§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Amendment to trip Resolution in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Trees-Smith)-in line 2, to leave out the word year, and insert the words six months —is not one which I can take. I will call the hon. Member on the Main Question.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHThis is the Resolution by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced the Income Tax by 6d. in the £ involving a loss to the revenue of £24,000,000 this year, and of £32,000,000 in a full year. Of all the changes in the Budget, it is to this reduction of Income Tax and of Super-tax that we, on these benches, have the strongest objection. In the general Budget Debate other speakers and myself gave our broad objections to this reduction, but we wish to take this opportunity of summarising, I hope at not very great length, what our objections are, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that they are serious and, I think I may say, more or less scientific and well founded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that this reduction of Income Tax and Super-tax would be an encouragement to enterprise through a relief of the burden resting upon industry, anti practically every newspaper has been telling us for the last six months that, if you wish to encourage 1299 enterprise and to remove the burden upon it, a reduction of the Income Tax was the best method of carrying out that purpose; but we believe that this is one of the most mischievous delusions which the associations, chambers, and federations of British industry are continually trying to impress upon the public mind, anti we wish to take this opportunity of showing exactly why we consider it a delusion, not merely on the general principles of Socialism, but basing our contention upon the arguments of the Federation of British Industries itself
We say that, if you wish to stimulate industry and enterprise, you ought to relieve your taxation in such a way as to concentrate your relief upon the active and vital factors in industry upon which enterprise depends, and that is what a relief of the Income Tax fails to do. It gives certain relief to these factors, but it spreads the relief at the same time over the whole interest-receiving, bond-owning, passive rentier class—it cannot be denied that this will relieve them as much as anybody else—the, class who do nothing to help enterprise and industry, but who merely receive the products of the labour and enterprise of others
Does it assist enterprise and industry to reduce the Income Tax of those who live upon rents, or mortgages, or the different classes of shareholders, or to those who have retired and live on pensions? I say that in this Parliament we are upon strong ground, because that is an argument which I have never yet heard answered, and I should like to hear an answer to-night. It is as argument based upon the figures collected by Sir Josiah Stamp, who has pointed out again and again that five-sixths of the reduction in Income Tax goes to that class of Income Tax payers whose influence upon enterprise and industry is practically negligible, and only one-sixth goes to the active elements of the business community. It is not the first time I have used the argument, but I have not yet had it answered
May I take another point? We say that of all taxes that are imposed the Income Tax is almost the best in its success in raising revenue without an immediate burden upon industry and enterprise. For this reason—if I may in two or three sentences develop what we believe is a serious argument—that on 1300 the whole the Income Tax does not add to the price of the things which British industry produces Let me explain. A tax will increase the price if it adds to the standing charges on a business, or to the cost of production. That surely is true! We quite see that no manufacturer is going to continue his business if, in the long run, he cannot meet the standing charges, therefore, he must charge a price to cover them. But the Income Tax is only paid out of the profits that are left after the standing charges and the cost of production has been covered. If there are no profits there is no tax. Hon. Members may be amused at that, but I shall be pleased if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer that argument
That leads us to this conclusion, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not diminishing the total taxation which he is levying. I think he is sightly increasing it. He has not diminished the total. We say that if you are going to levy a certain amount in taxation and you reduce the Income Tax, and then in order to make up the sum you have lost you impose a charge which adds to the standing charges of the business and the cost of production you have not increased the revenue one sixth but delivered a blow at trade and industry as a whole. That is exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, because he has reduced the Income Tax, and lost a sum of about 232,000,000 in a full year. It is because of that fact that he has been compelled to place this orphans, widows, and old age pensions scheme upon a contributory basis. What does that mean? It means that he has increased the standing charges on business, and compelled manufacturers to increase their prices at the rate of about £1 per man every year. Take the export trade. During discussions on unemployment it has been pointed out by Members on every side of the House that the greater amount of unemployment is concentrated on the export trades, and we have been told that as a result the export. trades are paying practically no dividends and receiving no profits. I accept the statement. What is their position? Under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme those export trades have got their charges increased at the rate of £1 per man per year, and, therefore, are com- 1301 pelled to increase their prices in those very neutral markets where they have to hold their own in competition with the foreigner. An hon. Member asks about Income Tax.
§ Captain BRASSI said, Because of the Income Tax.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHI am talking about the contributory system.
§ Captain BRASSAnd I am talking about. the Income Tax.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHWell, let us take the Income Tax. Since the whole argument is that those trades are making no profits and receiving no dividends, there would be no Income Tax at all. I come to my last point. In the general Budget Debate I gave certain figures, on which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury commented next day, of the relief that the reduction Income Tax gave to different groups of Income Tax payers. I pointed out that the class of Income Tax payers who earned about 1500 a year will obtain a relief of about £6. I then said that the Super-tax payers as a whole, the class over £2, 000 a year, will obtain from this Budget, on au average, £150 a year each.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONOn the Income Tax alone?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHOn Income. Tax alone. And then I said that if you take the class over £5, 000 a year, the super Super-tax payers, they will obtain on an average out of this Budget £300 from the reduction of Income Tax and another 8200 a year from the reduction of Supertax, making £500 a year all told. [An HON. MEMBER: Rubbish !] An hon. Member opposite says rubbish. As a matter of fact, the Financial Secretary answered me the next day, and he did not contradict my statement. What he did was to give statistics with quite different results to mine, but he did not dispute the accuracy of the facts which I have just placed before the House. The Financial Secretary based his figures upon percentages, and consequently he got different results. I am not going to enter into a detailed dispute about statistics of this sort. Broadly, our whole criticism is summarised in this way. When you are introducing a Budget you ought to consider the special circumstances of the year in which it. is opened
At this moment we are suffering from trade depression of a rather special 1302 character, because so much of it is concentrated on a small group of trades mainly those engaged in the export business. Our contention is that. under these circumstances you should have adopted a system by which the relief was given to those trades and industries which were struggling against the gravest difficulties. Instead of that, the Government have adopted a system by which the greatest relief is given to those individuals who are already obtaining the greatest share of the national wealth. That is our criticism of this Budget, and that is why we say, and shall continue to repeat., that this is a Budget produced by rich men for rich men, and it is the most selfish Budget since the close of the War.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI wish to join in the opposition to the reduction of the Income Tax, and I would like to preface my remarks by saying that in my opinion this is the biggest fraud of a Budget on the people of this country that we have ever known. It is a Budget that purports to give relief here and there, and in the end, as we have just heard, it gives no relief at all. The workers, we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, got their relief last year by the reduction of the Tea Duty. but the right hon. Gentleman forgot that a few minutes before, he admitted that the bulk of that relief had been taken by the profiteers in the tea business. and that relief was wiped out ban increase in the price of tea. I think that everybody will agree that the proper method of paying the necessary cost of running the nation should be a levy on all the adult population in accordance with their ability to pay.
I would sweep away every tax except the Income Tax, in order that people should pay in accordance with their ability to pay. The present system, under which you have this juggling with fancy taxes. is that nobody in the country, certainly, no working woman, knows how much she has to pay in rates or taxes year by year. It is well known that the method of covering up taxation in a fashion such as is developed in this Budget, is one deliberately designed to disguise the fact that in the end the working class have to bear the brunt of the burden of carrying on the country. The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement with reference to mothers' pensions, told us that 1303 the employers are going to get their relief for the 4d. per week per man in this reduction of the Income Tax rate from 4s. 6d. to 4s. I think that that is about as mean a thing as any Chancellor could do, because it is attempting to carry cut an entirely new policy with regard to the victims of our industrial system. Up to the present, society, in one way or another, has borne the cost of maintaining the victims. It may be that they have been maintained in a very miserable, niggardly, mean manner, but the cost has been put upon the community, either in the shape of rates or taxes. Now the right hon. Gentleman, in, I think, a very clever, a very astute, and, I repeat, a very mean manner, is going to put upon the working class the burden of maintaining the victims of the industrial system.
He and the Government are also going to attack the men who are in receipt of unemployment benefit. He made the extraordinary statement, for him, the other night, that he was rather disturbed —I am not sure that that is the exact word—that he could not understand how it was that trade was flourishing and still there was such a volume of unemployment. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who founded the first Employment. Exchanges, would have known that the reason for that is very simple indeed. It is that the methods of production have been so speeded up, so improved that the output per man is so much greater to-day that you can have a bigger volume of production and fewer people employed. I should have thought that there would have been no dispute with the right hon. Gentleman about that, because, as I have said, he has had some experience in matters connected with industry. That brings me to this, that all this outcry against paying Income Tax is to me most extraordinary. Before I had to pay Income Tax, I should have been at any time very glad to have been in receipt of the income on which to pay a tax, and I do not understand people who get huge incomes worrying themselves because a tax is levied upon those incomes. It is the want of an income that worries most of the people in my constituency.
It is said that the Income Tax hurts industry, that it prevents the develop- 1304 ment of industry. I am going to give some figures, not from the "Daily Herald," or from any Bolshevik or Labour newspaper, but from newspapers likethe "Economist" and the "Statist." If you take the net capital of estates assessed for Death Duties, for the year 1913-14, it amounted to £282, 000, 000, for 1921-22 to £402, 000, 000, and for 1922-23 to £431, 000, 000. It looks as though the heavier you are taxed the better you do. Then the gross income brought under review for Income Tax in 1913-14 was £1, 167, 000, 000, and in 1922-23 £2, 900, 000, 000, and it seems to me that proves conclusively that the levying of Income Tax and Super-tax has not prevented people making a good deal of money, and if you wonder why people are unemployed it is due to the fact I just spoke about. Then, apart from rent and War Loan dividends, the money appears to come in in increasing amount from what are called our depressed industries. Of £134. 000, 000 of industrial shares comprised in deceased estates in 1922-23, SI per cent. was held by owners of estates exceeding £10, 000 in value. The new capital in United Kingdom business in the first quarter of 1913 was only 27, 500, 000, butin 1925, after the most terrific war in history, when the country is told it has not the means of standing on its feet, there was new capital in the first quarter of £37. 400, 000 an increase Of £30, 000, 000
Those figures show that, in spite of the increase in unemployment, industrial profits must be going up. The "Times" newspaper, which I suppose will not be denounced as a Socialist paper, says industries have been able to restore a margin of profit on a level of prices and output which does not permit the full employment of labour in the industry. That really is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry the other day. The "Economist" says if you take an analysis of industrial profits, taking the accounts published during the last quarter, they show that 425 companies made a profit of:E45, 000, 000, as compared with £41, 000, 000 in the previous year, an increase of 9. 1 per cent. That is only the culmination. Remember, you have had Super-tax and Income Tax and Excess Profits Duty, and still the people who are in control go on making money in 1305 this fashion. if you take net profits for 1922, 7 per cent. —these are average profits-1923, 9. 8 per cent.:1925, first quarter, 11 per cent. —if it is said that any of these are too small. remember there is such a thing as watered capital. The same newspaper gives us 10 companies whose capital has been watered down. I do not think I ought to read out the names, but I will give the figures. They are big industrial concerns, and when you are considering the rate of interest you must also take into account that that is interest on a considerably watered capital. One com pany £2, 805, 000, another £2, 000, 000, another £2, 000, 000, another £2, 000, 000, another 11, 534, 000, another £1, 095, 000, another £1, 100, 000, another £1, 000, 000, the next £800, 000, the next £573, 000. That is a total of £15, 000, 000 of watered capital in 10 companies. Then take profits in coal. There is one of the biggest companies in South Wales, where the men are literally starving to-day. Their profits in 1913 were £338, 500, and in 1923 £523, 800. In 1924, in spite of the heavy reduction, it is still about the 1913 figure. £356, 800. Take another of the big South Wales companies. In 1914 £215, 300, and in 1921 £578, 000. That is a company operating in the midst of the South Wales coalfield, where we are told it is the worker's wages and the ca'canny of the workers that has brought about the depression in the South Wales mining trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "Among how many companies were these profits distributed?"] I do not care. They made the profits, that is all I care about. I can give you the companies if you would like them read out.
§ Mr. LANSBURYNo, I will not! [Laughter.] Certainly I will not. The point is. —
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe are working now under an arrangement made by the House. I think the less interruption we have the better, in order to get on with the business.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe point I am making all the time is that, in spite of the unemployment, in spite of the million 1306 and a-quarter of men out of work, and in spite of the Super-tax, Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax, the dividends are going up for these various companies. It is not a question of there being no money. If you take shipping, one big company in 1913 made £430, 200, and in 1924 £747, 800. Another one made £554, 700 in 1913, and £976, 200 in 1924—and a lot more with which I will not bother the House, because we are working to a time-table. But if you take the wages of the workers during this same period—and I could have given you not only shipping companies and coal companies, but engineering companies and distributing companics, every one of whose profits had been going up—you will find the workers' wages have been going down. Something like £500, 000, 000 has been taken off the wages of the working class, and we are told now in this Budget that the scheme which the Government are going to bring in to finance. the widows' pensions and pensions for orphans, and old age pensions, means that the workers must pay the cost themselves. The people who ought to pay are those who are taking these profits and dividends, and instead of cutting down Income Tax and by putting a little on the Death Duties taking something off the Super-tax, we should have raised more money by Income Tax and Death Duties, and have a bigger Super-tax. I think the money for these purposes of social service should come from where the money is, and I think the place where the money is is in those companies and those people who are taking the money in the earnings of the workers in the fashion that I have just read out. Do what we will, and say what we may, in the end it is only the working people who pay everything that there is to be paid in the community. There is no money that comes out of the pits and no money that comes from shipping which they do not provide. There is no mining rent and royalty owner who gets a farthing unless the worker goes into the mine to dig the coal to enable the tax to be paid on the coal getting. That is as clear as daylight.
All the time in this House we are being told that there is no money for social reform. We are told that we must be very economical and must not waste any money. If we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer with real courage he would 1307 have tackled the problem of the War Debt, which means that £300, 000. 000 or so comes out of one pocket of the rich man and into the other pocket of the rich man. We are told that there are a large number of poor people who hold War stock; but the bulk who hold War stock are rich people. We can find all the money needed to pay the debt on the war loan, all the money needed to provide for future wars, and all the money needed for everything else but social reform. Out of a Budget of £800, 000, 000 this year, how much is going to be spent on the actual services for the people. About £200. 000, 000. The rest goes in payment for the debts of the War, in preparing for future wars, and for the machinery of government. It is time that the common, ordinary people who work hard in order that you may have this money with which to gamble were considered. Instead of trying to levy more charges on them week after week for the pensions you are going to provide for them, because they cannot provide for themselves because they are robbed every day at. their work, the House ought to revise the whole of the Budget, and see that we provide the means for maintaining the victims of the industrial system.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWe are working, as you have reminded us, Mr. Speaker, under a definite agreement, and in view of that it would be impossible for me to attempt to make an adequate reply to the very interesting speeches to which we have listened. Those speeches raise very wide and deep disputes. The hon. Member who spoke last developed an entirely new theory of taxation, which I should very much like, if time permitted, to examine in detail. He is what we may call a single taxer. His single tax is the Income Tax. He said that the single tax that he would vote for would he the Income Tax.
§ Mr. LANSBURYHear, hear!
§ 11. 0 P. M.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLHe would like to see all the money raised by Income Tax. That is an interesting theory, which runs counter to the veryimportant theory of those who say that the land should provide all taxation by means of the taxation of land values. There is another very important theory for raising revenue put 1308 forward by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), that of the Capital Levy. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has a perfect right to speak on these matters. We all know the success and skill with which he guided the finances of Poplar, and I can assure him that his theories will always be followed with the greatest attention by His Majesty's Government. After all we are only at the beginning of these things, and it would he a great pity if the Budget of the year went through without these issues being treated in the full light of day in solid and effective debate. Within the limits of time which are imposed on us to-night, I could not in justice to the arguments of hon. Members put our counter case. All I will permit myself to say is that, terrible as are the conditions in this country, unjust and invidious as the hon. Member considers its taxation to be, harsh and oppressive as is the lot of the wage-earning class, according to him, nevertheless, there is no country in the world where the rate of direct taxation is so high, or where the direct taxation is so punctiliously paid.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONThey are able to pay it better than any other country.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not know about that. I should have thought That in the United States, with its enormous accumulation of wealth and the comparatively small burden which it has to bear as the outcome of the Great War, they could have afforded to pay a higher ratio of direct taxation in proportion to their total budget than we. in this country are able to do. But, however that may be, the fact remains that this country pays a larger proportion of its expenses in direct taxation by Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties than any other country. The second fact is that the social services in this country of all kinds are on a more extensive scale, and, on the whole. on a higher level than those of any other country, not. even excluding the wealthy, prosperous United States of America. The third fact is that. in this country, where the rate of direct taxation is at a maximum, unprecedented, unparalleled, incomparable, there is also this sinister and singular manifestation of unemployment in its extreme form. I think that these are matters which require to he con- 1309 sidered before a hasty judgment is formed on the position which is so greatly deplored by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment
The argument of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley suggests that it is better not to make any reduction in the Income Tax. Indeed, we are told that it should be very greatly increased. The first reason against that is that this country is more highly taxed in this respect titan any other country. What is the second reason? It is that the ratio between direct and indirect taxation had, during the War, been markedly altered to the disadvantage of the direct taxpayer. It was about 50-50 before the War. It mounted in 1923 to 63½direct against 36; indirect. Then came the right hon. Gentleman, my predecessor, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made enormous remissions of indirect taxation. do not know that he got any great measure of enthusiastic reward or return from the electorate for those great remissions. Rut I am quite ready to recognise that they were benevolently conceived. He raised the ratio of direct taxation from 63 per cent. to 66i per cent., and depressed the ratio of indirect taxation from 36½ to 33½ per cent. All that the present Budget does is to balance a little that considerable change. We alter the relation of direct and indirect taxation very slightly indeed—almost exactly 1 percent. The taxation, as the result of this Budget, will be 65. 9 per cent. direct and 34. 1 percent. indirect; that is to say, it is 1 percent mole favourable to the direct taxpayer than the relation established by the right ton. Gentleman opposite, and about, 2 per cent. less favourable to the direct taxpayer than the conditions which existed before his Budget of last year. It is clear, therefore, that all we are doing, in giving a remission of 6d. in the C o; the standard rate of Income Tax, is to balance fairly the remission of indirect taxation of which the right hon. Gentleman made such a feature last year. The right hon. Gentleman foresaw that some action of this kind would be necessary. because last year, in the course of the Budget Debate, speaking as the first Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Socialist party, and with the full authority which attached to aim in his position, and with the full authority which attached to him apart from his 1310 position, because of his influence in his party, he said:
He must not be taken to imply that he anticipated the permanent maintenance of a 4s. tid. Income Tax.I think that that was quite a natural thing to say. He felt, perhaps, that he would have only one Budget to produce—I mean on that occasion—and he wished to make a great remission of indirect taxation. He thought it only fair to state that he saw no reason to believe that the Income Tax was permanently to remain at the rate of 4s. 6d. So we, in the step which we have taken, in balancing, in giving a counterpart of his Budget of last year, are really only following out the policy which he recommended and foreshadowed last year. There are other important issues. but I find it the less necessary to discuss them, because the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, and the speech of the hon. Member far Poplar [HON. MEMBERS: Bow and Bromley!]—Bow and Bromley. I beg the hon. Member's pardon; its fame lingers. The two speeches together state the opposite of the views which we hold, the opposite of the. principles on which we are administering the finances of the country, so clearly, so simply and so plainly, that I could not leave the question in better circumstances to the judgment of the House.
Mr. RAMSAYMacDONALDI do not rise to pursue the Debate. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that. it would be a very delightful exercise to examine the difference between his persiflage and his economic arguments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he proposes to justify certain provisions of the Budget, does not fulfil his duty, either to this House or to the country, to say that a speech made by one hon. Member is answered by a speech made by another hon. Member, which we want him to answer. We will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer other opportunities when the. Finance Bill is before us to answer the question, why it is he introduces this reduction of 6d. in the pound on the Income Tax. I can assure him, while we listen to his humour with great interest, we will not be misled, as some hon. Members opposite apparently are. that his humour is an economic argument justifying this proposal. But why I have 1311 risen is to say that we are working, as has been said, under an agreement, and we. want to carry it out. The agreement was that by half-past eleven we should give these Resolutions, with the exception 4 the silk Resolutions. Therefore, what propose to do is that we should now have a Division on this Income Tax Resolution, and also a Division on the Super-tax Resolution, and then the. others can go for the time being, and further Debate. be postponed until we have the matter before us in connection with the Finance Bill.
Captain BENNIn order to avoid misunderstanding, I hope that when the question of the Super-tax reduction is put, someone representing those among whom I sit will have an opportunity briefly to express our position.
§ Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSI think it is very unfortunate that so much time has been taken up over the McKenna Duties and the Hop Duty, as not to leave a fair chance to some Members on this side who desired to deal with the Super-tax and Death Duties. I, personally, have no desire in any way to interfere with any arrangement that has been made, but I must express my regret that many on this side who wished to discuss these matters, and some had put clown Amendments, are entirely deprived of the opportunity of discussing matters of very great importance to this country.
§
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 328; Noes, 136.
1315| Division No. 89.] | AYES. | [11. 15p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cassels, J. D. | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Fairfax, Captain J. G. |
| Albery, Irving James | Cazalet. Captain Victor A. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Falls, Sir Charles F. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Charterls, Brlgadier-General J. | Fermoy, Lord |
| Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby) | Chilcott, Sir Warden | Fleming, D. P. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Christie, J. A. | Ford. P. J. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Forestier-Walker, L. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Churchman, Sir Arthur C. | Forrest, W. |
| Ashmead-Bartiett, E. | Clarry, Reginald George | Foster, Sir Harry S |
| Astbury. Lieut.-Commander, F. W. | Clayton, G. C. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Atkinson, C. | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Frece, Sir Walter de |
| Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence | Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K. | Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Conway, Sir W. Martin | Gadle, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cooper, A. Duff | Galbraith, J. F. w. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cope, Major William | Ganzonl, Sir John |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Couper, J. B. | Gates, Percy |
| Beamish, Captain T. P. H. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. | Gee, Captain R. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drnke) | Craig, Ernest(Chester, Crewe) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Bennett, A. J. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Goff. Sir Park |
| Bethell. A. | Crook, C. W. | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Bettcrton, Henry B. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Derilend) | Grace, John |
| Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) | Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Grant, J. A. |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro) | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Blades, Sir George Rowland | Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert | Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w.E) |
| Boothby. R. J. G. | Curzon. Captain Viscount | Greenwood, William (Stockport) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Dalkeith, Earl of | Gretton, Colonel John |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Dalziel, Sir Davison | Grotrian, H. Brent |
| Brass, Captain W. | Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Bridgeman Rt. Hon. William Clive | Davidson, Major-General Sir John. H. | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Briggs J. Harold | Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil) | Kail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Davles. Sir Thomas (Cirencestcr) | Hammersicy, S. S. |
| Brockiebank, C. E. R. | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hanbury, C. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Doyle, Sir N. Grattan | Harland, A. |
| Brown, Maj, D.C.(N'th'j'd., Hexham) | Drewe, C. | Harney. E. A. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) | Duckworth, John | Harrison. G. J. C. |
| Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Eden, Captain Anthony | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) |
| Bullock, Captain M. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes.) |
| Burman, J. B | Edwards, John H. (Accrington) | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D. | Elliot, Captain Walter E. | Hawke, John Anthony |
| Burton Colonel H. W. | Eillis, R. G. | Headlam. Lieut.-Colonel C. M. |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Erskine, Lord(Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxt'd, Henley) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth | Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) |
| Calne Gordon Halt | Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) | Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Henn, Sir Sydney H. |
| Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) | Moore, Sir Newton J. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n &Kinc'dlne,C.) |
| Holland, Sir Arthur | Morden, Col. W. Grant | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Holt, Captain H. P. | Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Homan, C. W. J. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Murchison, C. K. | Spender Clay, Colonel H. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph | sprot, sir Alexander |
| Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. | Nelson, Sir Frank | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E.) |
| Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.) | Neville, R. J. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Newton, Sir O. G. C. (Cambridge) | steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Nicholson. O. (Westminster) | Storry Deans, R. |
| Huntingfield, Lord | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Nuttall, Ellis | Strickland, Sir Gerald |
| Hutchison. G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's) | Oakley, T. | Stuart, Crichton, Lord C. |
| Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) | O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Iliffe, Sir Edward M. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Styles, Captain H. Walter |
| Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. | Ormsby. Gore, Hon. William | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth Cen'l) | Owen, Major G. | Sugden, Sir Wilfred |
| Jacob, A. E. | Penny, Frederick George | Sykes, Major-Gen, sir Frederick H. |
| James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Templeton, W. P. |
| Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Perring, William George | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. South) |
| King. Captain Henry Douglas | Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.) |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Phllipson Mabel | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Lamb, J. Q. | Pielou, D. P. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p. |
| Lane Fox, Colonel George R. | Pitcher, G. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Leigh, Sir John(Clapham) | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Price, Major C. W. M. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Little, Dr. E. Graham | Radford, E. A. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Raino, W. | Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley) |
| Loder, J. de V. | Ramsden, E. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisie) |
| Lord, Walter Greaves- | Rawson, Alfred Cooper | Watts, Dr. T. |
| Lougher, L. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Wells, S. R. |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington) | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Luce, Major-Gen. sir Richard Harman | Reid, D. D. (County Down) | White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple |
| Lumley, L. R. | Remer, J. R. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| MacAndrew, Charles Glen | Remnant, Sir James | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham) |
| Macdonald, sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Rentoul. G. S. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U | Winby, Colonel L. P. |
| Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) | Rice, Sir Frederick | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Macintyre, Ian | Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| McLean, Major A | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Macmillan, Captain H. | Ropner, Major L. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm | Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A. | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| McNelll, Rt. Hon. Ronald John | Russell, Alexander West(Tynemouth) | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Rye F. G. | Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W). |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Salmon, Major I. | Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| MacRobert, Alexander M. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Sandeman, A. Stewart | Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T. |
| Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn | Sanders, Sir Robert A. | |
| Margesson, Capt. D. | Sanderson, Sir Frank | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry |
| Meller, R. J. | Savery, S. S. | Barnston. |
| Merriman, F. B. | Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y) | |
| NOES | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West) | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Groves, T. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Compton, Joseph | Grundy, T. W. |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Connolly, M. | Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Cove, W. G. | Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Dalton, Hugh | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hardle. George D. |
| Barnes, A. | Day, Colonel Harry | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Barr, J. | Dennison, R. | Hastings, Sir Patrick |
| Batey, Joseph | Duncan. C. | Hayday, Arthur |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Dunnico, H. | Hayes, John Henry |
| Broad, F. A | Gillett, George M. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Bromfield, William | Gosling, Harry | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Hirst, G. H. |
| Buchanan, G. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Cape, Thomas | Greenall, T. | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | John. William (Rhondda, West) |
| Clowes, S. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Thurtle, E. |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Riley, Ben | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Kelly, W. T. | Ritson, J. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. |
| Kirkwood, D. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich) | Varley, Frank B. |
| Lansbury, George | Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) | Viant, S. P. |
| Lawson, john James | Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) | Wallhead, Richard C |
| Lee, F. | Rose, Frank H. | Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen |
| Lindley, F. W. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Lowth, T. | Scrymgeour, E. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Lunn, William | Sexton, James | Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Mackinder, W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Welsh, J. C. |
| Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Sitch, Charles H. | Westwood, J. |
| March, S. | Slesser, Sir Henry H. | Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Maxton, James | Smillie, Robert | Whiteley, W. |
| Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wignall, James |
| Montague, Frederick | Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley) | Wilkinson, Ellen C |
| Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Murnin, H. | Snell, Harry | Williams, Or. J. H (Lianelly) |
| Naylor, T. E | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Oliver, George Harold | Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Palin, John Henry | Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Paling, W | Stamford, T. w | Windsor, Walter |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Stephen, Campbell | Wright, W. |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Sutton, J. E. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur | Taylor, R. A. | |
| Potts, John S. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne. |
Eighth Resolution read a Second time.