Legacy and succession duty shall not be leviable on testamentary bequests made to hospitals carried on in the public interest.—[Captain Viscount Ednam.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Captain Viscount EDNAM
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause was moved on the Committee stage of the Bill but, owing to the lateness of the hour at which it was reached, and the nature of the agreement arrived at as to the limitations of the discussion on that stage, I had not time to go fully into the case. Therefore on that occasion I contented myself with formally moving the Clause and asking the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to receive a deputation representative of the hospitals before the Report stage. Last week the deputation went to the Treasury headed by Lord Hambleden and Sir Arthur Stanley, representing the British Hospitals Association, and Lord Stewart of Wortley, representing the King Edward Hospital Fund, and they and other representatives of the hospitals stated fully the case of the hospitals, which is a very strong one. When this Clause was moved in the Committee Stage the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of seeing that there was a considerable body of opinion on both sides of the House, which believed that this was a reasonable and just concession.
In stating my case I shall have to go briefly into the reasons which make the concession necessary. Before the War the financial position of the voluntary hospitals was, on the whole, with the exception of some temporary difficulties, a sound one. They were able to meet their expenditure out of receipts, and even, in some cases, able to put aside a surplus to build up a capital on which they could rely for a certain amount of income, or which could be utilised for extensions if necessary, or to provide against unforeseen liabilities. Then came the War, and 157 with it an increase in the cost of all provisions, fuel, drugs, surgical apparatus, salaries and wages, but without any corresponding increase in receipts. At the end of the War the financial position of the hospitals went from bad to worse, and the withdrawal of grants in respect of service pensions and pensioners completed their downfall. While ordinary hospital income has increased since 1913 by 67 per cent., ordinary expenditure has increased by 137 per cent., besides which, at the end of the War hospitals were faced with the added difficulty of having to carry out urgent repairs which had necessarily been postponed owing to the War. That was the position in 1920. Practically every hospital in the country showed a deficit on its books for the year. The total indebtedness of the hospitals of Great Britain amounted to £1,500,000 and the indebtedness of the 117 hospitals in the London area amounted to £383,000.
The Government then set up a Commission, under the present Lord Chancellor, of which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) was a member, to inquire into the whole financial position of the hospitals, and make recommendations as to the action which should be taken to assist them. The Commission made 13 recommendations, some of which have been carried into effect. The main recommendation was that Parliament should be asked to sanction a temporary grant of £1,000, to be expended at the discretion of the British Hospitals' Association, on the assistance of those hospitals which might require assistance, but, as the House will remember, it was found possible to sanction a grant of only £500,000, so that they were not helped to the extent which the Commission had recommended. The eleventh recommendation was as follows:The request is put forward that testimentary gifts to hospitals should be exempt from the 10 per cent. legacy duty. We understand such exemption is allowed in the United States and is believed to have a marked effect in encouraging bequests to hospitals. There appears to be no good reason why the State should intercept, at the source, one-tenth of all the sums bequeathed for the benefit of the sick, and we recommend that these gifts be free from the duty. This recommendation applies to legacy and succession duty, but not to estate duty.This recommendation has, so far, never been carried into effect. The first question one asks oneself, in considering a 158 proposition of this kind, is: how much is it going to cost the Exchequer? I gave figures last week on the Committee stage which I had taken—in the absence of other statistics which the right hon. Gentleman was unable to give us—from "Burdett's Hospital Year Book," and the cost, I made out on that occasion, amounted at the outside to £80,000 a year. I have since been in communication with the British Hospitals' Association and the King Edward Fund who have gone carefully into the figures and they inform me that the figure which I gave represented an average year between 1913 and 1921 and was a little too low, and that the true average of the cost to the Exchequer was a sum not exceeding £130,000. In return for this concession the Government would give a tremendous fillip to the voluntary system which at the moment is in grave danger of breaking down. The Minister of Health said so last week on the Ministry of Health Vote. It would also, as the Cave Commission pointed out, undoubtedly encourage legacies to hospitals. Some would very possibly adduce the argument that it is better to make another lump sum grant to be expended in the assistance of those hospitals which require it rather than grant this concession, but the strong counter-argument to that is that whenever you make a lump sum grant or subsidise a voluntary hospital in any way, you directly discourage the voluntary system, whereas by abolishing the Legacy Duty you directly encourage the voluntary system. I should like, if the House will bear with me, to quote the opinion of the Cave Commission on that point. They say:It has been suggested by some, but a very small minority of the witnesses who have been before us, that liability for the hospitals should be taken over by the State or thrown upon the rates, or, at least, that regular yearly grants-in-aid should be made from one or other of those sources. In our view, that proposal would be fatal to the voluntary system. If it is once admitted that there is an obligation either on the State or on the local authorities to nuke good deficits, the hospitals will have lost their incentive to collect and the subscribers their incentive to contribute.I particularly wish to emphasise that point because I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will say that this concession means in effect a State subsidy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say "Hear, hear!" but the 159 House will notice that whereas the Cave Commission do not recommend any form of State subsidy, if it can be avoided, on the ground that it discourages the voluntary system they do very strongly recommend this concession on the ground that it directly encourages the voluntary system, and they argue that it does not amount to a State subsidy because the money which would be given to the hospitals under this concession should never have been taken by the State at all. Some may have their doubts as to whether the voluntary system is worth saving. I do not wish to labour that point; I have no doubt some hon. Members opposite do not believe in the voluntary system, but as this is not a party question, I do not wish to enter into any dispute about that, and I would once again read the opinion of the Cave Commission of which the hon. Member for Ogmore was a member and to the report of which he appended his signature. They say:The position of a large number of hospitals is such as to make it impossible that they can be continued on the pre-War basis unless prompt and vigorous measures are taken to re-establish the position of 1914. Is the voluntary system worth saving? We are convinced it is. If that system falls to the ground, hospitals must be provided by the public, and the expense of so providing them would be enormous. They must then be carried on without the aid of voluntary subscriptions and donations estimated at no less than £3,000,000 a year and, presumably, without the sum, amounting to about £1,000,000 a year, from endowments which were given to start the voluntary hospitals.So long as the voluntary system is in operation it is our duty to see that the sick are provided for in every way. Personally, I think the voluntary system is the best. I am of opinion, generally speaking, that our fellow countrymen and women who can afford to do so subscribe to the relief of the suffering to the utmost of their power, and this is demonstrated by the fact that in spite of increased taxation, bad times, bad track, and the tightness of money generally, donations and subscriptions to the voluntary hospitals have increased since 1914 by 67 per cent. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will argue in his reply that if you exempt the voluntary hospitals from the payment of this duty you will have to exempt all other charities from 160 the payment of the duty also. Are the other charities, missions, and so forth on parallel ground with the case of the hospitals? If the voluntary system breaks down, the whole of this expense will be thrown on the State, but if these other charities break down through financial difficulties that is not the case. You will not have this added expense on the State, and I maintain there is a very strong argument on that ground.
As I pointed out last week, there is no difficulty in discriminating between the voluntary hospitals and the other charities. There is a precedent. The Government have already discriminated between the hospitals and the other charities by setting up the Cave Commission in 1920, and making a grant of £500,000 to the hospitals only in that year. Only those who are closely associated with the voluntary hospitals appreciate and understand the appalling difficulties which they have to face at the present time, and the magnificent and uncomplaining courage with which they are facing those difficulties. The good work which they are doing at the present moment is beyond all praise. At the end of the last financial year the total indebtedness of the hospitals of Great Britain amounted to just under £700,000. The total indebtedness of the hospitals in the London area amounted to £171,000. The hospital with which I am most closely associated, the Royal Northern Hospital, has a debt this year of very nearly £50,000. This is the hospital upon which the people of a vast and thickly populated area in North London depend entirely. At the present moment there are 157 urgent cases awaiting treatment. Owing to this debt, we have to close down two of our wards by the end of July unless we can raise £20,000 with which to carry on. The right hon. Gentleman and the whole House will appreciate the appalling difficulties which a debt of this magnitude presents, and the way in which it is bound to impair the efficiency of the hospital. We are a comparatively new hospital and have not had time to build up those legacies upon which all hospitals rely for their regular income. We have only a regular income of £2,000, and our yearly expenses amount to £80,000. We have to collect £78,000 every year to carry on our work. I do appeal most sincerely to the right hon. Gentleman to give some 161 encouragement to voluntary hospitals this year in facing this appalling difficulty. This concession would undoubtedly be of value. I appeal to hon. Members of the House for their sympathy and support in what I submit is a very reasonable and just appeal.
§ Major CADOGAN
I beg to second the Motion.
Having listened a few nights ago to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explaining that the symptoms of the entertainment business were not those of exhaustion, but rather of reanimation, I am a little bit apprehensive that with equal force and cogency he may explain that the present precarious position of the voluntary hospitals is more apparent than real. If that is his intention, I would remind him that this New Clause is based upon the findings of Lord Cave's Commission, which indicates a very disquieting state of affairs as far as the voluntary system is concerned. I anticipate that there may be opposition from a quarter of the House that is not altogether favourable to the voluntary system, but I ask the House to remember that donations and subscriptions and legacies have increased enormously in recent years. If the reverse were the case, or if it could be proved in any way that voluntary effort was flagging, I should be compelled, reluctantly, to admit that the voluntary system had failed; but facts are on our side.
As the Noble Lord pointed out, between 1913 and 1921 voluntary effort has increased by 67 per cent. He should have said that that is in the London area. That is a very good indication that voluntary effort is not failing. I am informed that last year the combined appeal produced something like £500,000 in the same area. As long as the volume of that effort increases, although it is not increasing in proportion to the needs of the hospitals, I shall contend in this House that we should give every encouragement to the voluntary system, which not only saves the taxpayers between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year, but undoubtedly functions far more efficiently than a State-aided system could possibly do. The Cave Committee asserted that the voluntary system was worth saving. I am convinced that this is the case, and that that is the opinion of those conversant with the subject.
162 I have the honour to serve on the council of two hospitals, the Victoria Hospital for Children and the Chelsea Hospital for Women. The perfunctory service I have been able to render on those councils do not qualify me to speak with authority, but it has enabled me to come into contact with those whose opinion we must respect, namely, the opinion of the management, of the staff, and also of the patients, and those great bodies of opinion consider that the continuance of the voluntary system is essential, in spite of its anxiety, in spite of its difficulties, and in spite of the fact that the staff, at any rate, might well expect under a State-aided system higher salaries and emoluments. In spite of that, they are in favour of the continuance of the voluntary system.
If this new Clause passes, some of these difficulties and some of these anxieties will be removed. If it fails to pass, by the measure of its failure the hospitals will be the less able to overcome the difficulties with which they are faced. I understand that the State intercepts at the source about one-tenth of the sums which are left for the hospitals. That sum does not represent a very great accretion to the Treasury, but it represents a quite appreciable loss to the hospitals. I am not appealing to the Government to accept this new Clause on the ground that the remission of Legacy and Succession Duty would be only a small consideration. I rejoice that the Treasury no longer accept as valid the excuse that our offspring is only a little one. It is a good symptom that the Treasury has turned over a new leaf in that respect. I am not attempting to defend this new Clause on such grounds, but I invite the Treasury to bear in mind that if the voluntary system fails, the sacrifice of revenue entailed by this Clause will appear infinitesimal compared with the huge expenditure of public money which will be necessary.
It always seems to me a somewhat sacrilegous act on the part of the Treasury to appropriate to itself the testamentary dispositions of those who intended their bequests to heal the sick. It seems to me like taking the medicine out of the patient's mouth. If the Treasury is haunted it should be by the uneasy spirits of those benevolent human beings who have left legacies for the purpose of healing the sick, part of which 163 is deflected to uses which may not be so reputable as those for which they were intended. I do appeal most strongly to the Government to accept this new Clause. The present position of the voluntary hospitals is undoubtedly causing the gravest concern to all those who manage them, and those who derive benefit from them. I hope that the Government will be able to make the position a little more hopeful to those who have done such splendid work to ameliorate the physical condition of this country through the medium of the voluntary hospitals.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
We can congratulate the Mover and Seconder of this proposed new Clause upon the industry and strong endeavour with which they have pursued this matter, and gone into this great problem. I hope before the Debate is over to show them that there is no one more heartily with them than I am. I have not been successful in an earlier venture in my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, but that, so far from discouraging me, has given me greater hope, that I may be more successful on this occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Order Paper, he will see—no doubt, he has already done so—that there is a proposal in precisely the same terms as the one under consideration put down in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) and other three hon. Members, including myself. Therefore, this matter is pressed upon the Financial Secretary by representatives of all the parties in this House. I do not think there is much need to deal with the respective merits of the voluntary system and of a State system. That is not at issue. The Cave Committee unanimously agreed that the voluntary system was worth saving, and they went on to point out the serious and critical situation in which these great institutions now find themselves. Many of us know what are the facts. The Cave Committee made this particular recommendation.
Already I have referred to that great institution, one of the greatest in South London, that is the King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill. There it is, a greater boon to that community was never bestowed. Its case is this: There are six wards closed, with 180 beds, and 1,000 poor people on the waiting list. [An 164 HON. MEMBER: "The voluntary system!"] Do not let us argue that. If we go on waiting until we have got a perfect system we may wait a long time. I am not judging that question at all. There are these thousand people waiting, many of them very ill. I am afraid some of them will be dead before these beds are made available. As a matter of fact, the interest on the debt of this great institution would open two of these wards and 72 beds. I do not want to say any more about that; but there are two arguments which those of us who press this upon the Treasury may have used against us. The one is if you allow this Legacy and Succession Duty to escape what will happen will be that to that extent you will be giving 10 per cent. of the total benefaction to the executors of the estate. Supposing, for instance, £1,000 is left. In that case £900 will go to the hospital, and the £100, instead of going to the Treasury, will go to the beneficiaries under the will. That may be so in some cases but that could be immediately adjusted. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Of course it will. The £1,000 would be left in view of the altered condition, and provision made accordingly. Therefore, I set aside that argument—that you are really taking from the Treasury and putting it into the pockets of private beneficiaries. That might arise in the first few instances, but that could soon be adjusted. The other is a more serious argument; it is to the effect that if you do this, how can you resist the appeals that will be made from all sorts of classes of an analogous character asking for concessions. But the hospitals—these great institutions—stand apart. Take, for instance, the research work and the training of nurses and doctors that are walking the hospitals. All that is State service which has to be given, and it is given by these public officers. Apart, therefore, altogether from the treatment of patients, you have that big question of the training of nurses, doctors, and surgeons. I shall support the proposition as strongly as I can, as a particular case which ought not to be quoted as a precedent. This is a plea by itself, and if this were conceded it would not justify other charities making requests which were rather in a different position. I shall strongly support the request.
165 There is a third point—I have mentioned two. It may be said that the concession asked for is in the nature of a concealed subsidy. So it is, and, in this case, wisely so. The Financial Secretary may say that the better way is to make a direct Treasury grant. Not at all! The moment you begin to give a direct Treasury grant, then the voluntary system begins to decline, and that is not desirable if it is desired to maintain it. The majority of the Cave Committee recommended, accordingly, that this is the very way in which you can give what is asked without undermining the voluntary system. You may call it casuistry on my part in so arguing, but I am not much concerned on that point. You may give a concealed subsidy which would not have that direct effect upon the voluntary system that a direct subsidy would. Representatives of all parties are agreed in putting forward this proposal which none of us wish to use as a jumping off place for a new claim upon the Treasury. Not at all. We wish it to stand by itself, and I commend it with all the earnestness at my command to the right hon. Gentleman's consideration.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I join with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in congratulating those who put forward the case. It is perhaps as well that I should state the view of the Government, because in this matter those who have spoken, and who have given the fullest possible information in regard to the hospitals, have the one great advantage of knowing exactly what I was going to say. We have gone into this matter very fully. On the last occasion when it was raised in Committee I agreed to receive a deputation, with a perfectly open mind, and I received that deputation—I must confess a very representative deputation—and they put a very strong case indeed before me. But they did not convince me. In this matter I have consulted the Prime Minister. He was not convinced either, or that this was the proper way to deal with the admitted difficulties that the hospitals suffer from at the present time. The three hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman have given a very strong view of the grave difficulty of the hospital situation. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of wards about to close—
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
And the people waiting to get into them who may die before provision is made for them. All that is perfectly true. Nobody knows better than I do. I know a great deal of the difficulty of getting money under the voluntary system. I have been for a long time connected with the hospitals, and I know how difficult it is to get the money for the upkeep of those institutions. In this Debate I think hon. Members have really proved too much, for they have proved that the condition of things is such that this Amendment would really not get to the root of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) tried to answer the inevitable objection to this Clause. I want the House to realise that the Government is not hostile to the hospitals fit all, and it is just as keen to help the hospitals as the supporters of this proposal. They believe, however, that the proper way would be for the hospitals to come and ask, not for a concealed subsidy in this way, but for an open subsidy.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell swept away this argument as if it was nothing to allow all these legacies to go free of duty. If a man leaves, say, £1,000 to the hospital and the rest of his property to his wife and children the hospital does not pay any duty, but the wife and children have to pay £100 duty. If this Clause were carried in the case of the husband who gave a legacy of £1,000 to the hospital the wife and family would not have to pay that £100 duty, and we should be giving to the wife and family the £100 which they would otherwise have to pay. This proposal would affect one-half of the legacies, and in all existing wills that would be the case. This is a concealed subsidy, and it is to be given by the Government out of the taxpayers' money by the taxpayer in a way in which the taxpayer would have no control at all. It is the case of a selection against the Government by a testator. He may say, "I am going to leave Hospital A £1,000." That hospital may be a very wealthy hospital, or it may not be one of the best conducted hospitals, but still the Government has to pay Legacy Duty to that hospital, which may or may not be worthy of receiving it because the man who makes the will can select where the tax has to go and not the Government.
167 If this were an open subsidy, if the House concluded that the position of the hospitals under the voluntary system was on the verge of breaking down, and if they said, "We cannot carry on," the Government would be bound to say, "We will give a subsidy to the King Edward Hospital Fund or some committee of £100,000 or £130,000 a year, as the case may be, to be distributed to the hospitals, not as Mr. Brown or Mr. Jones might decide, but as the King Edward Hospital Fund decide is desirable," or the Government decide which hospitals are most in need of it. I think that is much fairer than leaving it to the testator to decide how the taxpayers' money is to be disposed of. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell says quite frankly that they would not take advantage of this precedent if adopted for every other kind of charity, but how could he guarantee that? Already since this Clause was put on the Paper I have had an official letter from St. Dunstan's asking that they should be included, and why not? Are they not a most excellent charitable institution? The moment this Clause is conceded you would find a Clause put down that St. Dunstan's should be included—[an HON. MEMBER: "And the lifeboat institutions!"]—yes, and the lifeboat institutions as well.
The hon. Member for Reading (Major Cadogan) put it to the House that the Government tax on hospital legacies was almost sacrilege, but what about the gifts for religous purposes. If hospitals demand that legacies should be exempted how about charitable institutions and churches and chapels that care for the souls of the people? Would they not come forward with the charge of sacrilege with even greater force than in the case of hospitals, and we should have the same charge brought forward with regard to other forms of charity. Although hon. Members may argue that we ought to differentiate between hospitals and other charities, I am quite sure they will agree with me when I say that if we agree to this proposal there would be in a very few years, or even in the very few months, strong demands made for us to extend this practice to every other form of charities, and the representative of the Treasury would have great difficulty in resisting them. What that would cost would be something enormous.
168 As to what this Clause would cost, my hon. and gallant Friend, when he made his statement on the Committee stage, said it would cost £80,000. He put it too low, and he now puts it at £130,000. If he included those very large donations made by Lord Swaythling and Lord Mount-Stephen, it would come to something like £180,000. The information given to me by the Inland Revenue puts the average at about £200,000. Whether that is the right amount or not, it is, at any rate, a great inroad into the taxation of the country. The real reason why the Prime Minister and myself are going to ask the House not to pass this Clause to-night is because it is applying what the right hon. Gentleman has so frankly said was a concealed subsidy to one particular form of charity. It cuts into the whole substratum of our Legacy Duty provision of taxation, which has been in existence for many years. For a long time it has been a principle of our finance that the wife and the child have the best claim upon the estate to be relieved of Legacy Duty. The man who saves is primarily thought to be saving for his wife and family, and, therefore, he should be taxed the least of all, and the wife and children should be let off lightly. The wife and the children have a right to expect that a man shall leave what he can to them, and the State recognises that right by taxing them as lightly as possible.
Charity of all kinds has not the same claim. It is a national voluntary act on the part of the State, and the State has said, and I think rightly, that where there is no claim of relationship or of blood in the case of a legacy of any kind, there the State is entitled to take a much greater slice than when it comes to a wife and family. That is the whole substratum of our Testamentary and Legacy Duty law, and that has stood the test for many years past. It was instituted, I think, by a very great Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Sir William Harcourt, many years ago. It has survived many attacks, and I appeal to the House now to say that it is not right in the interests of the taxpayers, however much one may wish to plead for support to the hospitals—and we have all done it in our constituencies and our home neighbourhood—we have helped as far as we have been able to—it is not right that 169 the House should take this money which belongs to the nation and give it to a particular form of charity in the nature of a subsidy rather than go openly to the nation, the Treasury and the House of Commons and ask them to rescue the voluntary hospitals from their dir, necessity. I am sure if such an appeal were made openly, the House of Commons would not be ungenerous in considering it.
§ Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS
The Financial Secretary to the Treasurer has made a strong appeal, and has invested with much emphasis the doctrine that the State lays its hands on every sum of money which passes at death, and must have its pound of flesh out of all charities, even those to hospitals. I could not help noticing that the right hon. Gentleman dealt out to us a rather different measure when he was talking about the Report of the Income Tax Commissioners. In cases where the Income Tax Commissioners have reported against a particular concession that Report has weighed very heavily with him, and he has suggested that, however good the claim for the exemption, the Report of the Commission settles the matter. But when he comes to deal with the Report of another Commission which ventures to trench upon the sacrosanct principle that the hospitals must pay tax he takes a different line. He does not attach the same amount of importance to that Report, because it does not regard so strongly the principle which he has com mended to the House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the question whether the hospitals should be continued on the voluntary system or on a State system does not really arise in this connection. That very much wider problem should be decided, not on the narrow issue of particular liability to taxation, but on very many other considerations, such as the progress of medicine, nursing, and so on. It is a question entirely outside the scope of this Amendment.
The only question now is whether, under the circumstances in which we stand to-day, this claim for exemption or abatement should or should not be conceded. I cannot help thinking that the situation has been largely altered by the action of the State itself, and that the present difficulties of the hospitals are due considerably to the enormous increase in the burden of taxation, which has 170 undoubtedly dried up the sources from which hospitals have received a good many of their legacies in days gone by. Those who are pleading the case of the hospitals can point to the fact that their difficulties have been caused partly by the State itself, which has thrown on the public this enormous burden and made it far more difficult for people to contribute to the hospitals. That being the case, surely, the State might facilitate in some way, in the form of allowances, or exemptions, those who are willing to contribute to the hospitals. I have had the case put before me of a number of provincial hospitals in the Midland Counties, where, although the claims upon them are very heavy, the individual sources of charity are by no means drying up, as increased efforts have been made since the War to help the hospitals. I regard it as a real confusion of thought to call this proposal a direct subsidy by the State. I am reminded of the exemptions already given in reference to life insurance, and when the Financial Secretary suggests that if this concession were granted it would be difficult to refuse the same concession in regard to legacies to churches and chapels, I must say I have not the least doubt that, if the case were presented to him, and if he could be moved from his present recalcitrancy, he would find no difficulty in differentiating between the cases of the churches and chapels and the hospitals. It seemed to me, when the right hon. Gentleman was laying stress on the impossibility of distinguishing between charities of primary necessity, from the paint of view of life and death, and charities of secondary necessity, such as legacies to churches and chapels, if he set himself to the task he would find it very easy to distinguish between the two.
Probably the real point he desired to make was that the Government had not the money and could not afford to lose his £200,000 which the concession would cost. I have very little patience with such an argument when I think of what the Budget is at the present time. Surely a very little ingenuity, say, in the direction of not giving concessions which have already been given in regard to the liquor taxes, would have enabled him to find the necessary money. Especially may I mention a fact which we discovered this afternoon, that the Government is providing a sum of £300,000 for Scottish 171 landowners. If they can do that I do not think they are entitled to come here and say they cannot find money for the hospitals. The claim is a very strong one. I do not think it need carry concessions further than is required. I do not think it involves in the least the question whether the hospitals should remain under a voluntary system or should be under a State system. I suppose the Government have put their foot down, and are not prepared to make this concession, unless the appeal comes from their supporters, in which case, possibly, they might change their mind. I cannot help expressing my great regret and disappointment that they have not seen their way to meet this case.
§ Colonel Sir CHARLES BURN
As a Governor and member of the House Committee of St. George's Hospital I feel I may be allowed to raise my voice and appeal with all the earnestness I possess for this concession to be given in order, at any rate, even in a small way, to ease the present financial situation of the hospital. I sit, week by week, when the board of the hospital meets, and I can assure the House that it is heartbreaking, week after week, to hear the same tale of the overdraft at the bank It is no use my saying what an enormous benefit these hospitals confer on the people of London, and, indeed, all over the country. In the case of St. George's, everybody who lives in the neighbourhood, who requires hospital attendance, comes in the hope of getting in. Week by week we have to refuse admission to hundreds, and, indeed, the hospital has been carried on really by living on capital. One beneficiary, the late Mr. Gorringe, whose name is well-known throughout this end of London, gave a large legacy which, if invested might have produced a comfortable income to assist the hospital, but when you have to live on capital the income, alas, is gone. We know the hospitals are in a bad way, but I can answer for St. George's being anxious to retain the voluntary system. We know that one volunteer is worth 10 pressed people, and so long as the hospital is run on the voluntary system I have no hesitation in saying that the work of the hospital and the general feeling of the patients in that hospital is a more comfortable one. 172 We know that in these days things are very difficult, and the proof of how much the people of this country think of their hospitals, and that they do everything in their power to assist them, is the fact that really the voluntary subscriptions have not decreased, but rather have increased even in these difficult times, when we are taxed almost out of existence. When a hospital really is struggling to run on by the voluntary method, a small encouragement such as this given to it by the Treasury would be very greatly appreciated, and would certainly produce a renewed effort to get subscriptions in from every possible source. I hope that even at this hour, when the decision of the Treasury has been given, an appeal which really comes from the heart will not be scorned, but that the concession will be given, because if the voluntary system is to end the Government must give a subsidy to its hospitals, and is it not much better that the Treasury should now make this concession voluntarily rather than have to fall back on the taxpayer's money by giving what would be almost a forced concession to keep the hospitals of the country going?
§ Mr. G. SPENCER
I cannot hope to follow the right hon. Baronet who is in charge of this Bill with regard to the legal side of the question he has propounded. He is far more capable of dealing with the legal side than I can ever hope to be, and I only want to say a few words with regard to the practical difficulty that exists to-day concerning the working-class population. I quite agree that the issue to-night is not Voluntary versus State-aided hospitals. That is, undoubtedly, a very important question and might create a very keen and controversial discussion. The real issue is, Shall the hospitals function to the extent of their capacity in the interests of humanity? That is the real issue, and I am quite convinced that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who has any knowledge whatever of either the provincial hospitals or hospitals in London knows perfectly well that many of these institutions are failing to function to the extent of their capacity not because there is any lack of voluntary help offered from the medical point of view, but simply because the hospital has not the money with which to carry on. That is a very serious 173 thing indeed from the point of view of the working-class population. I have had pass through my hands just recently two cases of men who got strangulated hernia by working in the coal-pit, and these men were week after week on full compensation, and an unnecessary charge on the industry and the owner, and were suffering themselves because there was no room whatever in the hospital for lack of funds. That is a very sad and serious state of affairs. I think the Government would have a case if they could turn round to us and say, "What have you done yourselves to assist the hospitals and relieve the financial strain under which they are working?" I can say to the Treasury Bench that, so far as the workmen with whom I am associated are concerned, they have doubled their contributions to the hospital in the district. That is to say, where we used to pay 1d. a week the men have decided and agreed that 2d. should be deducted from their wages for the purposes of the hospital, and it is because we have undertaken to do this thing ourselves, and we find that after doing it the expenses of the hospital are of such an extent, owing to the increased cost of living, that they cannot function as they wish to do that we think they have a right to come to the Government, and say, "What are you prepared to do?"
The Noble Lord in charge of this new Clause (Viscount Ednam) stated that he thought this would cost the Treasury about £130,000, but the Financial Secretary to the. Treasury put forward as the case from the financial point of view that it would cost, according to his advice, £200,000. In my opinion that is not an argument why he should not concede this request, but is an argument why he should do so. It is only an evidence of the extent to which the hospitals are being financially crippled by the imposition of this Legacy Duty, and if it had been taken away it would mean that the hospitals would have benefited during the last year to the extent of £200,000. It is true that would not have wiped away the deficit and debt, but it would have gone a long way to make it possible for these beds to be opened again and to relieve to a far greater degree than we are actually doing the suffering that exists to-day. The Government say, "We cannot do it in this way. If we do it for hospitals, we must go further." The Government 174 must choose one of two things: they must either support the voluntary principle, as has been recommended by the Cave Committee, by some method or other—either by a concealed subsidy or in some other way—or they must state openly that they are going to make a definite grant and are going to do away with the voluntary system, which has been so admirably adopted in this country and has done such useful service, and are going to have State-aided hospitals, the whole charge for which, whether it be £200,000 or whether it be millions, will fall upon the country, instead of being contributed in the way in which it has been. The Government must make up their minds. The Clause before the House only involves a very small concession, and I cannot see why the Government cannot make it in the interests of humanity.
§ Captain Viscount CURZON
I have the greatest possible sympathy with the remarks that have fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Torquay (Sir C. Burn), from the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts), and from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. G. Spencer). Like the hon. Baronet the Member for Torquay, I speak on behalf of quite one the biggest and best charities in this country, though it is not a hospital. I am the only Member of this House who is able to speak on behalf of the National Lifeboat Institution, which, like the hospitals, is supported entirely by voluntary contributions Our view has always been that, if we got a subsidy from the State, whether concealed or direct, it would have the very gravest possible effect upon our voluntary contributions. We contend, and we always have contended, that if the State supports us in any shape or form, we shall not be able to say to the country that we are a voluntary institution dependent upon voluntary funds, and we shall find our supporters in the country saying, "Well, you get money from the State. If you have not got enough you must get more."
I have the greatest possible sympathy with all the hospitals, and, indeed with all charities, and I am sure there is no hon. Member in any party or in any quarter of the House who does not share that sympathy in full measure. The issue had been very fairly stated by 175 the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who remarked that, if you are going to do anything in this matter, you have to decide whether the hospitals and other charities—because it does not only concern hospitals—are going to be supported by the State The Financial Secretary was right when he said that, if we do this for hospitals, we shall have every other charity asking for the same concession. If the Government are able to afford the concession asked for in this Clause, well and good, but it must be an all-round concession. I agree with the Financial Secretary that, if a testator is able to pick out a certain hospital which he fancies, and his bequest is to be free of Duty, it does mean that that testator is geting the right to exempt from taxation that particular charity. I submit that that is the wrong way to go about it. If we really want to do something for charity, the way to do it is for the Government, as the Financial Secretary has said, to come to the House and say they want so much money per annum for charity, be it half a million or a million, and to give so much to King Edward's Hospital Fund and so much to other charities, which will be allocated by some Committee or other. Do not, however, let us start by singling out hospitals.
The hon. Member for Derby made some remark to the effect that it was easy to draw a distinguishing line between charities of primary necessity and those which were not of primary necessity. It is a very old saying that comparisons are odious, and I really do not envy the fellow who has to draw the distinguishing line between charities. He will make friends of some, but he will make enemies of a great many more. Before the House gives its assent to such a proposal as this, it should realise that this is not a question that affects hospitals only, but one which affects all charities throughout the country, and that it must be faced as one big issue and not treated piecemeal. I do not believe in piecemeal legislation of any description. I hope, therefore, that the House will support the Government in resisting this proposal, until the Government tell us that they are able to accede to the request with regard to charities as a whole, not dealing with hospitals as one single unit.
§ Colonel M. ALEXANDER
I also am associated with a great institution, being a member of the Governing Board of King's College Hospital, and I am also connected with another hospital. I have tried to listen with an impartial mind, but I cannot accept the statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am sorry he is not here at the moment. I notice that the learned Solicitor-General is about to reply on his behalf, but I somewhat regret that the legal profession is to cure us from our physical ailments. I thought it could cure in a legal way, but not in the other way. I entirely disagree with the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon). He has singled out one institution, and has stated that, if a grant were given to the hospitals, a grant should be made equally to other charitable institutions. The Noble Lord stated, and stated rightly, that any hon. Member, or any man, who might try to draw the line in that particular sphere of charity, would make a few friends, but a good many enemies. I intend to make the enemies in this case, because I intend to draw a line between the hospitals and other charitable institutions. Let me assure the House that there is no comparison between the present position of the hospitals of this country and the other charitable institutions, however great their needs may be. The Noble Lord asks why. Let me tell him why.
The hospitals to-day are not only helping to save people from actual death, and to save them from the terrors of the ailments with which so many of our people are afflicted, but are actually training the doctors and nurses for taking care of our people, and doing research work, which is, probably, the greatest cure of all. Look at the question of tuberculosis, the cure of which, and of many other diseases, has been developed in our hospitals, I think I can say with every degree of sincerity that there is no charitable institution in this country which can say that it is of equal importance with our hospitals to-day. The hospitals, undoubtedly, stand in a class by themselves. Let me deal with the argument of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who told us that if we want a concession, we must come before the Government and say we want £100,000, and he will consider it. Let me point out to the House that such a 177 request, whenever it is made, will get a very cold reception. We shall be met by the Treasury with the answer, "If we give you a subsidy, why should we not give a subsidy to every other charitable institution? And if we give a subsidy to every charitable institution, well, the country has not enough money to do it, and, therefore, you cannot have it." There is, however, a still greater danger in the fact that at the present moment people give freely to hospitals because they know that if they stopped giving the hospitals would go under. If they realise that the Government is going to make good any deficit, people will say they are giving enough in taxation, let the Government take care of the hospitals altogether. It may satisfy my friends on the Labour Benches who advocate the State control of hospitals. The voluntary system of hospitals is the best and, I believe, the most beneficial to the community as a whole, and for that reason, if for no other, I should like the Solicitor-General to take note of what I am saying, and, if he cannot accede to our request at the moment, at least try to put the hospitals in the relationship of a wife or a child to the testator.
We have heard a very lucid explanation that a wife or child is only taxed 1 per cent. while a hospital is taxed 10 per cent. It was said if you give that exemption the testator will save the money, because the present relatives have to pay. The real danger lies in this. It is perfectly true that the man who gives £1,000 may not increase his donation if you exempt it, but the bulk of donors are smaller people who give £200, £300, or £250. If you tax them 10 per cent. they decrease their donations to the hospitals. If you make them tax free they will increase their donations and the hospitals will benefit. A subsidy would not help. To my mind a subsidy is a dangerous policy to adopt because if you start subsidising you do not know when to stop until you come to the very end of it and have to take it off. May I point out how much it would appeal to distinguised people across the seas? Lord Mount Stephen, who gave so great a donation, was a Scotsman who made his money in Canada; so was Lord Strathcona, and their donations amounted to something like £889,000. If you exempt them from taxation you will get still greater donations from people who take 178 a pride in the hospitals of the Motherland. What is needed to-day is something to give a lift up to people who are willing to contribute even in these hard-times, and a little encouragement may go a long way to cure the great evil in which we find ourselves to-day.
Sir W. LANE MITCHELL
The increased cost of living did not pass the hospitals. The ordinary income they had before the War was not enough to enable them to carry on adequately and we came to this, that a Commission was appointed to consider the whole position, and it found the claims on the hospitals were so clamant, and there were so many places being closed, that they recommended, first, a grant of £1,000,000 to tide over the temporary difficulty, and they made another recommendation that this Legacy Duty should be foregone. The Government did not give this £1,000,000. They said, "Take £500,000, and go on and do the best you can." The Financial Secretary to the Treasury argues against the 10 per cent. Legacy Duty being foregone as if it were something altogether new, forgetting the recommendation of the Cave Commission. If this question were left free to the House it would be carried. It is imposing too great a strain on us when it comes to a question of this kind, which makes such an appeal to every one of us interested in this class of work, to find ourselves up against a rigid barrier. I protest against it. The right hon. Gentleman says this is giving it in an indirect kind of way. Is he prepared to give them a half of what the Cave Commission recommended? Probably it will be another year before we have another chance of doing anything for the hospitals, and it is fair to put it to the Treasury, "Failing your agreeing to this, are you prepared to give a lump sum now to put the hospitals out of their difficulty?" You have St. Thomas's Hospital across the way, probably the best-situated in London to discharge its duties to the poor people. A very considerable section of it is closed. That ought not to be. It is a question of life or death, and we have a right to ask the Treasury to do one or the other and not put us off with fair promises a year hence. We want it now.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)
The Financial Secretary 179 has been on this bench nearly the whole of the day, and I am sure the House will forgive him and commiserate with me. I think if I were in a more fortunate position I could make almost as eloquent a speech as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Nothing is easier or more congenial to all of us than to make an appeal for an object which enlists universal sympathy. The pleas which have been made for the hospitals in their present plight have met with a sympathetic response from everyone present. It has been a little overlooked, however, as my right hon. Friend reminded the House, that the assistance to be derived by the hospitals from this concession, if it were granted, is much slighter than is supposed. At the highest estimate £200,000 a year is involved. My noble Friend put it at a smaller figure; I think somewhere about £130,000. There are something like 900 or 950 hospitals, as commonly understood, in the Kingdom. They are, of course, hospitals of different sizes. We are accustomed to think of the great hospitals in London and our other cities. They are not, of course, on anything like the same scale. Let hon. Members divide that £130,000 or £180,000 between even the large hospitals all over the towns and cities of the Kingdom, and they will realise that it is not going to rescue them from the unhappy position in which they find themselves at present.
Hon. Members must make no mistake at all about that. Then it is said, "We are not asking, and are not expecting, you to deliver the hospitals from their plight by this concession. All we are asking you to do is to encourage the private benefactor to give to the hospitals by his will, and he will be encouraged when he finds that he can give without his benefactions being taxed."
If the House will forgive me a personal reference, I happen to be the treasurer of two societies that will certainly make a claim on the Exchequer for assistance if this concession be given to the hospitals. One seeks to save the lives of boys by taking charge of them when they are youngsters; another is a very large almshouse, which provides for, literally, hundreds of old people; that saves the lives of old people. I find, in my experience as treasurer, especially in these days of high taxation, that a 180 number of people send donations in their life-time, because they realise that if they wait till they die their gifts will be taxed to a very large extent by the State. It cuts both ways. There are people who possibly may give by their wills a little more, because they realise that their legacies will not be taxed, but there are undoubtedly people to-day who do give in their life-time because they realise that their legacies will be taxed when they die. I think hon. Members rather exaggerate the effect that this concession may have on people who leave money by their wills. I suppose most of us will probably think that people who make their wills do not calculate nicely the exact sum they may give, but they say, "Put me down for £100, or £1,000." whatever it may be, in round figures, for the institution in which they are interested.
What it comes back to is this: Hon. Members say quite rightly, and nobody has said it with more force than the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago: "Here are the hospitals, fulfilling a great public work. They are training places for those who will attend to us in our days of sickness; they are places of scientific research, and it is right that the State, which is so largely dependent on the results of that scientific research, as, for instance, in connection with tuberculosis, should pay them for doing that work." I recognise there is a cogency in that appeal, but what it really leads to is this, it is either an argument that should be directed to the community as a whole, considered as individuals, who may give out of their bounty to support these institutions which are doing a great public work, or it is frankly an argument that ought to be used to the State for making a direct subsidy to the hospitals to enable them to do this work for the community. It really is an argument which goes to that, and when the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Lane Mitchell) asked, "How much will you give us of the £1,000,000 which the Cave Committee recommended—of the other £500,000—if this concession is not granted?" then he adumbrated an appeal which, quite conceivably, might be made by hon. Members of the House in favour of a direct and undisguised subsidy to support the hospitals and the public work they are doing.
181 That is not the proposal before the House this evening. On these grounds, however much sympathy we feel, as we do feel sympathy—and even Members of Governments have hearts for such an appeal as this—however deeply we may recognise the position of the hospitals, it is not mainly because the Government cannot afford this sum, that is not the ground, but it is because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out cogently, it is impossible to make a distinction between one charity and another, and to draw the line; and secondly, it is because the real advance ought to be in the direction of a grant by the State if the hospitals do work for the State, that the Government feel compelled, however unwillingly, to resist this Amendment. I do not know whether I may appeal to the House to come to a decision. It is not that I want to stop hon. Members speaking, but there are a number of other Amendments, and if they will allow us to decide on this point now I shall be glad.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Dr. CHAPPLE
This is so important a subject that I make no apology for continuing the Debate. The issue has now become, since the remarks of the Financial Secretary, supplemented by those of the hon. and gallant Member for South East Southwark (Colonel Alexander), one between making this concession or making a grant to hospitals. I think we should avoid, so far as possible, making direct grants to hospitals. That would be the beginning of the end of the voluntary system. So far as public and regular grants are made to the hospitals there will come a claim for State control. I think the voluntary system has been so efficient and economical that it would be a tragedy to convert it into a State system, and that issue is important in itself. The basis of the present voluntary system, and the reason for its amazing efficiency and economy is that it is based in love of service and human sympathy. Wherever you make the hospitals into State institutions you will find a demand for increased salaries, and for salaries where none are paid at all. The crowning glory of the voluntary system to-day is the immense amount of voluntary and gratuitous service rendered to the hospitals. People have devoted their lives to the hospitals, without receiving anything at all but the gratitude of the people whom they serve. The doctors 182 render their services for nothing. All their attendance and all their work are done practically gratuitously. If you convert the hospitals into State institutions you will run the risk of undermining them, and of doing a great injury to the advantages they possess in the way of efficiency and economy now.
An hon. Member has just told us that we have overrated the amount of money that this would mean to the hospitals. I do not think so. The direct benefit might be £200,000, or whatever it is, but the indirect benefit would be immense, because testators who have contemplated giving benefits to institutions will be diverted towards the hospitals if they have no taxation to pay, and you will find that an immense increase in the legacies given to the hospitals will probably result from this concession. Then the Financial Secretary said there were a number of competing institutions which would immediately make claims. I should not in the least be deterred by that, because there is no claim that ranks so high as the claim of the hospitals, and no service that is rendered is so high and so wide-spread as that of the hospitals. The hospitals not only attend on the sick, but they provide two professions. They provide the medical profession and the nursing profession, and that, I may say in passing, is more necessary now than ever, for after the 14th of this month no nurse will be able to practise her profession as a registered nurse unless she passes through these great institutions. It is more essential than ever that we should preserve the voluntary system and give all the assistance we can to our hospitals, in order to encourage the voluntary system as much as possible. One of the great difficulties has arisen, not because the fount of voluntary assistance has dried up, but because of the increased services which the hospitals are giving. Think of the enormous cost of X-ray plant, the manufacture of serum and the cost of individual doses. Insulin alone costs 2s. 6d. a dose. Think of all the other necessary extensions of hospital equipment. The demand has been so great that the hospitals are in difficulties. I press these considerations upon my right hon. Friend. I am disappointed he has given the reply he has given. If he had made the concession, the advantage would have been great, the encourage- 183 ment would have been great. We should not do anything that would undermine our voluntary system and have State institutions instead.
§ Viscount EDNAM
The hospital authorities for whom I speak do not want to divide against the Government; they would not divide against any Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am only stating their position. They have stated their case in the deputation to which I referred and to their representatives. They consider they have a strong case, and if the right hon. Gentleman is unable to grant them this concession, he is unable to grant it, but I am
§ bound to say that I am very greatly disappointed at the unsympathetic way—
§ Viscount EDNAM
I wanted to say that. I have been able to say what I wanted to say, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 243.185
|Division No. 261.]||AYES.||[10.8 p.m.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hardie, George D.||Potts, John S.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Harney, E. A.||Pringle, W. M. R.|
|Attlee, C. R.||Harris, Percy A.||Rae, Sir Henry N.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hastings, Patrick||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)||Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)||Riley, Ben|
|Batey, Joseph||Hayday, Arthur||Ritson, J.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)||Roberts, C. H. (Derby)|
|Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)||Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Bonwick, A.||Herriotts, J.||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Bowdler, W. A.||Hill, A.||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hillary, A. E.||Saklatvala, S.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hinds, John||Salter, Dr. A.|
|Brotherton, J.||Hirst, G. H.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Sexton, James|
|Buckie, J.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Burgess, S.||Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.|
|Buxton, Charles (Accrington)||Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Snell, Harry|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)||Snowden, Philip|
|Clarke, Sir E. C.||Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Collins, Pat (Walsall)||Kenyon, Barnet||Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.|
|Collison, Levi||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell||Lansbury, George||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Lawson, John James||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Leach, W.||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Davies Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Lee, F.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)||Thornton, M.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Linfield, F. C.||Trevelyan, C. P.|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Lowth, T.||Turner, Ben|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lunn, William||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Duffy, T. Gavan||MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)|
|Dunnico, H.||M'Entee, V. L.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Ede, James Chuter||McLaren, Andrew||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Edge, Captain Sir William||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Webb, Sidney|
|Edmonds, G.||March S.||Weir, L. M.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Marshall, Sir Arthur H.||Westwood, J.|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Falconer, J.||Middleton, G.||Whiteley, W.|
|Foot, Isaac||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Gosling, Harry||Morel, E. D.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenall, T.||Mosley, Oswald||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Murray, John (Leeds, West)||Winfrey, Sir Richard|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||O'Grady, Captain James||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Oliver, George Harold||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Groves, T.||Paling, W.||Wright, W.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Phillipps, Vivian||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Dr. Chapple and Colonel Alexander.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Ganzoni, Sir John||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)||Garland, C. S.||Nield, Sir Herbert|
|Apsley, Lord||Gates, Percy||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin||Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||Paget, T. G.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Parker, Owen (Kettering)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Goff, Sir R. Park||Pease, William Edwin|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gould, James C.||Pennefather, De Fonblanque|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Greaves-Lord, Walter||Penny, Frederick George|
|Banks, Mitchell||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Perring, William George|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Gretton, Colonel John||Philipson, Mabel|
|Becker, Harry||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Gwynne, Rupert S.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Privett, F. J.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Raine, W.|
|Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)||Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)||Rankin, Captain James Stuart|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Halstead, Major D.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel|
|Berry, Sir George||Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Remer, J. R.|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)||Harrison, F. C.||Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Harvey, Major S. E.||Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Hawke, John Anthony||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)||Hewett, Sir J. P.||Ruggles-Brise, Major E.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Russell, William (Bolton)|
|Bruton, Sir James||Hiley, Sir Ernest||Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Sanderson, Sir Frank B.|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Sandon, Lord|
|Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)||Hood, Sir Joseph||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Hopkins, John W. W.||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)|
|Button, H. S.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Houfton, John Plowright||Shipwright, Captain D.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hudson Capt. A.||Simpson, J. Hope|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hume, G. H.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hurd, Percy A.||Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur||Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Stanley, Lord|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Steel Major S. Strang|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)||Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Jephcott, A. R.||Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.|
|Cope, Major William||Joynson-Hicks, Sir William||Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)||Sykes, Major.-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page||Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Lamb, J. Q.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)||Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.||Tubbs, S. W.|
|Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Wallace, Captain E.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)||Lorden, John William||Waring, major Walter|
|Doyle, N. Grattan||Lorimer, H. D.||Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)|
|Du Pre, Colonel William Baring||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)||Wells, S. R.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lumley, L. R.||Weston, Colonel John Wakefield|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.|
|Ellis, R. G.||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)||White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Whitla, Sir William|
|Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)||Margesson, H. D. R.||Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)|
|Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.||Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.||Mercer, Colonel H.||Winterton, Earl|
|Falcon, Captain Michael||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Wise, Frederick|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Fawkes, Major F. H.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.||Morden, Col. W. Grant||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Flanagan, W. H.||Murchison, C. K.||Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)|
|Ford, Patrick Johnston||Nesbitt, Robert C.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Foreman, Sir Henry||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Yerburgh, R. D. T.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Newson, Sir Percy Wilson|
|Furness, G. J.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel|