one of those women who cannot find a husband, the difficulty of earning her living 1170 afterwards are ever so much worse. That point of view ought to appeal to my right hon. Friend. So far as the question is raised about the widower being in the same position as the bachelor, I maintain that that is not the case. My right hon. Friend was rather courageous in endeavouring to draw a distinction, because he is one of those sinners who has not done his duty by his King and country. I hope that even yet he will reconsider his position, and reconsider it in both ways.
§ Viscountess ASTORHear, hear!
§ Mr. HODGEI find that the hon. Member for Plymouth agrees with me. I trust that even yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the attitude he has taken up, and really do something even if there should be some limit put upon the concession. In the case of a working man when his wife dies a very serious burden is placed upon him by the necessity of having to engage a housekeeper.
§ Mr. HOLMESI want to emphasise the point which has been made by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. I have a new Clause on the Paper embodying the suggestion that he has made—
If the claimant proves that he is a widower, and that a daughter over 16 years of age gives her full time to the duties of housekeeper, he shall, subject to the other provisions of Section nineteen, Sub-section (1), of the Finance Act, 1920, be entitled to a deduction of £90 in respect of that daughter.That is, he should have an allowance as if he were a married man with a wife. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has named three reasons why he cannot accept the full Amendment which has been moved. The first reason was that it was contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The second was that it would cause an increase of immorality in the nation—that is what he meant—and the third reason was that it would cost over £1,000,000.
§ Sir R. HORNEThe hon. Member must have misunderstood me. The second point which he mentions, as to abuse, was not really put forward as one of the main arguments which I was addressing to the Committee. I only indicated it in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend 1171 behind me (Captain Bowyer), and I said that that consideration was not entirely to be neglected. I did not put it higher than that.
§ Mr. HOLMESI do not want to put it any more strongly than the right hon. Gentleman did, but it was one of the arguments he used against accepting the Amendment. I submit that if he will limit the allowance to a daughter over 16 years of age who acts as her father's housekeeper, he will do away with these three objections. There can be no question of abuse such as he has described and it is not contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, because that particular point did not occur to the Royal Commission, was not submitted to them, and has not been in any way considered by them. Finally, the charge would be very much lower than £1,500,000 which he suggested would be the charge if the housekeepers were to be treated as in the nature of wives. There is a considerable feeling of injustice amongst men who lose their wives and bring a daughter away from work, where she is earning her living, and contributing to the home, if his allowance is forthwith reduced from £225 to £135. He gets nothing for the daughter because she is over 16 years of age, he loses her contribution to the home, and his allowance is reduced by £90. While one can recognise some of the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put forward against accepting the full Amendment, I do hope that in the case I have mentioned it is not a very serious matter so far as the State is concerned, and that it will make the payment of income tax by the workers a little less hard upon them where the daughter has succeeded her mother as housekeeper if she is allowed to be treated in respect of allowance as if she were the wife.
Mr. T. THOMSONI should like to join in the appeal in regard to a case which is known to a great many of us, and in respect of which very much hardship is felt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made considerable point of the difference between a man who had children under 16 and the man who had not. The allowance that is made to a married man for his wife is, in the first instance, for his wife as housekeeper, and the question of children under 16 is met by a further 1172 provision which makes the allowance for the children as children. Therefore, the man who has lost his wife is under a double sense of hardship because he not only suffers hardship on account of the loss of his wife as housekeeper, but he also loses the allowance for his children-who are over 16. The hardship is not on the working classes alone, but it is to a large extent on the whole community. It is not confined merely to the manual workers, but there is a very large section of the community, the heavily-taxed middle classes, who would benefit considerably if this sense of hardship and injustice was removed. I hope that the-Chancellor of the Exchequer in the larger interests of many people will see his way to accept the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend (Mr. Holmes).
§ Mr. WATERSONMay I urge the point that the daughter over 16 who is in charge-of a home for the father should qualify for the same allowance as the father would be allowed if his wife were alive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say exactly that the daughter who attains, that age would be compelled—but that was the inference—to take charge of the home. But there may be hardships there. I have in my mind a family in which there are three daughters. Two of them are training for teachers. Another is training to be specially qualified as a chemist. Assuming for a moment that any one of those daughters would be compelled, in order to get an abatement of Income Tax for the father, to take up various home-duties that an ordinary person would be able to perform; if you force such conditions on our people as I have referred torn the long run the State will be the loser, because these people have certain capabilities which are far above the ordinary. My right hon. Friend mentioned the word "abuse." There is no law which is not in some way open to abuse. Therefore I do not think that the Committee should take much notice of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in that connection. He has said that it would be most unwise to make a change now, but when would it be wise? All the Chancellors of the Exchequer before him have put the same arguments before the Committee. We are bound to bring this forward from time to time because we believe that an injustice is inflicted on the people, and 1173 that neither the Chancellor nor the State will in the long run benefit by refusing to give relief to those people.
§ Viscountess ASTORMay I in a few words ask the Chancellor to consider seriously this Amendment so far as concerns girls over 16. All the girls in these days if over 16 look for a job. The hon. Gentleman referred to those unfortunate women who are not able to marry, but I am talking about those fortunate ones who can marry and get a job as well, the girls who go out to work and then go home to look after their fathers. This slight abatement will help these girls to come home because their fathers can give them more advantages than anyone else. Then, so far as the men are concerned, you are driving these widowers in a great many cases into hasty marriages which are not good for the nation. I will not dwell on the subject of bachelors who will not marry. That is personal, but it is true, and I know cases that widowers have been driven into hasty marriages which are bad for them and bad for the State, and it is bad for the children who have to be looked after when those fathers are driven into hasty marriages. It would be far better for the country if the right hon. Gentleman could accept this Amendment, if it does not cost too much, and thus get rid of a great sense of grievance, not only among working men but among men of the middle class who have to have their daughters back to look after the home.
§ Brigadier-General HICKMANThe right hon. Gentleman must not think that, because all the speeches so far have gone one way, the entire Committee is in favour of this particular Clause. Very many of us take the view that the right hon. Gentleman should stick to the Finance Bill, as it is at present worded, and not give way to those who are trying to put a housekeeper on equal terms with a wife.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI was just about to make the same point as the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I never heard of any man being driven into a hasty marriage because he was going to get an allowance of 6s. in the pound on £40. There may be a time for this concession to be made, but that time is certainly not in the present financial condition of the country. Those of us 1174 who are paying service outside the House to the cause of economy must support the Government. To give an allowance of this character, which would cost £1,000,000 a year, would be in effect imposing a further taxation of £1,000,000 a year. Though we have not taken part in these Debates a vast number of Members of the House strongly support the Government in this matter, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remain firm.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAMI am not sure that I should have intervened but for a reference which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be strictly fair to the Royal Commission in this matter, but remember the circumstances in which the Royal Commission prepared its report and consider the particular proposal that the Committee is now discussing. That Report had to be completed by a certain date in order that its recommendations could be embodied in the Budget of that year, and when the question of the housekeeper's allowance was under consideration, I think that it is correct to say that it was practically passed over without any recommendation of any kind, because it had been within a very recent time the subject of inquiry by some Departmental or other Committee. That is the beginning and end of the story as regards the Royal Commission on this matter.
There are certain members of the Royal Commission who feel very strongly that, while we have introduced great improvements in the structure of the Income Tax in this country, the position of the widower is undoubtedly one of substantial hardship at the present time. Take the obstacles which the widower has to overcome before he gets this allowance. In the first place he has got to prove a female relative of his own or his deceased wife for the purpose of looking after a child. Beyond that, if he has no female relative for that purpose and must engage a housekeeper he has got to prove it. A great hardship in working-class and other districts is the fact of making the allowance conditional upon there being a child under 16 years of age to look after. I recognise that it is in some respects a strong request to ask for an allowance of £225, placing a widower 1175 with a housekeeper substantially in the position of a married man without children, and of course an allowance for children if there should be any children eligible for it; but it is wrong to found very strongly on the Report of the Royal Commission on this matter, because this particular subject was not considered in any detail. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot go all the way in the matter I would ask him whether, between now and Report stage, he would be prepared to consider some modification of the position, because there are hard cases of widowers who are penalised by the absence of a little more generous provision at the present time.
§ Mr. SWANI hope the Chancellor will give some further concession on this matter. We who live among the people know that even since concessions were given to husbands for their wives many substantial injustices are still left. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not like to be unjust to anyone if it could be avoided. I know a case now in which for a considerable time the husband was placed in the unfortunate position, after losing his wife, that he had to take his daughter away from what had been a decent lucrative occupation and he has got no allowance there, though he had an invalid son whom he had to maintain. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to see the unfairness to that particular individual. If this Amendment is carried I think that it would in substantial measure remove that injustice. So far as that injustice exists it ought to be the duty of this Committee to try to remove it and place the whole of the citizens on something like an equal plane. Until we do that, to people of that description the only alternative would be for the widower to break up his home and that would not be good for the citizen or his invalid son or daughter. They would have to go to lodgings and the nation would become poorer. I hope the Chancellor, in common fairness to these people, will try to spring a point. So far as many of the working people are concerned now there will not be the measure of benefit now that there would have been 12 months' ago, in view of their present wages, but whether the wages reach that stage, where such a man would have an allowance comparable with that of the ordinary husband with a family of £225 1176 for his wife, or not, that concession ought to be given. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will raise the allowance to what the man would have if he were married.
§ Mr. HOLMESMay I move an Amendment on a new Clause?
§ The CHAIRMANThe Motion before the Chair is "That the Clause be read a Second time." If the Clause be read a Second time, an Amendment would then be in order, but at present an Amendment would not be in order.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HOLMESMight I ask, in the event of this Clause not being read a second time, whether you would allow us to take a vote, later on, upon a new Clause which I have on the Paper limiting the concession to a daughter over 16 years of age?
§ The CHAIRMANNo; I am afraid that would not be possible. At present the question is whether any concession should be made, and when the Question is put that the Clause be read a second time, if that is decided in the negative, then the Committee will have decided that no such concession should be made.
§ Mr. HOLMESI would submit that the Clause now before the Committee is giving a concession to any housekeeper, whether a relative or not, or a friend. The Clause which I have put down is far more limited in scope. It is merely giving an allowance in respect of a daughter over 16 years of age who acts as housekeeper to her father. If the Committee refuses to give a Second Reading to the Clause now before it, it will be saying that it will not give an allowance to a housekeeper, whoever she may be, but it will not thereby be saying that it would do the same for a daughter alone
§ The CHAIRMANThe logical course for the hon. Member to pursue, if I might advise him, is to vote for the Second Reading of this Clause, and to move his limiting Amendment to it afterwards. The present question is whether there shall be any concession. If that be carried, it will afterwards be open to the hon. Member to define what the concession shall be.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
1178§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 220.
1179| Division No. 182.] | AYES. | [7.4 p.m. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hartshorn, Vernon | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hayday, Arthur | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayward, Evan | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hinds, John | Robertson, John |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Hogge, James Myles | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Briant, Frank | Holmes, J. Stanley | Spencer, George A. |
| Bromfield, William | Irving, Dan | Swan, J. E. |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Johnstone, Joseph | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cairns, John | Kenyon, Barnet | Waddington, R. |
| Cape, Thomas | Kidd, James | Wallace, J. |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Waterson, A. E. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Lawson, John James | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Gilbert, James Daniel | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Graham, R. (Nelson and Coine) | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wintringham, Thomas |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Grundy, T. W. | O'Grady, James | |
| Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Rae, H. Norman | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hallas, Eldred | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Mr. Myers and Mr. Frederick Hall. |
| NOES. | ||
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.) | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Evans, Ernest | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Fade, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Fell, Sir Arthur | Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | King, Captain Henry Douglas |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Ford, Patrick Johnston | Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City of Lon.) | Foreman, Sir Henry | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Forestier-Walker, L. | Lane-Fox, G. R. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Ganzoni, Sir John | Lindsay, William Arthur |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Gardiner, James | Lister, Sir R. Ashton |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Gardner, Ernest | Lloyd, George Butler |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gee, Captain Robert | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Lorden, John William |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Loseby, Captain C. E. |
| Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) | Glanville, Harold James | Lowe, Sir Francis William |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Grant, James Augustus | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Gregory, Holman | Macleod, J. Mackintosh |
| Briggs, Harold | Greig, Colonel Sir James William | McMicking, Major Gilbert |
| Brown, Major D. C. | Gretton, Colonel John | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Maddocks, Henry |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Manville, Edward |
| Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Martin, A. E. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Middlebrook, Sir William |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Harris, Sir Henry Percy | Molson, Major John Elsdale |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Haslam, Lewis | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz |
| Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E. | Morrison, Hugh |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Hills, Major John Waller | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. |
| Clough, Robert | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen) |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Neal, Arthur |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Hood, Joseph | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Cope, Major William | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) |
| Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page | Hopkins, John W. W. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Parker, James |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Pearce, Sir William |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Hurd, Percy A. | Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Percy, Charles (Tynemouth) |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Jameson, John Gordon | Perring, William George |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Jephcott, A. R. | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Jesson, C. | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles |
| Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Pratt, John William | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. | Starkey, Captain John Ralph | Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Purchase, H. G. | Steel, Major S. Strang | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Sturrock, J. Leng | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M.(Bethnal Gn.) |
| Rees, Sir J. O. (Nottingham, East) | Sugden, W. H. | Winterton, Earl |
| Remer, J. R. | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. | Wise, Frederick |
| Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) | Sutherland, Sir William | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Taylor, J. | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) | Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Rodger, A. K. | Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham) | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Roundell, Colonel R. F. | Thomas-Stanford, Charles | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Thorpe, Captain John Henry | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) | Tickler, Thomas George | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Seager, Sir William | Townley, Maximilian G. | |
| Seddon, J. A. | Turton, Edmund Russborough | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) | Walters. Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) | Ward-Jackson, Major C. L. | Dudley Ward. |
| Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney) | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |