§ "As from the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, Entertainments. Duty within the meaning of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, amended by any subsequent enactment, shall cease to be chargeable."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. A. GREENWOOD
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I move this new Clause with the knowledge that I shall receive a very considerable measure of support from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, in his pre-occupation with other aspects of his Budget, overlooked the Entertainments Duty. What I propose to do is to draw his attention to something which, I feel quite sure, he will agree with us, ought to be done, and that is to abolish the duty. The right hon. Gentleman himself, so recently as last November, expressed the view that I am going to express now. He said:I am strongly in favour of the abolition of this tax and think it has a very high claim on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus.No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, when he made that statement, did not conceive himself in the position that he now occupies, but I have no doubt that that represents his considered view on this question, and I am hoping he will agree with what I have to say about it. The Entertainments Duty was a War tax, and, like most War taxes, was a bad tax. I think I am right in saying that no Chancellor of the Exchequer since its imposition has supported this duty. It was clearly understood by War-time Chancellors of the Exchequer that when the War came to an end, or at least within a reasonable period after the War—I believe two years—the Entertainments Duty should be abolished, and my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his remissions last year, said he had never liked the tax and that what he did last year was to be taken merely as an instalment, and an earnest of his intention to abolish the tax altogether. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in words which cannot bear two meanings, has expressed himself as being strongly in favour of its total abolition. I venture to say that this duty is 372 as stupid and as absurd as the old so-called taxes on knowledge. I think I am right in saying that when those old taxes on knowledge, on paper and on printed matter, were reduced there was considerable opposition on the ground that they were luxury taxes. I have heard it said in this House by hon. Members opposite that the Entertainments Duty is a luxury tax. I do not take that view. I think that this tax stands in a quite different category. It is a bad tax for many reasons.
We have in this country accepted the view that the wealthier people should contribute a greater proportion from income to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is reasonable. It is a principle of taxation admitted by all parties. But even with the remissions made last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) the Entertainments Duty is still an oppressive tax falling more heavily on the people who pay the lower prices of admission than it does upon those who pay more expensively for admission. On all prices of seats up to 1s. 3d. the present percentage of duty is from 14 to 20 per cent., but the percentage of tax on prices of admission of 15s. and above is between 11.6 per cent. and 13.3 per cent. In other words, the poorer the people the greater the percentage tax that they pay in Entertainments Duty.
When this tax was first introduced eight or nine years ago it was full of anomalies. As time has gone on, this House has tried to correct one anomaly after another, but the net result of those Amendments of the original tax has only been to create more anomalies and to draw a quite illogical and absurd line of demarcation between what is taxed and what is not taxed. Moreover, since this tax was first introduced new forms of entertainment have arisen. I understand, though I am not familiar with this question, that the cabaret entertainment did not exist when the Entertainment Duty was first imposed. To-day I believe cabarets are a fashionable source of entertainment, and yet they pay no Entertainment Duty. I believe, and again I have no knowledge of this particular form of entertainment, that night clubs, legislation for which has baffled the Home Secretary—places which failed to fortify the revenue as the right hon. 373 Gentleman would have them do—are no doubt providing considerable entertainments without assisting the Exchequer in the Entertainments Duty. It seems to me also that the entertainment providers have a sound ground of complaint, due to the quite recent development of broadcasting. I am not suggesting that broadcasting should be taxed through the Entertainment Duties but it seems to me they have a quite legitimate ground of complaint that broadcasting, which is becoming more and more popular, has not the same kind of duty to pay, while the entertainments industry, which is being used often enough to provide entertainment for those who listen in, is bearing this burden. Therefore, I suggest that since the duty was first imposed the character and problem of the entertainments industry as a whole has changed very substantially, and this rather absurd, vexatious duty ought now to be abolished in fulfilment of pledges made when it was first introduced.
This tax is not merely a tax on the entertainment of the people. It is a tax upon industry. I do not wish to go into whole question of the incidence of this tax but I would point out that the real cost of this duty is more than the amount that is collected by the Exchequer. Even if we suppose that the whole of the duty is paid by the consumer, that is to say by those who purchase tickets of admission to entertainments, the fact that the price of seats is higher will do something to lessen the demand for entertainment. There is no doubt that there is a limited amount of money to be spent upon entertainment. If entertainment charges were ten times as high as they are now, people would not pay for entertainment as they do to-day. Insofar as the addition to the tax borne by the consumer limits the demand for entertainment, it reacts unfavourably upon the entertainment providers, and it therefore tends to limit what the right hon. Gentleman receives in Entertainments Duty, whilst at the same time it restricts the resources from which the right hon. Gentleman draws Income Tax from those engaged in the entertainments industry. In fact, this tax, although it may be a tax upon consumers, is a tax which penalises a particular industry which I submit is deserving of encouragement.
374 The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are great supporters—they are the knight errants—to-day of industries of substantial importance that are in economic difficulties. We have had within the last few weeks proposals before this House to come to the assistance of industries which are in serious straits. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a little of his sympathy for depressed industries to the entertainments industry which for nearly 10 years has been subjected to a special duty over and above the taxes paid by all industries? Can he come to the aid of this industry, and show it a little sympathy, not by putting on a duty, not by providing it with money, but simply by removing an intolerable burden? It is an extraordinary thing that in this country the entertainments industry is in the grip of the Treasury, in the grip of the landlords with regard to the theatres; in the grip of the film renters in regard to the cinema; and yet abroad it has been the desire of public bodies to provide public money for the assistance of entertainment. I would suggest there is a very strong case for the right hon. Gentleman finally to abolish this duty. It is an industry of substantial importance. We have heard about industries of substantial importance. It is a necessary industry, because entertainment and education are important services in the life of the people, and it ought not to be penalised as it is being penalised to-day by a particularly obnoxious kind of tax which is not borne by any other industry. As time goes on, we shall find there will be alternative forms of entertainment not called upon to pay the duty, such as cabaret shows, which will be fostered at the expense of what might be called the legitimate industry. It seems to me quite fantastic and absurd that the man or woman who desires to see grand opera should have to pay the tax, while any frivolous person who wishes to waste a couple of hours at a cabaret show should be free of the tax. If there is to be a tax, it ought to be upon the cabaret show and should be taken off the legitimate forms of entertainment, which are really a form of national education. I should prefer to see the right hon. Gentleman not extracting these millions from the Entertainments Duty, but devoting an equivalent amount of money to the 375 encouragement of open air sports and entertainments and the encouragement of art, literature, music and the drama, rather than driving those people who are living by these services to contribute what is to them an exceptional burden to the Exchequer.
The sum which is raised by these taxes is not a very large one. It is one which the right hon. Gentleman, I feel sure, could manage to do without, and yet it is a sum which is bearing very heavily upon a legitimate industry. I hope that in view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's strong expression of view that he is in favour of the abolition of this tax, and that it is a case which has a very considerable claim upon his sympathies, he will see his way on this occasion to support us in the abolition of the duty. If he does so, it will be the only occasion probably, that I shall find myself in agreement with him so long as this Parliament lasts. At least, it will be a gesture of friendliness on his part, and it will be the straight thing for him to do, having regard to his expressed views and the justice of the case. It would meet with the approval of every party in this House, were he to abolish a duty which is antiquated and vexatious.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill)
I can extend to the hon. Member my measure of sympathy, but I am afraid that I am not able to carry that sentiment into practical action on this occasion. There is a very great deal of truth in what he says about the severe manner in which this duty has pressed upon the industry. The original intention of the tax was that it should be passed on to the consumer, that is to say, the public, but there have been reactions which have very seriously affected certain branches of the theatrical and entertainment profession. That was partly dealt with last year by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) in his Budget, by remissions of the duty amounting to about £4,000,000 out of the £9,500,000 which the duty was then estimated to produce. Those remissions did not, in my opinion, fully meet the difficulties of the industry. There are some theatres in particular, which are to a very large extent the home of drama in this country, which have the very highest possible productions and play a great part 376 in maintaining a high standard of theatrical art here, which did not share to an appreciable extent in the remissions which the right hon. Gentleman was able to give to the cheaper forms of entertainment and the cheaper seats.
I have certainly been very conscious of the hardship which presses upon the theatrical profession, and I should have been very glad had it been in my power to make some remission of the duty in this case, but an iron law restricts the liberty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever his sentiments may be, and however keen his sympathy. However much I might like to find myself in agreement, if only for once in this Parliament, with the hon. Member who moved this Motion, I am unable to find the money which would enable the tax to be reduced again this year. I carefully safeguarded myself, even when I was not a Member of this House, in saying that while I would like to see this duty removed, it could only be done in conjunction with a general survey of the finance of the year and in relation to the financial position. It is the financial position rather than the particular merits of the controversy which lead me to be unable to meet the wishes expressed by the Mover of the Motion. To reduce the duty as proposed would cost us £5,800,000 in a full year, and £4,000,000 in the present year. [An HON. MEMBER: "A penny on the Income Tax."] I believe it would be very much more inconvenient even than all the disadvantages of this duty, to put an additional penny on the Income Tax. To decrease the Income Tax by a standard rate of fivepence would involve a very great deal of friction and complication in all the calculations. Greatly as I should have liked to have increased in some manner the remissions which the hon. Member made from the Treasury last year, I find it is beyond my power to do so, and I must, therefore, meet with a dull, cold negative the appeal which has been made so engagingly by my hon. Friend.
We are not quite the masters of our own fate in this House in the matter of new Clauses. We might wish to move Clauses dealing in detail with this subject, for example, the remission of part of this taxation. I must not be held to be supporting, necessarily, the total abolition of this duty, by voting for this Motion to-day, although in 377 general principle I do support the remission of this tax. That part of the tax could be remitted, following upon what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did in the late Government, I have not the least doubt. I am totally unmoved by what the Chancellor says about the balance of his Budget, and not having any money for this purpose. The balance of this Budget has been steadily to increase the burden falling upon the poorer people. He has resisted every appeal made from this side to lighten that burden. Not one single concession has he given for the lower end of the scale of wealth. When he says he has no money, even for a small concession, I would remind him that had it not been for the presence of some of us here, much against our will, in the early hours of this morning, he would have smuggled through the Committee a proposal to give away a large sum of money, amounting to about £500,000, to landowners in this country. If he has got something in his private Budget, I mean the Budget which does not appear in his speeches but which is privately concocted by his officials, he could not do anything better than to select this, or one of the similarly inspired Amendments, as the object of his largesse. In view of what happened last night, I hope that we shall hear nothing more about his not having money to give away in concessions.
§ Colonel DAY
I beg to support the Motion. The Entertainments Duty is not only vicious but unjust, and it operates particularly hard upon the poorer patrons of places of entertainment. I will give some recent figures of what the poorer people have to pay in Entertainment Duty in comparison with the better class of seats. A person who pays anything between 8d. and 9d. has to pay a tax of 2d., which is 24 per cent. A person who pays 9d. for admission has to pay a tax of 2d., which is 22½ per cent. A person who pays 1s. 3d. has to pay a tax of 3d., which is 21½ per cent. A person who pays 1s. 4d. has to pay a tax of 4d., which is 25 per cent. A person who pays 1s. 6d. has to pay a tax of 4d., which is 22½ per cent. Now we come to the patrons of the better-class seats. A person who pays 5s. pays a tax of 9d., which is only 14 per cent. A person who pays 7s. 6d. pays a tax of 1s., which is only 14 per cent. A person who pays 20s. for a box pays a tax of 2s., which is only 12.5 per cent. A 378 person who pays 30s. pays a tax of 3s. 6d., which is 11.6 per cent. That shows that the persons who can afford the better priced seats are let off with exactly half the tax.
The proprietors of the entertainment industry are forced into collecting this Entertainments Duty, and making themselves Income Tax collectors for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition to that, they have to allow for expenses which are put on to their shoulders by the employment of additional clerks and auditors who audit their balance sheets so that they can be sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Further, they have to take out an insurance bond for which they have to pay. That is not the greatest hardship. The greatest hardship to the proprietors of these houses is that they are taxed on their takings. This is a tax not only on profits as in every other industry, but a tax on losses. The losses of the entertainment providers throughout the country during the last two or three years have been stupendous. This is a vexatious tax in the extreme.
The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the tax said that it was a device on his part to compel people who otherwise did not contribute to the revenue of the country to contribute to the War taxation which he was raising from all classes of the community. It was understood when that Budget was introduced that this tax would be abandoned in about two years after the Armistice. I have some very interesting statistics, which I have taken from a tour which comprised 13 halls in London and the provinces. In the case of this combine, which owns 16 theatres, the figures show that 131,000 people have paid for admission to the cheaper parts of the houses on which the tax has been remitted during the last 12 months, and in the other parts of the theatres the tax paid represents 19 per cent. of the net admissions. In one theatre in Cardiff 154,000 more people paid for admission into the cheaper parts of the theatre, on which the tax had been reduced or taken off, than in 1923. In one theatre in Nottingham 155,000 more people paid for admission in 1924 at the reduced prices over and above the number who patronised the theatre in 1923. That proves that the people want cheap amusement.
379 This tax operates in a manner the reverse of that in which Income Tax operates. In the case of Income Tax the people who earn the smallest income pay the smallest proportion of tax. As the income increases the proportion of tax also increases. But in the case of the Entertainments Duty the people who earn the smallest amount of money and patronise the cheapest seats have to pay twice the percentage that is paid by those who patronise the higher-priced seats. The yield of the tax is falling steadily. In 1920–21 it produced £11,750,000; in 1921–22 it dropped to £10,250,000; in 1922–23 it dropped to £9,603,000; in 1923–24 it dropped to £9,285,000; and at present, with the remissions made last year, the yield is £6,100,000. These figures tell their own story.
The hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause spoke of some of the anomalies. One very great anomaly is that at Preston a little while ago the people had to pay a tax for the seats that were erected to enable them to witness the guild show, but in London no tax was charged. Another great anomaly with reference to the Entertainments Tax is that in the West End of London anyone can go to one of the hotels and pay a pound or 30s., and, without having to pay an Entertainment Tax, see a first-class musical hall entertainment. Those who go there see a variety show, a cabaret show. They see girls with all the same dresses as are worn in a theatre. They have scenery and they have an exact replica of the performances in a West End theatre, but that is unfair competition. They are also allowed, in many of the clubs and hotels, to bring a guest for a payment of 7s. 6d. or sometimes 10s., and the guest sees a variety entertainment no different from what he sees in the West End variety theatres. That is unfair competition with these variety houses. I do not suggest that you should tax the cabaret or the hotels or the broadcasting companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] What I do suggest is that the tax should be abolished entirely.
This tax violates the fundamental principles of taxation as laid down for public finance. It is not a tax on income. It is a tax on losses, so far as the majority of theatrical proprietors are 380 concerned. We have heard a lot lately about bogus managers. The bogus manager is created by a touring manager touring the provinces and playing at theatres where both he and the proprietor of the theatre lose money simply because the Government take practically 20 per cent. of the admission money in taxes. The tax is wrong, and after the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which the hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood) has given us, I hope sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman will, in view of the very bad state of affairs in the variety and theatrical world, agree to the abolition of this tax. It is impossible for theatrical or variety managers to cut down expenses further. They have cut them down to a minimum. Their staffs have been reduced and, unfortunately, wages have been reduced and artists' salaries and contracts have all been varied. There is no way of saving a lot of the smaller proprietors from ruin except by the abolition of this tax.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
I wish to support this Clause, but from a point of view different from that which my hon. Friends have put forward. I want to see the Entertainments Duty abolished from the standpoint of unemployment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget, admitted that the remissions by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer of the taxes last year on tea, sugar and dried fruit had reached the consumer indirectly. Therefore, the working classes had a greater purchasing power, which meant the creation of more employment in some of the industries of the country. So far as the Entertainments Duty is concerned, the Chancellor has just admitted that remission was given to the extent of £4,500,000. That means that the money reached the majority of the working classes not indirectly but directly, because they did not pay the tax, and if they had £4,500,000 more directly to spend it must have created more employment in some of the industries of the country. Therefore, if the Chancellor would consent to the abolition of this tax now, which is something like £6,000,000, that amount would go directly into the pockets of 80 or 90 per cent. of the working classes of the country and this would help to create more employment.
381 The unemployment question is a vital question at the present time. Next Sunday is going to be called Unemployment Sunday. This question is going to be discussed in practically every part of the country from Scotland down to South Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Sabbath!"] I am going to break the Sabbath next Sunday by speaking on unemployment. I am going to take part in a demonstration next Sunday. The Chancellor could do something by remitting this tax. If we were only to set 10,000 or 20,000 people to work by reducing this tax, and thus giving more purchasing power to the working classes, he would have done some good. I hope that he will follow the good example of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and bestow some benefit on the whole of the working classes of the country.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
There is one point to which I wish to direct attention in connection with this matter. A very large body of the supporters of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been definitely committed to the abolition of this tax. How comes it about that apparently that section of the Committee seem to be able to get rid of their obligations in a remarkably easy manner? I have a special recollection that when the former Conservative Government were in office we had a great conference upstairs with the object of securing the abolition of the Entertainments Duty and hon. Members who took part in that conference were deeply concerned to secure that result. A deputation was authorised to wait on the Government of the day, and there was a feeling of great disappointment at the result. Last year, when we had the
§ Labour Government, pressure for the abolition of this tax was continued. Hon. Members opposite have now declared off. That is not honouring their obligations. We have heard criticism of the Labour party on this very score, but in this case we have men who have undertaken this obligation, and instead of seeking to fulfil it they are—and this is putting it very mildly—lying low and saying nothing on the subject. If that is what they call honourably fulfilling their promises, then they are entitled to any compliment that there may be.
§ Mr. MORRIS
I have no desire to enter into the merits of the Entertainments Duty, especially after the way in which the Chancellor expressed his sympathy with the objects of this Amendment. There is only one thing, he said, which prevents the remission, and that is the iron law which compels him to obtain the money. There is one consideration which may commend itself to him. He has so carefully balanced his Budget by taking taxes off on the one hand and imposing them on the other that he might apply that system of balancing his Budget now by relieving taxation in this way. He has imposed a tax on cinema films, and if he cannot see his way to grant the whole of the remission asked for in this Amendment, he might grant a remission the equivalent of the duty which he hopes to receive from the import duty on cinema films. I suggest that that is a balancing which might very well commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 249.385
|Division No. 160.]||AYES.||[7.46 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Charleton, H. C.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Clowes, S.||Greenall, T.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Compton, Joseph||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Connolly, M.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Baker, Walter||Cove, W. G.||Grundy, T. W.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Crawfurd, H. E.||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)|
|Barnes, A.||Dalton, Hugh||Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N)|
|Barr, J.||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Batey, Joseph||Day, Colonel Harry||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Duckworth, John||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Duncan, C.||Hardie, George D.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Briant, Frank||England, Colonel A.||Hayday, Arthur|
|Broad, F. A.||Forrest, W.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Bromfield, William||Gibbins, Joseph||Hirst, G. H.|
|Bromley, J.||Gillett, George M.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Buchanan, G.||Gosling, Harry||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)|
|Cape, Thomas||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Potts, John S.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)|
|Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-!e-Spring)||Thurtle, E.|
|Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Riley, Ben||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Ritson, J.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Viant, S. P.|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Kelly, W. T.||Saklatvala, Shapurji||Warne, G. H.|
|Kenyon, Barnet||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Kirkwood, D.||Scrymgeour, E.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Lansbury, George||Scurr, John||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Lawson, John James||Sexton, James||Welsh, J. C.|
|Lowth, T.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Lunn, William||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Whiteley, W.|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Mackinder, W.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Smillie, Robert||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|March, S.||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Maxton, James||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Montague, Frederick||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Morris, R. H.||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)||Windsor, Walter|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Stamford, T. W.||Wright, W.|
|Murnin, H.||Stephen, Campbell||Young, E. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Palin, John Henry||Sutton, J. E.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Paling, W.||Taylor, R. A.|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)||Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Hayes.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Clarry, Reginald George||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Albery, Irving James||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Harland, A.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Cooper, A. Duff||Harrison, G. J. C.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Cope, Major William||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)|
|Atkinson, C.||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.||Hawke, John Anthony|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)|
|Barclay-Harvey C. M.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Crook, C. W.||Henn, Sir Sydney H|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hilton, Cecil|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Berry, Sir George||Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry||Holland, Sir Arthur|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Holt, Capt. H. P.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Dalziel, Sir Davison||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.||Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Drewe, C.||Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hiffe, Sir Edward M.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Elliot, Captain Walter E.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Ellis, R. G.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Elveden, Viscount||Jacob, A. E.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Kindersley, Major Guy M.|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Fermoy, Lord||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Burman, J. B.||Fielden, E. B.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Fleming, D. P.||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)|
|Cassels, J. D.||Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||Loder, J. de V.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Looker, Herbert William|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Lougher, L.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Gates, Percy||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Gee, Captain R.||Lumley, L. R.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lynn, Sir Robert J.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Chilcott, Sir Warden||Grace, John||McLean, Major A.|
|Christie, J. A.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Gretton, Colonel John||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steal-|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Margesson, Captain D.||Preston, William||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Radford, E. A.||Storry, Deans, R.|
|Meller, R. J.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Merriman, F. B.||Rawson, Alfred Cooper||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Meyer, Sir Frank||Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Remer, J. R.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Remnant, Sir James||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Moles, Thomas||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Moore, Sir Newton J.||Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.||Waddington, R.|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Moreing, Captain A. H.||Rye, F. G.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Salmon, Major I.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Watts, Dr. T.|
|Murchison, C. K.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wells, S. R.|
|Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph||Sandeman, A. Stewart||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple|
|Neville, R. J.||Sandon, Lord||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Shepperson, E. W.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Oakley, T.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Skelton, A. N.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Pennefather, Sir John||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon||Womersley, W. J.|
|Penny, Frederick George||Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Smithers, Waldron||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Perring, William George||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Pilcher, G.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.|