§ "Section sixteen of the Finance Act, 1919 (which exempts from Income Tax wounds and disability pensions), shall be extended to apply to pensions granted to widows whose husbands lost their lives as the result of naval, military, or Air Force service."—[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 is a proposal which I feel sure will commend itself to every member of the Committee, and I sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to give effect to it in this year's Finance Bill. On a previous Clause which I moved last Wednesday with regard to bequests to hospitals, the debate was inclined to deteriorate into accusations of inconsistency on both sides of the Committee. That was not what I intended or desired, and it certainly did not help my case. I hope that similar taunts will not arise on this occasion. I am not going to divide the Committee on this Clause if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to give effect to it this year, because, although we all realise and understand that certain inconsistencies of voting are almost inevitable on certain Amendments and new Clauses, the general public outside do not understand it, and it seems to me that it is not in accordance with the dignity of this House that publicity should be unduly and unnecessarily given to this in consistency. As a matter of fact, this Clause was moved last year by the present Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Lawson), and it was seconded by the present Minister of Pensions (Mr. F. Roberts). The Financial Secretary to the War Office, I may say, expressed himself a diehard on the question. It was also strongly supported by the Attorney-General (Sir P. Hastings) and the Under-Secretary of State for War (Major Attlee). The then Financial Secretary to the 2008 Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) expressed the strongest sympathy with the case of these widows. He asked the Mover to defer it to the Report Stage, and said he would try and see if he could give effect to it, Unfortunately, he was unable last year to give effect to it, and I frankly say that I think he made a great mistake in not doing so.
The facts of the ease are well known to the Committee, and I do not intend to enlarge upon them. When, in 1919, service disability pensions were exempted from Income Tax, it was generally supposed that the pensions of the widows of the men who had fallen in the War were also exempted from Income Tax. This, however, is not the case, and this new Clause is merely a logical extension of the existing Section of the Finance Act of 1919. Why the same exemption should not be given in the case of widows' pensions as in the case of service pensions it is really impossible to see. They are both pensions under the same Royal Warrant, anti I feel quite sure it was not in the minds of anyone when those warrants were first agreed that these deductions for Income Tax should be made from the widows' pensions. This Clause, of course, does not apply to widows with an income of less than£3 a week. They are exempt at present. But it does seem to me that exemptions should apply to the pensions of all widows of service men. It seems to me very false gratitude to men who gave their lives in the War that this rebate should be demanded on the meagre pensions which the widows were awarded. It really seems to me heart-breaking that widows with£200 a year to live en, and perhaps to educate two or three children on, who have a hard enough struggle to endure even without the payment of the tax, should have the added hardship imposed on them of paying Income Tax on their pensions. There is something to me peculiarly hypocritical in spending money lavishly on war memorials to the fallen on the one hand, and taking a rebate for the purposes of revenue from the small enough pittance which their widows were granted. I think it is up to the Government to show cause why this Income Tax should be demanded. I do not think it is up to the widows to show cause why they should be exempt.
2009 It is almost dishonest on the part of the Government to grant pensions in this form. They are meagre enough in all conscience; they are only gross pensions, and it would be far more honest if they were granted as net pensions. It is a case of false representation of the actual amount of the pension. The figures arc represented as net figures when they are only gross figures subject to a deduction for Income Tax purposes. The present Attorney-General made a strong point last year when supporting this Clause. He pointed out that the incidence of the tax fell particularly hardly on the widow of a young officer or a young soldier, because the subaltern or the young soldier did not marry so much on his actual position; he married rather on the strength of his future prospects and on the remuneration he would receive when he was more advanced in his profession. But the pensions were awarded to the widows on the basis of the rank held by the husband at the time he was killed, and they did not increase in the course of years as the husband's remuneration would have increased had he lived. This is a very serious grievance which should be put right at the earliest possible moment. After all, it is a decreasing liability. I do not know what it would cost, but I rather gather from last year's debate that the cost will not be very much. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try and give effect to this Clause this year, and, if he cannot do that, at any rate to undertake to give the matter his serious consideration next year should he still be in office.
§ Mr. S. ROBERTS
I hope that my hon. Friend will press this New Clause to a Division. During the last election a leaflet was got out against me by a candidate supporting the present Government attacking me for the vote I gave on this question last year. I was then a supporter of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day. There has been a good deal of talk about inconsistency with regard to Budget votes, but when one is a supporter of the Government which has brought forward a Budget he has to support that Budget as a whole, and he cannot pick and choose the parts lie would cut out or leave in. To-day I am not a supporter of the Government and I feel at liberty to give my vote on individual questions as I think proper. 2010 It does not matter to me whether the present Government or the Chancellor the Exchequer are destroyed to-morrow. The sooner they are destroyed the better. We have now an opportunity of voting exactly as our inclination suggests. This is a question on which two years ago, when the Liberals were in office, I spoke and supported in favour of the Amendment, for I did not much care about continuing that party in power. Last year there was a Government in power which I desired to support, and I did support its Budget throughout. I, therefore, hope the Noble Lord will now give us an opportunity of voting in favour of this Amendment, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to accept it then we shall have an opportunity of bringing out, in the constituencies, leaflets exactly similar to the one which was got out against me on the last occasion by my Labour opponent.
§ Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY
I shall be very sorry if this Amendment is allowed to go by default. I feel it is one on which we ought to be allowed to go to a. Division.
§ Sir GODFREY COLLINS
Members of the Committee must find themselves in sonic difficulty this, afternoon. The Noble Lord who moved this Amendment reminded us that it was considered by the House of Commons last year. Before I came down to the House this afternoon I took an opportunity of ascertaining how the Noble Lord himself voted on that occasion.
§ Viscount EDNAM
I have appealed to the Committee not to deteriorate this discussion into a taunt of "You're another." I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give effect to this Amendment if he can possibly do so, and I hope he will do so so that we may have no more charges of inconsistency in regard to our votes.
§ Sir G. COLLINS
Last year the Noble Lord voted against the very Amendment which he has moved this afternoon.
§ Sir G. COLLINS
And the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) also voted against it. On the other hand, I took another view, and I am prepared if necessary to tell hon. Mem- 2011 bers exactly how I did vote. On this occasion, supporting as I do the general Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have to say that if this Amendment is pressed to a Division, and as I am not anxious as one of a large class of tax payers to see this Budget torpedoed by hon. Members moving Amendments after Amendments which wire brought forward last year, and as I am anxious to safeguard the Budget of my right hon. Friend, I shall resist this Amendment. But it makes it far more difficult for hon. Members like myself to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer while candidates of the Labour party are going up and down the country, visiting our constituencies, and attacking us in regard to the votes we are giving in this House. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after due consideration of all the circumstances, cannot possibly accept this Amendment then I shall support him in the position he takes up.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden)
I do not think the Noble Lord who moved this Amendment in a very reasonable speech will thank his colleague, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) for the assistance he has offered him. The hon. Member for Hereford did not appear to advance any single reason in support of the Amendment. I am quite sure that the reason which actuated him last year in voting against this Amendment, and which will actuate him this year in voting for it, will not be lost on hon. Members who sit behind me. We have the confession of the hon. Member for Hereford that he feels he is striking a blow at the Budget as a whole, and that he is trying to destroy that Budget.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I have no doubt the hon. Member would like to see the Budget killed, because it is one he does not care to support. I notice that he has on the Paper another Amendment which we may reach some time to-morrow, in which he suggests an alternative Budget, namely, that one-half of the relief that I am giving to taxation this year should not be devoted to the objects to which I propose to give it, but should be devoted to a further reduction of the beer duty. I 2012 can therefore well understand the hon. Member's desire to get rid of this Budget.
I am not going to taunt the Noble Lord who moved this Amendment and the hon. and gallant Member who supported it with having voted against an Amendment in these terms 12 months ago. Last year I voted in support of the Amendment which we are discussing on the proposition of the Noble Lord, and I voted for it last year because it was an Amendment which appealed to one's sympathy. But in a matter of this kind one should not allow his sympathies or his compassion to over-rule his reason or his judgment. Mr. Robert Lowe, once Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that it was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to distribute misery, and that he was the most successful Chancellor who distributed it evenly. But it appears to be the idea of hon. Members opposite who are responsible for this Amendment that it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to distribute compassion.
Under the present law, as hon. Members are aware, wound pensions are excluded from Income Tax assessment and now the Noble Lord wants that exemption extended to the pensions granted to widows. When the exemption with regard to wound pensions was conceded in 1919 this question of extending it still further to the pensions of soldiers' widows was fully considered by the House of Commons which decided against it. I would like to remind the Committee that. 1919 was the year which followed the end of the War, when sympathy with the soldier was at any rate more vocal than it is to-day, and yet at a time like that the House of Commons, after deliberately considering the question, decided that the concession granted in the case of wound pensions should not be extended to pensions enjoyed by widows. The Leader of the Opposition gave what I think was a very false comparison on that occasion. He compared awards given under the Workmen's Compensation Act to pensions enjoyed by the widows of soldiers. I think that is quite a false analogy. In the case of workmen's compensation, a lump sum and not a pension is awarded to the widow. The Noble Lord who submitted this Amendment admitted that this extension would benefit only comparatively well-to-do persons.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
If she had three children she would be entitled to total exemption under the existing scheme of Income Tax. Let me give one or two illustrations. With reference to the Noble Lord's remarks he admitted that it would not mean much to the widow of a private. For example, the widow with a pension of 26s. 8d. per week—about £66 a year, with no other income. Take the case of a subaltern's widow. She has a pension, say, of £140 a year, and in addition, she has an earned income of £200 a year. This widow would be relieved—I am assuming that there are no children—of £14 3s. 6d., or in effect, the pension would be increased from £140 to £154 a year. Let us take a more extreme case, the case of a Colonel's widow who is a Super-tax payer, with £2,500 a year. This widow would not only gain £43 15s. 3d. in Income Tax but also a further sum of £21 12s. in Super-tax. That is, if this Amendment were adopted, she would gain a total relief of £65 7s. 3d.
If this Amendment were adopted it would be, in effect, an addition to the pensions. There might be a case for increasing pensions, but that question ought to be considered independently of this one and on its merits. If there be a case for increasing pensions, it must be considered by itself, and the endeavour should not be made in this indirect way to get a substantial increase in these pensions. The Noble Lord said that he did not know how much it would cost. Well, the Bost would be fairly substantial. It would amount to about £200,000 a year, and I have already—either willingly or unwillingly—had to make concessions in the Budget which have made considerable inroads in the surplus at my disposal. Whatever, therefore, are the merits of this proposal, I cannot afford it. We shall have to consider, in the course of the afternoon, many other matters, all of which would make considerable inroads not merely into the revenue, but into the whole Income Tax structure, and if we were to go on accepting such Amendments as that before the Committee, we should be gradually whittling away the Income Tax altogether, excluding one class after another, until everybody was exempt. I remind hon. Members that I have reduced taxation this year by£40,000,000, and 2014 that if I were in office for another 20 years and did the same every year, then taxation would be entirely abolished. Hon. Members, therefore, I hope, will have regard to the reasons that I have put before them, though I admit the appeal of sentiment and compassion, and reject this Amendment.
§ Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE
With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's example of a widow who pays Super-tax, my impression is, although I cannot quite remember the figure—I think it is£400that no pension is given to a widow if she has an income over a certain amount. Thus a widow who pays Super-tax would not escape taxation, and if it be the case that no pension is given to a widow who has more than £400 a year, or whatever the sum be, surely this concession might be limited to that amount?
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I think there is some regulation of that sort applying to the general service pensions, but not to these, pensions.
§ Sir C. YATE
I am only talking of the widow's pension, owing to the death of her husband on service. Apart from questions of voting, I have my own feelings on this matter, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the suggestion that no widow who has more than £400 shall get any advantage. I think he might allow this concession.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Take the case of a widow with an income, say, of from £250 to£400 a year, who bas been living in a house and paying Inhabited Housed Duty. I have done away with that.
§ Mr. HARMSWORTH
This widow, like everybody else, will be let off Inhabited House Duty. That is an extreme argument to put forward in a case where we are only considering a certain section or class of the inhabitants. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would wish, when considering matters that affect either ex-servicemen or ex-servicemen's widows, to consider them in a different light, and as a matter separate from the affairs of the general community. I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to press the point that those widows were getting this year a certain amount off their Inhabited House Duty. He might have gone further and mentioned 2015 the case of tea and sugar. I am sure that the Committee would welcome a word from him as to the future. This matter, if it is to be put forward at all, should be put forward at once. It is no good waiting another year. The War has been over for six years, and if you are going to wait seven, eight, nine, or ten years after the War, the case will not arise. As the Amendment shows, it is only putting something right. For what reason should the widow of a man who was killed in the War pay Income Tax, and a man receiving a pension not pay Income Tax? If you do it in one case, you must do it in another. If you are going to exempt more people from Income Tax, other sections of the community will come forward.
These widows are in an entirely separate department. Every party in the House, I am sure, would wish to treat them as an entirely separate matter. I hope the Noble Lord who moved this Amendment will deprecate any speeches from a Party point of view. Any hon. Members who put forward the suggestion that a party is going to vote on, ex-service matters purely according to the Government that is in power, are not acting in accord with the history of the past few years. When we have had ex-service matters raised hon. Members of various parties have voted in different lobbies on these questions—not at all in agreement with their leaders, or the Government. Hon. Members behind the Government and those on this side of the Committee should vote—and I hope we shall vote—as they please as to whether they thing these widows are entitled to exemption from Income Tax on their pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a surplus at the end of the year. He says that very few people will benefit from the Amendment if it is carried. If that be so, the sum of money involved will not be very large. It will not cripple his Budget in any way, and if hon. Members think it is right, we should vote upon it this afternoon.
§ Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER
I differ entirely from the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). I do not think we shall make any progress if we come here with books to see which way we voted this year or last year. I think that is Conservatism of the worst type. According to the 2016 hon. Member, any hon. Member would always ask himself before voting, "How did I vote on this question last year in the House?" That is preposterous. I suggest that there is a much more honourable test, and that is this. Here is a case where some of us have given pledges to our constituents. In speeches, or in election addresses we have held out to the people the practical promise that, if they voted for us, we would vote for the abolition of Income Tax on the pensions of War widows. For anybody who has done that there can be only one honourable form of conduct, and that is to fulfil pledges given. I do not care whether he speaks on that side of the House or on this. Those who have given those pledges, who have obtained votes by putting forward that suggestion, are bound to implement their promises or to be subject to the charge of having obtained votes by fraudulent pretences. There are others who are not pledged on this point, who perhaps said nothing about it. They perhaps even voted against this Amendment last yeas. They were not returned to this House on a promise to carry out the proposal and then before, they are free. But I submit that there are in this House a certain number of men who are pledged to sup port this proposal and a certain number who have a free hand. We can simply regard this proposal on its merits to-day and say, "Is it a good proposal? Did we promise to support it or have we a free hand?"
§ Viscount EDNAM
I said before that I did not want to press the Amendment to a Division and I will keep my word. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am disappointed with this Clause in the Finance Bill, because I think there is a wrong which should be put right. I represent a very large number of these women and I know their feelings in this matter. It is beside the point whether they are comparatively rich or whether they have a very hard struggle to exist, as many of them have. What rankles is the feeling that they have to pay this Income Tax on a pension granted to them in consideration of their husbands' great sacrifice. I would suggest again that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering this question it would be more honest for the Government to curtail the pension and give the widows 2017 a net figure than to represent the pension as a net figure when it is not.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENN
As the Noble Lord is not allowed to pursue a course which I think shows great generosity and wisdom on his part, I propose to explain why I shall support the Government. I voted and spoke in favour of this Amendment last year. I understand that the Chancellor to-day is not closing the book on this proposal. He has said that for this year he cannot grant the demand. He has also said that the question whether these pensions were adequate or not would require careful and sympathetic consideration in the proper quarter. This Amendment must not be taken by itself. You must take all the Amendments on the Paper and ask yourselves whether you can support the policy of breaking the Budget. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say what is the aggregate cost of these concessions. It is hundreds of millions. It is no good hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Kirk dale (Sir J. Pennefather) saying that we are to judge this Amendment on its merits. He and his friends have put down a number of Amendments all of which have equal merits, but in the aggregate they represent a sum which would wreck the Budget. Therefore, I say, without any want of any want the of the people concerned—
§ Sir J. PENNEFATHER
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that every Amendment on the Paper should be rejected for fear of breaking the Budget?
§ Captain BENN
I say that the responsibility for seeing that the Budget is safely piloted rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I shall be guided largely by what he says. I hope that he will give credit to me, and to those who support me, that the Budget is also partly our Budget. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh!"] If he does not it is immaterial. There has been a great deal of throwing from one side to the other, "How did you vote last year?" The Parliamentary situation is entirely altered in this Parliament. Parliamentary institutions are on their trial. Whereas in the old days there was a Government with a majority which could force its way, and hon. Gentlemen opposite had an opportunity of making propaganda speeches, that is not the case 2018 to-day. Every Member of the House has to take his own personal share of the responsibility. If everyone who does not belong to the Government party is going to cast only a propaganda vote, it is not this Government's fate that concerns me, but Government in general that concerns me. If we pursue the policy which we have pursued in the past, namely, to cast a vote which is popular, knowing that we are bound to be defeated, we are making ourselves responsible for destroying the Parliamentary machine on which the good government of the country depends. I propose to vote with the Government against the Amendment.
§ Sir H. CRAIK
I am glad that the attitude adopted by the hon. and gallant Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) has been so completely repudiated by his colleague. I think that the bandying of the votes in particular cases, and the anxiety to accuse one another, are unworthy of this House. I listened with great pleasure and interest and sympathy to the Noble Lord who proposed the Amendment. I was very glad, indeed, to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted it with a great deal of sympathy, and probably held out some slight hope that, in one way or another, though not in this way, it might be met. I was glad, too, that the Noble Lord offered to withdraw the Amendment, because I say plainly that I should not have voted for it. No one is more sympathetic than I am towards these pensioners of all kinds, but surely our business is to make a pension adequate, and not to swell it out by various devices of exemption from this or that tax. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, like his predecessor in office, took a very reasonable attitude when he said, "I shall be prepared to consider an increase in these pensions, but I do not think that the proper way of doing that is to exempt them from this or that tax which they would otherwise have to pay." Otherwise, where is to be the end of this exemption from taxation? Surely in fixing the pension you took into account the burdens that would fall upon the holder of it. If we are not doing enough for the widow, let us boldly and generously increase the pension. Last year I voted against a similar Amendment, and I am sure that at the time I did so because I thought the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right. I shall do 2019 the same this time. I think that the Noble Lord who moved this Amendment in a most admirable way took the wise and expedient course in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS
I cannot agree that if we vote for this Amendment we are compelled to adopt every other Amendment on the Paper. This Amendment is aimed at the removal of a grievance of one class of persons who are in a peculiar position. It refers to the widow of a man who laid down his life during the War. The disability pension is exempt. I believe that, owing to the action of the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne), the allowances which were granted in aid of the children of officers killed in the War are also exempt. That leaves the widows' allowance as the sole allowance which is liable to Income Tax. I think that the time has come for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into consideration whether he is not able to relieve that allowance from Income Tax. It is rather an ungracious thing to give to a widow an allowance because her husband is lying in France, and then to take part of it back by way of taxation. It would be far better to make the allowance less in the first instance and to let the widow have it somplete. My conscience is quite clear. I have consistently and persistently voted for this Amendment ever since it came before Parliament, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give some hope that in next year's Budget he will make an effort to get rid of this grievance, I will vote in favour of the Budget as a whole, and I hope that the Noble Lord will be allowed to withdraw the Amendment. Unless some hope is held out for next year I shall vote for the Amendment.
§ Sir J. MARRIOTT
I desire to join in the very powerful appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer made by the last speaker. I wish to enter a protest
§ against what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn). In the first place, I desire to say—and I think I speak on behalf of many Members on this side of the Committee—that we are at least as jealous for the security a Parliamentary institutions as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself is. We feel quite as strongly as he that Parliamentary institutions are in some respects in a critical condition, and in other respects than those to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman alluded. The honour and security of Parliament are things that should be maintained. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, apparently on behalf of the Committee at large, that all the Amendments on the Paper were of equal value. On the contrary, I would join with the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesbrough East (Colonel P. Williams) in urging that there is a very special claim for consideration on behalf of this Amendment. It happens that I have the honour to represent a very considerable number of persons who are very closely concerned in this Amendment. Less than a week ago I was moving an Amendment in this House, asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the exemption from Death Duties of all soldiers who died on service, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer met us on that occasion in a very kindly and sympathetic way. I hope that he will extend equally kindly consideration to an Amendment which is on precisely similar lines. Here are the representatives of men who have laid down their lives for the country. They have a special claim on the generosity of this House, and I hope that the Chancellor, even if he is not able to give us the concession this year, will hold out the hope that before this time next year the matter will be very carefully and sympathetically reconsidered.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 211.2023
|Division No. 132.]||AYES.||[5.1 p.m.|
|Apsley, Lord||Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Butler, Sir Geoffrey|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Caine, Gordon Hall|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Briscoe, Captain Richard George||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase||Brittain, Sir Harry||Clayton. G. C.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Buckingham, Sir H.||Cohen, Major J. Brunel|
|Berry, Sir George||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Bullock, Captain M.||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Burman, J. B.||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert|
|Bourne, Robert Croft||Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Curzon, Captain Viscount|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lamb, J. Q.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Laverack, F. J.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Lumley, L. R.||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Dunnico, H.||McCrae, Sir George||Stanley, Lord|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Ednam, Viscount||MacDonald, R.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Elveden, Viscount||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Sunlight, J.|
|England, Colonel A.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Sutcliffe, T.|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Ferguson, H.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Franklin, L. B.||Meller, R. J.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Gates, Percy||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||Mond, H.||Waddington, R.|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Gretton, Colonel John||Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Hannon, Partrick Joseph Henry||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Harland, A.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Wells, S. R.|
|Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)||Penny, Frederick George||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Hood, Sir Joseph||Philipson, Mabel||Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.|
|Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie||Pleiou, D. P.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Wragg, Herbert|
|Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland,Northrn.)||Pilkington, R. R.||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Raine, W.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Huntingfield, Lord||Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Remnant, Sir James||Sir John Pennefather and Lieut.-|
|Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Colonel Spender-Clay.|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Dodds, S. R.||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Dukes, C.||Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Duncan, C.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Alden, Percy||Dunn, J. Freeman||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Alstead, R.||Egan, W. H.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Falconer, J.||Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Foot, Isaac||Keens, T.|
|Baker, Walter||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Kenyon, Barnet|
|Banton, G.||Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George|
|Barclay, R. Noton||George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Lansbury, George|
|Barnes, A.||Gosling, Harry||Law, A.|
|Batey, Joseph||Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)|
|Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.||Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Lawson, John James|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Leach, W.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lee, F.|
|Bonwick, A.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lessing, E.|
|Broad, F. A.||Groves, T.||Linfield, F. C.|
|Bromfield, William||Grundy, T. W.||Livingstone, A. M.|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Loverseed, J. F.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Lowth, T.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Lunn, William|
|Buckle, J.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||McEntee, V. L.|
|Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Mackinder, W.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Hardie, George D.||Mensal, Sir Courtenay|
|Chapple, Dr. William A.||Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||March, S.|
|Charleton, H. C||Hastings, Sir Patrick||Marley, James|
|Church, Major A. G.||Hastings, Somerville (Reading)||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)|
|Clarke, A.||Haycock, A. W.||Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)|
|Climle, R.||Hayday, Arthur||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hemmerde, E. G.||Middleton, G.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Mills, J. E.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Montague, Frederick|
|Compton, Joseph||Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)||Morel, E. D.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hillary, A. E.||Morris, R. H.|
|Costello, L. W. J.||Hindle, F.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)|
|Cove, W. G.||Hirst, G. H.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hobhouse, A. L.||Morse, W. E.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Hoffman, P. C.||Muir, John W.|
|Crittall, V. G.||Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Hudson, J. H.||Murray, Robert|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Isaacs, G. A.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Nichol, Robert|
|Dickson, T.||Jewson, Dorothea||Nixon, H.|
|O'Grady, Captain James||Sherwood, George Henry||Warne, G.H.|
|Owen, Major G.||Shinwell, Emanuel||Watson, W.M. (Dimfermline)|
|Paling, W.||Short, Alfred (Wedneebury)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D (Rhondda)|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Perry, S. F.||Simpson, J. Hope||Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Weston, John Wakefield|
|Phillips, Vivian||Smith, T. (Pontefract)||Westwood, J.|
|Potts, John S.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Snell, Harry||Whiteley, W.|
|Purcell, A. A.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wignall, James|
|Raffety, F. W.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.||Williams, David (Swansea. E.)|
|Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford||Spence, R.||Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)|
|Raynes, W. R.||Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)||Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)|
|Rea, W. Russell||Spoor, B. G.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Richards, R.||Stamford. T. W.||Willison, H.|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Ritson, J.||Sturrock, J. Leng||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Robertson. J. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||Windsor, Walter|
|Romeril, H. G.||Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Rose, Frank H.||Thornton, Maxwell R.||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Royle, C.||Thurtle, E.||Wright, W.|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Tout, W. J.||Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)|
|Scurr, John||Trevelyan, Rt Hon C.P.|
|Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)||Viant, S. P.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Sexton, James||Vivian, H.||Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr.|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wallhead, Richard C.||Kennedy.|