§ "As from the thirty-first day of July nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, Entertainments Duty within the meaning of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, shall be charged at the rate set out in the First Schedule to this Act."—[Colonel Day.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Colonel DAY
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The First Schedule is rather lengthy, and I do not propose to read it. Hon. Members can see the rate themselves. I suppose we shall be met by the right hon. Gentleman giving us, perhaps, a reason similar to that which he gave a few moments ago, namely, that the Government have not got the money. He might say there are many reasons, but that that is the principal one, and the others do not matter. The modifications proposed are with regard to the duty on admissions up to 5s. 6d., that is, the cheaper prices of admission at theatres, cinemas, music halls and other entertainments. These are the parts which are more hardly hit as far as the revenue is concerned in all places of amusement. Personally, I would prefer having been in the position of moving the total abolition of the whole of the Entertainments Duty, 96 and I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way clear to do this he would be following up the statement he made last year in the House when he said:I share the prejudice of a great many hon. Members against the duty. However, it has come down to us from my predecessor.That, I think, is the general idea of the majority of the Members of the House; they are more or less against the Entertainments Duty. Only two years ago many meetings were held in Committee Rooms upstairs, in which a great many Members pledged themselves to support the complete abolition of the duty. I am sure that would have been more in accord with the views of the right hon. Gentleman who originally moved the duty. On that occasion he said it was a war-time tax and one which he hoped would be discontinued at the end of the War or at least a few years afterwards. It is clearly intended that the duty should end and not that it should be a continuous duty. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer since the introduction of the duty has been more or less against it, as it was considered to be a bad duty. Even the present Chancellor expressed a strong opinion upon it about two years ago, when he said, "I am strongly in favour of the abolition of the Entertainments Duty." In view of that statement, I hope we shall have his support and that of his followers in the present proposed modifications of the duty, and, perhaps, later their support for the total abolition of what is a most vexatious duty.
The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he agreed to certain modifications in the Entertainments Duty Clause, made it clear that in his poinion later on he would make further alterations and modifications. Unfortunately, although it was his earnest intention to do so, he had not an opportunity of introducing the Budget the following year. There can be no doubt that this duty, introduced, as it was, as a war-time duty, is a bad and a vicious duty. It is different from all other duties. It is a tax on turnover; it is not a tax on profit. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I believe, has stated that it is not very much different from the duties that are imposed on wines, cigars and other things of that kind, but the duty on the entertainment 97 industry is entirely different, because entertainment proprietors have to pay for their goods weekly. They have to pay for their artists, their staffs and their bands every week, whatever may be the outcome of their trade or business. If fog, or snow, or any other incident affects their business, their outgoings are exactly the same, whereas in the ordinary commercial business a man has his stock to carry over to the next week, and does not make the big loss that the entertainment proprietors do in their business. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be a good thing if he could see his way to honour the pledge that was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who originally introduced this duty. This duty has been called on many occasions a luxury duty, but if we consider the workings of it, and the way it greatly interferes with the success of what would otherwise be a very thriving industry, we can only conclude that it is nothing more or less than a vicious ditty.
The country has always accepted the principle that the wealthier people should carry the larger proportion of taxes, but with the Entertainments Duty it is just the opposite. The poorer people pay the greater percentage levied for Entertainments Duty. I mentioned a number of examples last year, and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can contradict me. The examples I gave were that those people who pay 8d. for admission have to pay a duty of 2d., which is 25 per cent. Those people who pay 9d. have to pay a duty of 2d., which is 22½ per cent. Those people who pay 1s. 4d. have to pay a duty of 4d., which is 25 per cent. Those people who pay 1s. 6d. have to pay a duty of 4d., which is 22½ per cent. If we look at the higher-priced seats, we see that those people who pay 5s. have to pay a duty of 9d., which is 14 per cent.; that those people who pay 7s. 6d. for admission have to pay a duty of 1s., which is 14 per cent., and that those people who pay 30s. for a stall at the opera or a box, pay a duty of 3s. 6d., which is only 11.6 per cent. You will see by that, that it is the poorer people who have to pay the largest proportion of the duty. Again, the proprietors and managers of the different music halls, theatres, cinemas and other places of 98 entertainment have to employ clerks for the purpose of making out their returns. They also have to go to the expense of having accountants to check these returns before they are sent to the Inland Revenue authorities. Also to comply with the Inland Revenue's demands, they have to take out an insurance policy as a result of which they have to pay their own insurance. As a matter of fact, they have to make themselves tax collectors for the Government. But that is not the worst part of it. They have to put up with the annoyance of visits from officials who sometimes enter at the very busiest times, and on a Saturday evening, for the purpose of inspecting the returns and to see that everything is quite in order, and that the returns and accounts have been made out—and, in some cases, to check the "house," which is a very great annoyance and inconvenience.
When the duty was introduced it was full of anomalies. Some of these have been removed. It certainly is a ridiculous position in which to place theatres and music halls when we find that cabarets, restaurants and night clubs and entertainments of the same calibre as the average music hall, using the same scenery, employing the same artists, who sing the same songs and perform the same dances, do not pay the Entertainments Duty. This is entirely unfair competition. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Inland Revenue Department unsuccessfully tried to bring a test case in order to make cabarets and hotels pay the duty. How farcical the position really is. Only a short time ago a massed cabaret took place at the Royal Albert Hall, lasting three hours. At this cabaret there appeared some of the finest artists in London, including many well known troupes and some of the finest bands. In respect of the one guinea, two guinea and three guinea tickets, which included supper, there was no Entertainments Duty, but the poorer people who paid 5s. and did not have supper, had to pay 9d. Entertainments Duty. That is an absurdity of the worst kind.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in cases of that kind it is not only a case of unfair competition with the music halls and theatres, for if audiences have to pay Entertainments Duty at 99 theatres and music halls, the duty ought to be applied all round. For instance, in the case I have just given, if the people who paid 5s. had to pay 9d. in respect of Entertainments Duty then the people who paid one guinea, two guineas or three guineas ought certainly to have been called upon to pay their proportion of the Entertainments Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer who introduced the duty originally said it was a device on his part to compel people who were not contributing to the revenue received from all classes to do so. It was his intention at that time to make the wealthy visitors from the Continent and America pay a slight proportion of the duty because they did not pay in other ways. It was suggested that they should pay this duty in order to contribute to our taxation. As far as the duty has worked up to the present time, there can be no doubt that our citizens have had to bear the biggest proportion. The poorer people who patronise entertainments have to pay a much larger share than the people who occupy the better seats.
There is another very great opposition to places of entertainment, and that is the broadcasting system, which was not in operation when this duty was introduced. At the present time, people who are fortunate enough to have wireless installed can, on occasion, hear some of our finest entertainments, and there is no tax which they have to pay, whereas if they went to a place of entertainment to see that performance they would be involved in tax. That is a very great opposition not only to the music halls, theatres and cinemas, but to all classes of entertainment. This duty is a tax on turn-over, and not a tax on profits. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is a very big tax. It is most oppressive, and had it not been for the remissions made when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was in office many of the smaller places of entertainment would have long since gone into bankruptcy. The duty is, to a great extent, a tax on losses, because those people who have to pay the duty would otherwise be spending money in other forms of amusement. If the right hon. Gentleman will consider the duty carefully and realise that it is an 100 intolerable burden on industry he will, even if he cannot accept this Amendment this year, before the Budget is introduced next year, if possible, give that relief which it was intended should be introduced in the year following the remissions which were made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The duty, with its ramifications through business, has been to a great extent responsible for the bogus manager. As the bogus manager takes the small theatres in the country and his takings drop on account of the Entertainment Duty, his share also drops. When his share drops, it means that when Saturday comes he has not the money with which to pay the salaries of his people, and those who generally suffer the most and the quickest are the smaller salaried people. The duty means in some cases that practically 25 per cent. of his takings go to the Government, and the smaller artistes and staff have to go without their salaries. The music hall manager, the theatre manager and the cinema manager have everywhere cut down their expenses to the minimum, and there are hardly any other cuts which they can make. They have reduced the band and the staff. As is well known to many hon. Members, where previously a band used to number 16 or 18, now, in many cases, although it is not noticeable to the majority of the audience, it has been cut down to 12. The stage staff in the same way has been cut down. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way clear to put this extra money into the hands of the public so that they would have more money to spend in amusements and other ways, and the money would circulate, it would be better not only for the entertainment business, but it would create a certain amount of employment and reduce unemployment in other ways.
If you go to the opera or to the drama to see Shakesperean and other plays you have to pay the ordinary Entertainments Duty. If you go to see the Russian ballet you have to pay the ordinary Entertainments Duty, but if you see the same entertainment given at one of the West End hotels or in one of the big cabarets performed by the same people there is no Entertainments Duty to be paid. It seems to me absurd that one can hear the same people by paying one 101 guinea, to include supper, or £1 11s. 6d. to include supper, which in some cases is very bad, and avoid paying any Entertainments Duty, whereas if you see the same entertainment in another place you would have to pay probably 3s. or 4s. Entertainments Duty, if you paid the same amount of money for your ticket. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that the original working of the duty was so full of anomalies that remissions have been made in regard to entertainments at agricultural shows and entertainments for charity. That means further opposition to the already existing opposition to the entertainment industry. The entertainment industry has been hit so hard that a large amount of unemployment has been created in the industry. In some places that I know of, even in a place in the West End of London, they have introduced what is called the Panotrope, which is a machine that plays with very loud gramophone effect and is used for playing as an overture a selection or a march instead of the band and orchestra.
§ Colonel DAY
I am glad the hon. and gallant Member appreciates it, but when he realises that it puts probably 20 men out of employment, he will see that it is not so good as he thinks it is. It is introduced to do away with the band, and in many cinemas throughout the country they are introducing this instrument for the purpose of reducing their costs for orchestras. It is simply a means for the reduction of expenditure to meet the want of revenue that would otherwise come into the house if the Entertainments Duty were reduced. The duty as at present constituted violates all the fundamental principles of finance.
§ Colonel DAY
Yes, because it is a tax on turnover and not a tax on profits. If the hon. Member does not agree, I wonder how he would like the industry about which he was talking a little while ago to be taxed on turnover and not on profits. The entertainment industry is the only business in the United Kingdom that is taxed in this way, and that must violate all the fundamental principles of finance.
§ Colonel DAY
The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that betting is an illegal business, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury also gave reasons why licences should be issued to people who carry on betting, because it is an illegal business. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer must agree that any taxation on turnover and not on profits, and in some cases not only on turover but in the instances I have given a tax on losses, is such that it must be a bad tax. The exemptions granted by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer on entertainments run for charities and for agricultural shows prove that entertainments run for charity and otherwise were so badly hit that the tax had to be remitted. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that where a tax of this kind is levied it should be levied in a way that is fair throughout the entertainment industry. This duty is not fair, because the entertainment providers instead of carrying on their business in a proper, legitimate way are forced to carry on their business in a way which in any other business would be considered very unsatisfactory. I should like the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this point because this matter is of very great importance to many people.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I have been listening with very great attention to the hon. Member. I was interrupted for a moment by the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Bennett), who spoke to me on a matter of public business and distracted my attention for almost an inappreciable period of time from the spacious eloquence of the hon. Member.
§ Colonel DAY
I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. The point to which I was directing his attention was that I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept this new Clause this year, will accept it next year. I can assure him there are many providers of entertainment in this country who are absolutely going from bad to worse in their business as a result of this duty. The year before last, and in previous years, more that 50 per cent. of hon. Members opposite pledged themselves to their constituents that they would vote for the 103 abolition of the Entertainments Duty, and in the Committee meetings to which I have referred it was agreed that pressure should be brought upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish the duty. In view of all these circumstances, I hope he will see his way to accept this new Clause.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
The hon. Member has very rightly, I think, kept this question alive and in the public eye. I have never liked this Duty and I have admitted on previous occasions that I fully share the prejudices entertained in regard to it in many quarters. But, as the hon. Member has indicated, there is no prospect this year of my being able to make any modification in the Duty. The proposal he puts forward would cost £950,000 in the present year and £1,350,000 in a full year. As I said in regard to the last Amendment, I do not know where this money could be found, and I do not know any way in which it could be found without inflicting more hardship than is inflicted by the present Duty. I certainly sympathise with the class particularly affected by this Duty, the theatrical profession and the musicians. There is no doubt that the pressure of life has affected their prosperity and that they are passing through hard times. There is no doubt also that this Duty has not been wholly passed on to the consumer, as is the intention of a Duty of this kind, and that it has led to serious hardship on the professions concerned. That has always excited my concern.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) when he was responsible for the national finances gave large remissions costing about £4,000,000 on the cheaper seats, and the hon. Member now proposes that these remissions should be fortified by a further reduction extending in a full year to £1,350,000; and a large percentage of this would inure in the form of a remission on the cheaper seats. I expressed my view last year that if it was possible to touch this Duty in any way the best way would be to consider some modifications upon the more expensive seats. I believe that the prices charged for the more expen- 104 sive seats are a fertile source from which the quality and character of the British drama is maintained, and if we were to make further remissions on the cheaper seats it would tend to encourage a movement from the higher priced seats to the cheaper, which would have the effect of robbing the theatrical profession and the drama generally of what is undoubtedly their most fertile and indispensable source of supply. These questions are purely academic because neither for the cheaper nor for the expensive seats have I the slightest modification in my power to bestow.
A more difficult argument to meet is the question of cabarets. These cabaret entertainments play an important part in our modern life. I am informed that the proceedings usually consist of a meal, either dinner or supper, a short variety entertainment, sometimes described as Midnight Follies, and dancing, with an inclusive charge for the whole. In the whole of this the only taxable element is the variety entertainment, and the Courts have held that having regard to the conditions in which such entertainments are given there is no liability for Entertainments Duty. If we amended the law so as to bring cabarets within the scope of the Entertainments Duty without including also concerts and band performances given in many restaurants during and after meals, a great anomaly would be created. You would be drawn on from one decision to another until your legislation would break into entirely new fields, and while I cannot for a moment say that the present state of the law is satisfactory in this respect I am not prepared with any solution which would mitigate these anomalies.
I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept this Clause. I should not have risen but for the very dangerous hints which he threw out as to the manner in wich he was inclined to regard this duty. Like the right hon. Gentleman I am concerned about the quality of the entertainments that are given and the prosperity of the theatrical profession. I do not want to see any duty imposed which would make it difficult for the British people to receive the very best and most artistic form of entertainment that is possible. I would suggest to him, in view of the circumstances existing in the country at the 105 moment which we can hardly hope to vary very much during the next two or three years, that it is a fatal mistake to regard this duty as one solely affecting the quality of the entertainment and, therefore, one that might best be modified by a reduction at the top. I am surprised that a considerable number of hon. Members opposite do not support the Clause.
According to the speeches made on many platforms there are many advocates in this House of peace and contentment in industry on the other side, and I suggest that it is not very conducive to a satisfactory and contented state of mind that people who live in the dark and drab industrial districts of the land should know, when they go to the gallery of a music hall, that they are paying the Chancellor of the Exchequer 2d. while the people who go to the expensive cabarets and hotels in the West End of London, and pay a guinea and more, do not pay any Entertainments Duty at all. The greatest mistake this House can make at any time, and especially now, is to make it difficult for the masses of the working people of this country to get out of the drab and squalid atmosphere for a little time and forget their troubles in such brightness and cheer as they can derive from the average touring revues. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider doing away with some portion of this duty. I am not sure that I entirely agree with its complete withdrawal, but I hope he will consider very drastic modifications of the duty from the bottom to the top, and not the other way round.
The merit of the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has rejected is this.
§ that the comparatively few well-to-do people who can afford to pay the high prices charged in a few theatres are not likely to be kept away from the theatres by this duty. Those who can afford to pay 10s. 6d. for a stall or three guineas for a box are not likely to be affected by it. We have had cases of West End managers who have put up their prices from half a guinea to a guinea and, in the case of a recent production, which I am told was the world's worst, the charge was put up to three guineas and there was no difficulty in getting these expensive seats filled. The duty has not affected this class, but it is causing the most extreme discontent amongst the masses of the people. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the restaurant and hotel and cabaret situation is anomalous, and he does not know how to deal with it. I would suggest to him that it would be much better to stop taxing people on the Tyneside for the cheaper seats in the gallery of a music hall and put the duty on meals in restaurant over a figure of 7s. 6d. or 10s., or whatever figure he might consider suitable. He would raise a large part of the money which he would lose by a modification of this duty on the cheaper seats, and would cause nothing like the same amount of discontent. I hope he will consider a reduction of this duty at the bottom and do something to make entertainment a little cheaper for the masses of the people.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 114 Noes, 256.109
|Division No. 267.]||AYES.||[6.59 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Compton, Joseph||Groves, T.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Connolly, M.||Grundy, T. W.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Cove, W. G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Crawfurd, H. E.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)||Dalton, Hugh||Hardie, George D.|
|Baker, Walter||Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Harney, E. A.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Harris, Percy A.|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Day, Colonel Harry||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Briant, Frank||Dennison, R.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)|
|Broad, F. A.||Duncan, C.||Hirst, G. H.|
|Bromley, J.||Dunnico, H.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)|
|Buchanan, G.||Gardner, J. P.||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Gillett, George M.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Cape, Thomas||Greenall, T.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Kennedy, T.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Lansbury, George|
|Lawrence, Susan||Purcell, A. A.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Lee, F.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Sullivan, J.|
|Lowth, T.||Ritson, J.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Lunn, William||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Mackinder, W.||Scurr, John||Townend, A. E.|
|Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Maxton, James||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Varley, Frank B.|
|Montague, Frederick||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)||Viant, S. P.|
|Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Sitch, Charles H.||Westwood, J.|
|Mosley, Oswald||Slesser, Sir Henry H.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Murnin, H.||Smillle, Robert||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Oliver, George Harold||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Paling, W.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Windsor, Walter|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Snell, Harry|
|Ponsonby, Arthur||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Potts, John S.||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. A. Barnes.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Albery, Irving James||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth Cen'l)|
|Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Dixey, A. C.||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Drewe, C.||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Balniel, Lord||Eden, Captain Anthony||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Banks, Reginald Mitchell||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Ellis, R. G.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Elveden, Viscount||Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Phil'p|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Loder, J. de V.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Long, Major Eric|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Looker, Herbert William|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Fermoy, Lord||Lougher, Lewis|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Fielden, E. B.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Lumley, L. R.|
|Brass, Captain W.||Forrest, W.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Fraser, Captain Ian||MacIntyre, Ian|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)||Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||McLean, Major A.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Buchan, John||Ganzoni, Sir John||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Gates, Percy||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Goff, Sir Park||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Grace, John||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Grotrian, H. Brent||Meller, R. J.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)||Merriman, F. B.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hanbury, C.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Christie, J. A.||Harrison, G. J. C.||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hartington, Marquess of||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hawke, John Anthony||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Oakley, T.|
|Cope, Major William||Hills, Major John Waller||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Couper, J. B.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Penny, Frederick George|
|Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Holt, Capt. H. P.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Perring, Sir William George|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Pilcher, G.|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Huntingfield, Lord||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hurd, Percy A.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||White, Lieut. -Col. Sir G. Dairymple|
|Raine, Sir Walter||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Remer, J. R.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Remnant, Sir James||Steel, Major Samuel Strang||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Rentoul, G. S.||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Rice, Sir Frederick||Styles, Captain H. Walter||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)||Tasker, R. Inigo.||Withers, John James|
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Templeton, W. P.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Ropner, Major L.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)||Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Rye, F. G.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)|
|Salmon, Major I.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)|
|Sandeman, N. Stewart||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough||Wragg, Herbert|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Savery, S. S.||Wallace, Captain D. E.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)|
|Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Warrender, Sir Victor||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Skelton, A. N.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Colonel Gibbs and Captain|
|Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)||Margesson.|
|Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wells, S. R.|