§ Sub-section (1) of Section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1925 (which makes allowances in respect of earned income), shall have effect as if for the words "one-sixth" there were substituted the words "one-fifth."—[Mr. J. Hudson.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. J. HUDSON
I beg to move, "That the lause be read a Second time."
Last year the present allowance of one-sixth was introduced by the Chancellor in place of the former allowance of one-tenth at a cost, so he has informed us, of some £7,500,000 to the public Treasury. The Chancellor, during a recent Debate on this matter, took the opportunity to say that although he had himself made this advance, an earlier Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) had missed his chance and had not taken his opportunity to advance the claims of the particular taxpayers whom we are dealing with in connection with this Clause. That contention may have been effective as a passing debating point, but none the less I suggest it is rather childish, in view of the fact that it is well known that the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer acted to a very considerable extent for the advantage of the persons who would be covered by the Clause which we are now discussing.
The Chancellor himself said in a subsequent Debate on the Inhabited House Duty that the general advantage that the direct taxpayer obtains through the remission of indirect taxation had gone far to remove some of the heavier burdens put upon them. It can hardly be held by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that situated, as my right hon. Friend was, with the necessity of producing a Budget in an extremely short space of time after a period of extraordinarily bad financial mismanagement on the part of the Government which preceded him—that under conditions of that sort all the advantage that ought to be given to this class of taxpayer or to that class of taxpayer could be carried through. At least it must be admitted, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not attempt to deny this, that 1910 the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addition to making considerable reliefs for this class of taxpayer, also made it clear that in a subsequent Budget he intended to deal with the proposal that I am now putting before the House. Unfortunately for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer the change that he effected was made at a time when, as he himself said, he was endeavouring to balance every advantage that he gave by some countervailing disadvantage. He was, for example, giving alleviation to Super-tax payers and at the same time, as he said, he was putting on an extra burden in the form of increased Death Duties. I never quite saw that that was a countervailing disadvantage, for the Death Duties—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That appears to be a general review, not only of the past Budgets, but of the last two Budgets. I am afraid that if I allowed it, it would be repeated on each Amendment The argument here is about a concession asked for. I must ask the hon. Member to come to the proposition which he is putting before the House, and not to enter into a general review.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I bow with great respect to your ruling, but find it difficult none the less to follow it as the right hon. Gentleman himself on the occasion of the Debate on this matter when it was last before the House did go at some length into this very question of the relationship of the present proposal to the proposals which might have been dealt with, as he ventured to put it to the House, at the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I was endeavouring to cover my tracks in this matter and make it impossible, as I hoped, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward this argument against me, as he did on former occasions when he brought it forward, in connection with this very point I am making, against the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) who raised a similar matter. But I will not, in view of the ruling you have given, push that matter any further. If I may proceed—
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am much obliged to the hon. Member. Possibly it was only 1911 the exuberance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which may have led him away on the earlier occasion.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill)
I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, do not intend by that to suggest that the Chair was not keeping me strictly within the limits of order on that occasion.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I venture to pass on to this further point, that the need for further alleviation for this class of Income Tax payer will be seen if it is remembered that in a previous Budget there was a remission of taxation to Income Tax payers of £39,500,000—at least that was the sum that was estimated—but the alleviation which was secured by the proposal for the change from one-tenth to one sixth was only £7,500,000. There was, therefore, for Income Tax payers generally, a further alleviation and a lightening of their burden to the extent of some £32,000,000, which is more than four times as great as the sum which was granted as an alleviation to the particular class of taxpayer whom I am now dealing with.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
That particular class of taxpayer also participated in the effect of the general remission in the flat rate of Income Tax, and to a very large extent the benefit they gained is greater under the general remission of flat rate than that which they gained by this special relief.
§ Mr. HUDSON
Of course one must bow to the great authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has the figures behind him.
§ Mr. HUDSON
I am not so sure that it is a commonplace, especially when you take, for example, a figure of this sort. If you take the people who are assessed for Super-tax, that is to say, people whose incomes are in excess of £2,000 per annum, there were 87,000 such people in the year 1924, who were assessed on a total income of £504,000,000, so that in regard to this remission of 6d. in Income Tax, the gain made by these 87,000 people as the result 1912 of the Chancellor's proposals, which he now suggests were fairly equally scattered over all classes of taxpayers, was actually to them something between £10,000,000 and £12,000,000. I want to suggest that that class of Income Tax payers did very much better out of the Chancellor's remission of Income Tax than the class that I am particularly discussing in the Motion now before the House.
The view that I take of this issue is this, that the present Chancellor's acceptance in a former year of a certain remission to this class of Income Tax payer was altogether inadequate in view of the principles which he himself had laid down. I feel that whatever gain these taxpayers obtained a year ago from the particular remission which was then made, that gain has practically been entirely taken away by other taxes upon just the same class of people. Very probably—and it is according to the theory of the right hon. Gentleman in his last Budget—the man who got his remission from one-tenth to one-sixth has more than made up for the remission by paying increased taxes through the increased amount that his wife has to pay for her silk clothes, that his son has to pay very probably for his motor bicycle, or that the family has to pay for the piano or gramophone for the general needs of the family. The Chancellor has added to the burden of taxes, and has about balanced whatever benefit was obtained for this class of taxpayer, and I am, therefore, urging that there is a special reason on this occasion why some effort should be made to remit the tax in the way which I am now proposing.
There is this further reason for considering the proposal which I am making, that there has been during the last four years of industrial difficulty a very remarkable increase in the power to pay Income Tax of a certain class of Income Tax payer, while the people I am here dealing with in this proposal are very probably the people who have travelled along the same path as most of the wage-earners have travelled in the last four years. As we know, the wage earners have had their wages reduced to a point at which they are getting less now, at the rate of £10,000,000 per week, than they were getting four years ago. There is another class of Income Tax payers, for example, those whose power to pay 1913 may be measured by the estates that they finally leave at death—a class of infinitely greater ability, as will be seen from the estates that were left in excess of £10,000 in value in the year 1920–21. Estates of that character in that year were left to an amount valued at £253,000,000, but four years later the same class of estates had increased to an amount of £315,000,000, and that notwithstanding that money values had altered in the period which really makes the £315,000,000 actually greater than the sum stated. I admit, of course, with regard to the £10,000,000 decrease in the matter of wages that one must bring in also the same process of alteration in money values, but I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, had he been looking for a place where the burden could have been better borne, and had he desired really to help this class of Income Tax payers and similar Income Tax payers, it would have been much easier for him to place the burden on those who by the estates ultimately left at death have proved their increasing capacity to pay this type of taxation.
There is too the final point, that the collection of the type of tax we are now discussing is a very wasteful process. The large number of people who are now paying Income Tax, if this proposal was carried out, would not pay any tax at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to apprehend this point when this matter was last discussed by the House; that if these people were removed from the tax collector's register it would save the tax collector an inordinate amount of trouble. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his former days, when he was not so unregenerate as he is now from the point of view of the old standards of political economy, used to quote Adam Smith—that was in the heyday of his free trade enthusiasm—and no doubt he will remember the fourth canon that Adam Smith laid down—namely, that every tax ought to be so contrived as to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury. But the collection of this tax, particularly with regard to the people on the margin, is an expensive process. It leads to all sorts of correspondence between the tax collectors and the taxed, and it is probably very little would be lost to the 1914 Exchequer if the proposal we are suggesting was adopted.
The main duty of statesmen who desire to place taxes in a way that the community as a whole can bear them best is to find an increasing chance for the standard of life of the mass of the producers in the community to rise, while those whose incomes are far and above the general standard of life should be made to bear an increasing proportion of the burdens of the country. The more you tax the small Income Tax payer the more difficult is it for him to become an effective producer. Free him to-day of the burdens he is bearing and you will give him an opportunity of becoming a better producer, and in that sense you will make it possible for the community to bear burdens which at the present time it cannot bear. In the interests of these general considerations I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should accede to our request and make the change from one-sixth to one-fifth.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITH
I beg to second the Motion.
This is the only new Clause we are carrying from the Committee stage, but it is one to which we attach considerable importance and on which we propose to take a Division. The proposal is quite simple. At present those whose income depends on earnings are allowed a deduction of one-sixth as against those whose incomes come from investments. We consider that the deduction is altogether insufficient and we propose to increase it to one-fifth as a first stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should bear in mind that in this proposal we are supported by what was the practice of the Income Tax until the year 1919. Up to that year, if you take the tax paid at the lower rate, there was a difference of one-third in favour of those whose incomes depend upon their earnings, a deduction twice the rate now allowed. Our view is that the present very meagre and inadequate deduction deals very harshly—this is not a question of rich and poor, but of men whose incomes are derived from professional work or from investment—with the small Income Tax payers, who have to work for every penny they earn and it gives undue consideration to those whose incomes come from inheritance or investments which accrue to them, so to speak, in their sleep 1915 without any anxiety or personal exertion. This can be made plain by considering the position of a small but fairly comfortable professional man. Take the doctor who is earning £600 a year. He is allowed to deduct one-sixth of his income before he pays the tax, and therefore he pays upon £500.
Compare him with his neighbour who is living upon War loan and receiving £500 a year. They both pay the same rate of tax, and our contention is that the economic situation of the two is totally different. The doctor has £100 more, but his income is dependent upon all the chances and anxieties of life. If he falls ill it disappears. If he dies, or retires, it disappears; while the man who is living on £500 from War loan or investments need not trouble about anyone but himself because whatever happens to him his wife and dependants are secure of the income to which they have been accustomed. As a matter of fact, the difference between these two classes of taxpayers can be reduced to figures. Take a doctor earning £600 a year. What is he worth? I believe a doctor when he retires and sells his practice it is usual to capitalise his earnings at three years, and a doctor earning £600 a year is worth £1,800. What is the man worth who is getting £500 a year from War loan? He is worth about £10,000, and the present practice of the Income Tax is to assume that a man with a capital of £1,800 behind him has the same ability to pay taxation as the man who has £10,000 behind him. That is the reason why we say that the present Income Tax militates against the active working and vital elements in the production of national wealth and gives an undue advantage to mere passive and inactive ownership of wealth which comes from the community, without any personal anxiety or energy on their part.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
This Clause was moved in Committee by another hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench and it is identical in terms with the proposal then moved. No one will dissent from many of the arguments that have been used in favour of the principle of discriminating in favour of earned as against unearned income. Personally I agree with that principle, and my adherence to it has constantly been ex- 1916 pressed, not only in words but by deeds as well, for in the last Session of Parliament I increased the discrimination in favour of earned income as against unearned income from one-tenth to one-sixth, at a cost to the Exchequer of £7,500,000. The hon. Member who moved this new Clause and the hon. Member who seconded it are endeavouring to lead the country and the House to suppose that they are ardent advocates of the principles they have preached, but, unfortunately, I found it necessary to point out in the Debate on the Committee stage that when the Labour party was in office, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, an identical motion in principle was moved by a Liberal Member. There was a fine opportunity for the Labour party and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time to show how deep and strong was their adhesion to the principle we have heard so ably ex-pounded this afternoon. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley was not able to listen to the Liberal counsels which were offered. He put the Government Whips on, and by a majority of 187 to 63, on the 8th July, 1924, he rejected this proposal altogether.
I do not for a moment mention these facts in order to found an accusation against the right hon. Gentleman. I only bring them forward to show how little ground hon. Members opposite have for founding an accusation against me. The hon. Member who has moved this new Clause has told us that the right hon. Gentleman was in great difficulties when he was in office because of the bad management of financial matters by his Conservative predecessors. One of the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, as the result of the Conservative administration of the finances of this country, was that he found himself with a surplus of £40,000,000, but the right hon. Gentleman, surveying the whole field of taxation, found many other means of spending this immense sum which Conservative thrift had accumulated, and the cause which relatively appealed less to his heart was the cause of adding to the discrimination in favour of earned as against unearned income. The right hon. Gentleman will say, and the hon. Member who has moved this 1917 new Clause has said already, that he showed his sympathy for this class of taxpayer by other remissions of taxation. That may be true, but I am making these remissions too.
Those remissions which he made reduced the revenue of the State, and I am carrying on and renewing this year, as I did last year, all these remissions on tea and sugar, the inhabited House Duty, and other taxation which my predecessor made. I have saved them all, and have been trying to get on without them, and in addition I have given away on this very subject last year £7,500,000 in relief of this particular class of people. It is on top of that relief which we gave last year that the party opposite now come forward and ask us to give another remission of about £3,400,000. I am unable to find the revenue for such a remission at the present time, and, considering the manner in which this branch of our taxation system was treated last year, and the large remission that was then given, if I had the £3,400,000 in hand, this is not the immediate use which I think I should make of it. I am unable to accept the Amendment, and I am sure that the hon. Member who moved the Clause anticipated that I should not. I make no apology for not being able to accept it. We have, in fact, done far more than has ever previously been done for this class of taxpayer, and we have done it in spite of many difficulties. It may be that the taxpayers in question will not be entirely satisfied, and that they would be glad to see further remissions. It may be that they will make complaints, and perhaps they are entitled to make complaints, but the one class of persons in the whole world Who are not entitled to make complaints are those hon. and right hon. Members belonging to the Labour party who repulsed even the smallest suggestion of giving relief to this class of taxpayer only two years ago.
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENN
There is a Standing Order No. 19, under which I have suffered, which forbids the repetition of your own arguments or those of other people, and I was wondering whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself might not fall under the censure of that Standing Order in the course of the speech which he has just made. He 1918 repeated the whole of the speech he made in Committee on this subject, and to what does it amount? It amounts to this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Government resisted this Amendment, and that the Conservative party all supported it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that the late Chancellor enjoyed the benefit of £40,000,000 which had been saved by Conservative thrift during 1923. It is a strange thing that, that being so, the present Chancellor himself, in 1923, was denouncing the same Conservative Government up and down the country and presenting himself for election as one of their opponents. Of course, you have to judge all these concessions and remissions in the general light of the Budget, and I am not sure how I voted on this question last year. Very likely I voted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, if so, I am not ashamed; very likely I voted against him, and, if so, I am equally not ashamed. But we have to view the question in the light of the Budget, and the fact of the matter then was that, as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) said, he had made very wide and valuable remissions of taxation to the poorer class of taxpayer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now tells us that he is continuing all those remissions, and he is claiming all the merit of the Labour party's Budget.
§ Captain BENN
Well, he is claiming a proportion of it, but he has forgotten to say that he himself has imposed a great deal of new indirect taxation, on gloves and gas mantles, and a thousand other things have been taxed and prices raised against the people for whom some slight remission is now sought. Therefore, if the hon. Member who moved the Amendment thinks fit to divide on it, shall certainly support him, without any qualms, because whereas I believe that, in the Budget of 1924 the right principle was followed, and the right people were assisted, I believe the contrary to be the case in the Budget of 1926.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
I was disappointed to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he was unable to find the revenue. I have here the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and 1919 if the right hon. Gentleman would examine it, he would, I believe, be able to find the £3,000,000 for which we are now asking. I would like to call his attention to two or three of the figures in that Report. In 1918–19 the class of taxpayers for whom we are asking this relief numbered something like 3,900,000, and in 1924–25 they had been reduced to 2,400,000—that is, a reduction of 1,500,000—and the reason for that reduction is on account of the reduced wages that had been imposed on the working classes throughout the country during the later years. On the other hand, we find that the Super-tax payers, to whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a relief of about £10,000,000 last year, which is also being continued this year, numbered, in 1914, 14,008 and in 1923–24, 83,375, so that the Income Tax payers for whom we are asking relief had been reduced in numbers by 1,500,000, while the Super-tax payers had increased from 14,008 to 83,375.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The poorer classes were reduced in numbers because of the lower level of exemption, which removed large numbers from taxation altogether.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
Not so much as by the great reductions in the wages and people not being able to pay.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
The amount for which the Super-tax payers were assessed for tax in 1914 was £175,000,000, and in 1924–25 it was £516,000,000, or an increase of 300 per cent.
§ Mr. BASIL PETO
Has the hon. Member reckoned that in the earlier year Super-tax commenced at £5,000 a year, which was a totally different basis?
§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
Yes, I have. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was unable to find the revenue. I will give him some figures to show where he can get the revenue.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is scarcely permissible to-day. It is a thing that might be repeated on every single Amendment, and we cannot on each Amendment review the whole balance of taxation.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
You are always very fair in Debate, Mr. Speaker, and surely I ought to be able to reply to the 1920 Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said he was unable to find the revenue. I want to show within the Report of the Commissioners where he can get it.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
If I allowed that, I might have from another quarter a plea for more protective tariffs, and so on, as a means of getting the money, and the hon. Member will see where we should be landed in that case.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
I will take another line and deal with the debts owed by different people in the country to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is owing in Income Tax £25,000,000—
§ Mr. GRIFFITHS
I am sorry. There is only one point that struck me in the Chancellor's speech, and that was when he said that the Income Tax payers for whom we are seeking relief have received the benefit not only of remissions given by himself, but of remissions given by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. That, however, cuts both ways, because the Super-tax payers and others have also had the relief given by the ex-Chancellor. I will keep what further I have to say till the Third Reading.
§ Mr. GILLETT
The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been correctly stated to have been the speech delivered on this subject in Committee, and it left us in the same position as that in which we were before. I quite agree that it might be said to be a good debating answer, and I do not know that I should have intervened now, had it not been to express my disappointment with the closing words of the speech, because it seemed to me that what he said with regard to what he would do if he had the money indicated that possibly he did not feel the importance of this question quite as much as some of us do. I should, therefore, like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is really a case that ought to be considered at some time, when there is any money to spare, and I hope he will put it among the subjects for consideration when the better times come, of which, I suppose, every Chancellor of the Exchequer is thinking. If you take the case my hon. Friend has taken of a person, like a doctor, who is 1921 making £1,000 a year, and a person who is drawing a £1,000 a year from investments, each of them having a wife and two children, it is needless to point out the different positions in which those two people are placed. On the supposition that the doctor has no other means of income, in order to provide for his wife and children, he must be laying aside, whether by insurance or otherwise, a considerable part of his income, while, on the other hand, the fortunate possessor of the capital necessary to bring in £1,000 a year, to a large extent, if he is satisfied with that income, need not be making any provision by saving.
Therefore, it seems to me that this is a subject which should commend itself to a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if there is any part of the House from which we constantly hear lectures on the importance of saving it is from hon. Members opposite. This is the sort of thing at which I should have thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look with favour, because it would help the man who in all probability would save the money if only the right hon. Gentleman would leave it in his pocket, in order to give him the opportunity
§ of laying a certain amount of capital aside. It seems to me that the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while we enjoyed the amusement of it, and while it may for the moment have seemed to shatter the importance of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, does seem to me to have taken very slight note of this exceedingly important question, which affects a very large number of people. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be satisfied with the speech which he has twice given us, but that he will now seriously consider what is a very important question, and when we come next year to deal with this question and move this Amendment again I hope he will spare us that particular speech and, instead, give us a serious and carefully thought out argument on this subject. I hope, at the same time, that he will see his way to give a remission of taxation to a class of people who well deserve the attention of a Conservative Government
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 249.1925
|Division No. 322.]||AYES.||[4.47 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Murnin, H.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Oliver, George Harold|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Groves, T.||Palin, John Henry|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Grundy, T. W.||Paling, W.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Barnes, A.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Barr, J.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr, Tydvil)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Batey, Joseph||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Potts, John S.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hardie, George D.||Purcell, A. A.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Harney, E. A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Riley, Ben|
|Broad, F. A.||Mayday, Arthur||Rose, Frank H.|
|Bromley, J.||Hayes, John Henry||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Sakiatvala, Shapurji|
|Buchanan, G.||Hirst, G. H.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Sexton, James|
|Clowes, S.||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Cluse, W. S.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Short, Alfred (wednesbury)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Mcrioneth)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Compton, Joseph||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Kelly, W. T.||Snell, Harry|
|Dalton, Hugh||Kennedy, T.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lansbury, George||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Lawson, John James||Stamford, T. W.|
|Dennison, R.||Lee, F.||Sullivan, J.|
|Dunnico, H.||Livingstone, A. M.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lowth, T.||Thurtle, E.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Lunn, William||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Gardner. J. P.||MacLaren, Andrew||Townend, A. E.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Gillett, George M.||March, S.||Viant, S. P.|
|Gosling, Harry||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Walsh, Rt. Han. Stephen|
|Greenall, T.||Montague, Frederick||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Wiggins, William Martin||Williams, Dr..J. H. (Llanelly)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Wilkinson, Ellen C.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||England, Colonel A.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||McLean, Major A.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Albery, Irving James||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Faile, Sir Bertram G.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)||Falls, Sir Charles F.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Apsley, Lord||Fermoy, Lord||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Feilden, E. B.||Margesson, Captain D.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Merriman, F. B.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Gates, Percy||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred|
|Beamish, Captain T. P. H||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M,|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col, J. T. C.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Goff, Sir Park||Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Bennett, A. J.||Gower, Sir Robert||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Grace, John||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Berry, Sir George||Grant, Sir J. A.||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Bethel, A.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrst'ld.)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Grotrian, H. Brent||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.||Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Perring, Sir William George|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hammersley, S. S.||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hanbury, C.||Pleiou, D. P.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Harland, A.||Preston, William|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Radford, E. A.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Harrison, G. J. C.||Ramsden, E.|
|Bullock, Captain M||Hartington, Marquess of||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Burman, J. B.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnos)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Haslam, Henry C.||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hills, Major John Waller||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm., W.)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)|
|Charteris, Brigadler-General J.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts. Westb'y)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Huntingfield, Lord||Skelton, A. N.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hurd, Percy A.||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.||Hurst, Gerald B.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Jacob, A. E.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cope, Major William||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)|
|Couper, J. B.||Jephcott, A. R.||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Kidd. J. (Lin[...]thgow)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Daiziel, Sir Davison||Knox, Sir Alfred||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lord, Walter Greaves-||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Drewe, C.||Laugher, L.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Luce. Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Ellis, R. G.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple||Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Waddington, R.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Wallace, Captain D. E.||Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Warrender, Sir Victor||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Litchfield)||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)||Wise, Sir Fredric||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Watts, Dr. T.||Withers, John James||Mr. F. C. Thomson and Lord|
|Wells, S. R.||Womersley, W. J.||Stanley.|
|Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.||Wood, E.(Chest'r Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|