HC Deb 27 June 1928 vol 219 cc572-90

The Amendment standing in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and of the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley)—at the beginning of the Clause to insert the words: In order to provide a Reserve Fund for the purposes of any Act or Acts of the present Parliament to make provision for the relief of rates"— is out of place.


I beg to move, in page 14, line 29, to leave out the word "years," and to insert instead thereof the word "year."

There are two other Amendments on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) and East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker) and myself—in page 14, line 30, to leave out the word "respectively," and, in line 31, to leave out the words "and the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine"—and the three Amendments taken together would make the Clause read: The old Sinking Fund for the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nine- teen hundred and twenty-eight, shall, instead of being issued to the National Debt Commissioners "— and so on. I want briefly to point out two principles which, as it seems to me, the Committee have to consider in connection with the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making here. One of these principles the Amendment which I am now moving certainly does not challenge. I might remind the Committee that the practice in regard to national finance as it has been carried out, certainly by the Conservative party, for many years, and the idea of the Conservative financiers, was based upon, amongst others, two distinct principles. The first of these was that, in justice to the taxpayer, the money that was being raised in one year should not exceed the amount that was needed for the actual expenditure of the year for which the accounts were going to be paid. The second principle, which has become part of our financial system, is found in the custom which has grown up, and which as a matter of fact has also been recognised by law, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his Estimates for the year, is pleasantly surprised at the end of the year to find that, either by an increase of income or a diminution of expenditure, he is left with a balance in hand, that sum of money should he used for the sinking fund.

These are the two great principles which certainly have always been recognised by the Conservative party, and, therefore, it is one of the peculiarities of the present situation that it is the Conservative party, led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who are now throwing over these two important principles of finance. As far as I can see—so far at any rate as these Debates are concerned—the only hon. Member opposite who has made any protest against that has been the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who, on I believe two occasions, has voiced his opposition to one of these proposals. He is not here at the moment, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer need not be nervous or anxious this afternoon, if that is what is causing him to look round.

The first proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he asks the Committee to allow him to put the sum of £4,000,000 odd, which was his surplus last year, to a special account. As we all know, that special account is to be used in connection with the new rating scheme, but it is not the use that is going to be made of this money that comes before us at the present time, but the fact that, in spite of this principle, recognised by Chancellors of the Exchequer year after year almost without exception, that such money should be used for Sinking Fund purposes, it is now going to be diverted to another purpose. Chancellors of the Exchequer who may represent this party are not usually supposed to be quite so orthodox in finance as those who represent the Conservative party, but as a matter of fact at the present time we are in the extraordinary position that the orthodox financier is the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sits on this side, and the unorthodox financier is the right hon. Gentleman who is at present Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, to judge by events, public opinion might imagine that matters were reversed, and that my right hon. Friend was sitting where the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is, while the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has the mind and outlook of a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer, looking for money for his Socialist schemes, and going anywhere and everywhere to get money—at any rate, that is the public idea of a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If in years to come Chancellors of the Exchequer make these raids on surpluses, they will always be able to justify them by the action of the present Government, and also by the action of the right hon. Gentleman who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Coalition Government, and who stood up in his place a few weeks ago to support the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in this special proposal, and said that the end justified the means. Of course, as I pointed out on another occasion, every Chancellor of the Exchequer who wants to attack the Sinking Funds would say exactly the same, namely, that the end justifies the means. For myself, I rather believe that this principle of the surplus for the year being allocated to Sinking Fund purposes, which was so dear to Gladstone and all the great Chancellors of the past, may be looked upon as a dead letter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will notice that in our Amendments we are not suggesting any alteration as far as that is concerned; we are allowing him to make this precedent, thinking that possibly it may be a very useful precedent to soma Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer in years to come.

6.0 p.m.

I now come to the other side of the question, and that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed a second great sin against the principles of Conservative finance in the fact that he is raising, during the present year, a sum of money which he is deliberately allowing to accumulate in order to spend it in the years that are to follow. As I said before, the question is not whether the purpose is good or bad. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that the purpose he has in mind is a good purpose. The fact is that a sum of £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 is being taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers this year for purposes for which it is not required this year. I do not know whether there has ever before been anything similar to the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bringing forward. It is a most revolutionary proposal. If it had been brought forward by the Labour party, every financial paper in the City would have been up in arms against it, but seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sits on that side, most of the financial papers seem not to be making any great protest against it. It is a very serious principle, because if we are going to institute a custom by which the Chancellor can accumulate funds for the year following, it really affects the whole of our taxing system. It means that a man may be asked to pay taxes in a year when perhaps he is not specially prosperous, for expenditure that is to take place next year when perhaps in altered circumstances he might be in a better position to meet the need. It seems to us that some protest should be made, and we ought to have some full defence before we agree to this innovation in the principles of our public finance.


I will not go so far as to propound the principle that the end justifies the means, but if the end is desirable and if the means are innocent, one may safely, perhaps, with those reservations, trust oneself to the saying. I am sure the Committee will agree that both those qualifications are present in the existing circumstances. What is the end at which we are aiming? Whatever differences there may be about the rating scheme, at least we are making a great remission of taxation. It is not a new burden or a new expenditure that we are contracting. It is not a new extravagance of any kind. The very large sums of money that are required for the rating scheme are essentially a remission of taxation—I am not saying whether it is wisely applied or not—a remission of peculiarly invidious taxation. And no one can deny that the remission of taxation is desirable in itself. The question of the means then falls to be considered. What means could be more innocent, and indeed commendable, than, after having made adequate provision for the discharge of the liabilities of the State and for the amortisation of its debts, such provision being on a scale far greater than was attempted by any previous administration, to save up the year's surplus for the purpose of giving that remission of taxation in itself so desirable and bring it about at the earliest possible date? In that sense the statement that the end justifies the means is fully to be defended in the present circumstances, with these qualifications. The hon. Member has criticised both the carrying forward into the future of the old Sinking Fund surplus of last year, and the holding of the accumulated surplus of this year in a suspensory fund. But if I were not to take that step, I do not think I could make a proper arrangement for bearing the expense of the scheme.

There is no doubt that the relief of taxation which will come through the rating scheme will substantially exceed, now that the Kerosene Duty has been dropped, and that it has appeared that certain increases in the grants to local authorities shortly to be announced are inevitable, the new revenue from the Petrol Duly, and it is only because I shall have in hand this accumulated fund made up of the prospective surplus for this year and the realised surplus of last year that I am able to see my way to financing the whole of this scheme over the next three years for certain. I hope and trust better days will come during that period and that we may stimulate and accelerate their advent, in which case the normal growth of our revenue and the recovery of our trade, the decrease of our expenditure and the diminution of unemployment, will place us after three years in a position much more favourable than that in which we are at present. I desire, as far as I possibly can, to make the proposal one that does not unduly mortgage the revenue of the future, responsibility for the administration of which may fall to others. I have said I am considering the position in which the Government might conceivably find itself and endeavouring to make sure that they are not left with a future so far mortgaged that they have no reasonable latitude in which to move, and therefore I must ask for this easement both for the past old Sinking Fund and for the surplus of this year. This does not involve any impingement upon Parliamentary control. This Suspensory Fund will be entirely in the control of Parliament at every stage of its existence. If the House should think it right at a later stage next Session or in the year after, to take this Suspensory Fund and devote it to the further repayment of debt and to raise the additional money required for rating relief by other forms of taxation, or if happily it should find itself possessed of resources which I do not enjoy, there is nothing to prevent the full discretion and the effective control by Parliament. Therefore, I feel I cannot accept the Amendment, because although the hon. Member has put his points clearly, nevertheless those points are outweighed by the purpose we have in hand and the necessity which leads us to make these provisions for accumulating in advance sums of money which will subsequently be used beneficially.


The Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to defend his unprecedented action by contending that his method is innocent and his object beneficial. In the first place, I would dispute that the method is innocent. There are two points involved in this. There is carrying over the surplus from 1927–28 not merely into the following year but two years in advance. That, surely, is entirely unprecedented, and it creates a situation very different from what has been done even in previous years, when sometimes a surplus has been diverted from the Sinking Fund. When that has happened it is to a certain extent an accident whether the money has been received before 31st March or not, and there is not a very great deal of difference in its coming in in one form or in the other. But it is quite a different matter when you carry forward the balance not merely one year but two years. Then there is the second point that the Chancellor is raising some £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 this year which he is hypothecating to the relief of rates next year. That is very far from an innocent proposal. It means that the Chancellor is taking out of the pockets of the taxpayer more than he really needs, and paying it over for the extinction of debt at the moment, because that is how it will be actually used. Next year he will want more money than he can get from the taxpayer, and therefore he will have to re-borrow this £13,000,000 or £14,000,000, and thereby increase debt. So what is actually taking place is that he is creating an unequal provision for the cancellation of debt in two succeeding years. One year he is cancelling debt by £13,000,000 more than he requires, and in the next year he is having to borrow that £13,000,000 in order to meet his requirements. That is a very undesirable method indeed, and far from innocent, and may have deleterious effects on the finances of the country. The right method of dealing with the repayment of debt is, as far as possible, to make an even repayment year after year. A large payment one year and a reduction the next is a thoroughly bad plan.

Then the right hon. Gentleman says whatever may be the innocence or otherwise of the means the object is a beneficial one. What is the object of this course of action? He would have us believe it is the relief of the rates. That is not true at all. The relief of the rates could be quite properly carried out by imposing taxation for the precise year in which the money was required. That is the normal constitutional method, and if that were his true object he would take that course. His object is really an electoral one. There can be no other object. The sole object of raising it this year in order to make a remission of taxation next year is that next year he will be able to present an amazingly favourable Budget. He proposes next year to make a Budget which is unduly favourable by imposing a burden on this year which ought to fall upon next year. That is not a beneficial object. It is not even an innocent object. In my view, it is a nefarious object, because it is in keeping with the whole of the finance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is to misrepresent the financial facts to the country. Because the scheme is not innocent in its methods, because it is nefarious in its objects and because it misleads the public as to the true facts of the finance of the country I shall vote against it.

Captain BOURNE

However much we may disagree on opposite sides of this Committee as to the advantages or disadvantages or innocence of the scheme set up by my right hon. Friend, I think we shall all agree that the method which he is proposing is a dangerous one, and is a departure from our constitutional practice. In expressing this view, I am reinforced by the views of Mr. Speaker Peel, who characterised a similar proposal in 1890 as unconstitutional. It has hitherto been our practice at least since the Select Committee on Finance in 1828 that any surplus income at the end of the year should be devoted automatically to the extinction of debt. There is one solitary reason for this, namely, that it is not in the interests of the country to impose more taxation upon His Majesty's subjects than is likely to meet the expenditure. I do think that we ought to hesitate before we sanction a departure from that time-honoured practice. In the old days, it was the object of this House to prevent the Crown accumulating money so that the Crown should not be able to carry on the government of this country without reference to Parliament, and I think we have just as much business now to say that the Executive cannot carry on the Government without reference to this House.

I feel that we are opening by this practice a door which may lead to very dangerous developments. No doubt any future Government which may come into power will consider as excellent the motives for which they want to accumulate surpluses. Their ideals may be innocent, and taking this fact into consideration, they will be so conscious of their own virtue that they will feel that it is quite right to raise more taxation and put aside a surplus sum to be used for some extensive object in the future. Such a surplus may easily be devoted to financing some scheme for catching votes at an election or something else, and one which may place a very serious burden upon the shoulders of a subsequent Government and a subsequent Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is quite easy to start-any scheme you like with a reserve fund of several millions, and to finance it for the first six months and then leave it to some subsequent Government to raise further taxation. I feel that we are opening the door to that practice by accepting this Clause, and I feel that we ought not to do so without adequate reasons.


I wish to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) in the protest he has just made against this Clause. There is no doubt that it is entirely established that any surplus should go to a reduction of debt. The dangers of creating the precedent which we are creating this evening if we pass this Clause are really very great, and I think they will become greater as democracy becomes real and large. After all, what is there to prevent a Government from accumulating funds and then subsequently going to the electors with a cry that they will raise money for a particular object when they have already raised the money? Suppose that, owing to certain electoral vicissitudes, this Government do not come back to office to complete their scheme, this money will be at the disposal of Parliament. That means that it will be at the disposal of the Government who are returned at the next election, and I do not want to see the election fought on the question of how this £26,000,000 is to be expended, whether on the Government's scheme—which I consider to be excellent; I am not complaining about the scheme—or on some electoral bribe. I most strongly ask the Committee to think twice before they create a precedent such as this, and I do ask the Government—I understand that the words proposed in the Amendment put down by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford and myself, are not in order—to insert some appropriate words before we come to the Report stage, so that this money may be definitely earmarked for the scheme that they have in view, and that if that scheme is not carried out, it will go automatically to the reduction of debt.


One cannot fail to recognise the obvious sincerity of the comments which have just fallen from the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen on the other side. That they are sincere in this matter is proved by their attempt to deal with it in the Amendment which they placed upon the Order Paper. It would be interesting to see how many of their hon. Friends they can persuade to go into the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett). The basis laid down by the hon. and gallant. Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley), and, indeed, by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford is, of course, absolutely sound. The net result is, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), that we shall really be taking £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 from the taxpayers this year above what is required in respect of the Chancellor's present proposals during the current financial year.

Apart, entirely from the general question of finance, which has already been explained to the Committee, surely we ought to be able to press upon the Government that if they are going to take this extra £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 this year, they ought to be amending their proposals so that the relief to industry comes in the present year and not next year. Wherever you look to-day, you find that British trade is in serious difficulties, and at this time, when trade is in such a serious position, you are going to collect this money and say to them, "Perhaps in 15 or 18 months' time we shall give some of it back to you in some other direction." The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he hopes that within a short time the details of the Government's scheme of block grants to local authorities will be made available. We ought to have those particulars made available to us before we discuss the question of raising the money in the financial year, and ought to know how the revenue when raised is actually to be distributed.

The Chancellor's statement that the matter will be perfectly safe and that the money will be carried to a suspensory fund, and that that suspensory fund will always be at the disposal of the. Government, really gives us very little consola- tion. We certainly do not trust the present Chancellor of the Exchequer with money held in such a fund as that. We know his great capacity as a marauder, as a pirate when there is any money of that character about. He has raided the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He has raided the National Health Insurance Fund. There is the Minister of Transport sitting on the Bench opposite. He was unable to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking over £20,000,000 from the Road Fund. It is of very little satisfaction to us to be told that this money is going to a suspensory fund, and that therefore it will always be at the disposal of Parliament. What that means is, of course, that it is at the disposal of whoever in in charge of the Treasury for the time being, and the real danger, therefore, is the danger which has been pointed out to the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford and the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin. They put their case from their point of view quite plainly, and I think we on this side of the Committee ought to welcome the fact that apparently there are some Members of the Conservative party who do not want this kind of thing to be used as an election cry. It will be interesting to see how many hon. Members they can persuade to follow us into the right Lobby on this very important issue.


I wish to associate myself with the protest which has been made by my two hon. and gallant Friends on this side of the Committee and also to associate myself, if I may, wish the practical and constructive suggestion which fell from the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) in the course of the remarks which he has just addressed to the Committee. I feel with my hon. and gallant Friends on this side of the Committee that there is a strong constitutional objection to be taken to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I am myself so strongly in favour of the general scheme of this Budget; I am so anxious that nothing whatever shall be done to impede the general scheme and that nothing shall be put in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer carrying out his large scheme for the relief of the basic industries of this country, that I, personally, shall hesitate to do anything which will impede it. The hon. Gentleman opposite seems to have made a practical suggestion which I very much wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into serious consideration. As I understand the proposal, it is that the money which is now under question, instead of being paid into a suspensory account should, during the current financial year, be expended on the objects which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already explained to the Committee. Speaking for myself, and without any opportunity of consulting any of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, that seems to be a perfectly sound suggestion, and one which, on its merits, ought to receive very serious consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne) has just left the Committee, because, as I understand the speech which he delivered at an earlier stage of our discussions

on the Budget proposals of this year, this was precisely the suggestion which he made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that instead of reserving a sum which would amount to £26,000,000, or whatever it might be, for use in 18 months' time, something should be paid on account during the current financial year, possibly in the relief of railway freights, or on any other selected object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might choose for himself. I do not want to detain the Committee for more than a minute or two. I merely wish to commend to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the constructive suggestion which has fallen from the hon. Member opposite, and which was advanced at an earlier stage in our discussions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead.

Question put, "That the word 'years' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 127.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.) Smithers, Waldron
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Nicld, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Nuttail, Ellis Sprot, Sir Alexander
Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley) Oakley, T. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Wastrn'eland)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) Penny, Frederick George Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Loder, J. de V. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Stuart, Hon, J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lougher, Lewis Perring, Sir William George Styles, Captain H. Walter
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Sugden, sir Wilfrid
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Tasker, R. Inlgo.
Lumley, L. R. Pilcher, G. Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Lynn, Sir R. J. Preston, William Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Radford, E. A. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Maclntyre, Ian Ralne, Sir Walter Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
McLean, Major A. Ramsden, E. Tinne, J. A.
Macmillan, Captain H. Rawson, Sir Cooper Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Tryen, Rt. Hon. George Clement
MacRobert, Alexander M. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Waddington, R.
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Robinson, Sir T. (Lane., Stretford) Wallace, Captain D. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Margesson, Captain D. Ropner, Major L. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. Watts, Sir Thomas
Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Wayland, Sir William A.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Rye, F. G. Wells, S. R.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark. Lanark) Salmon, Major I. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Withers, John James
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Sandeman, N. Stewart Womerslev, W. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Savery, S. S. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Nelson, Sir Frank Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Shepperson, E. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Skelton, A. N. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Ritson, J.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Greenall, T. Saklatvala, Shapurji
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Salter, Dr. Aifred
Ammon, Charles George Griffith, F. Kingsley Scrymgeour, E.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Groves, T. Scurr, John
Baker, Walter Grundy, T. W. Sexton, James
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Barnes, A. Hardie, George D. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Batey, Joseph Harney, E. A. Shinwell, E.
Bondfield, Margaret Harris, Percy A. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bowerman. Rt. Hon. Charles W. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Briant, Frank Hirst, G. H. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Bromfield, William Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Sitch, Charles H.
Bromley, J. Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Smillie, Robert
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Buchanan, G. Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Snell, Harry
Cape, Thomas Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Charieton, H. C. Kelly, W. T. Stamford, T. W.
Cluse, W. S. Kennedy, T. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kirkwood, D. Strauss, E. A.
Compton, Joseph Lansbury, George Sutton, J. E.
Connolly, M. Lee, F. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cove, W. G. Livingstone, A. M. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lowth, T. Thurtle, Ernest
Crawfurd, H. E. Lunn, William Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Mackinder, W. Townend, A. E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Day, Harry Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thamptom Varley, Frank B.
Dennison, R. March, S. Viant, S. P.
Duckworth, John Maxton, James Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dunnico, H. Montague, Frederick Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Edge, Sir William Morris, R. H. Wellock, Wilfred
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Westwood, J.
England, Colonel A. Murnin, H. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Owen, Major G. Whiteley, W.
Fenby, T. D. Palin, John Henry Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gardner, J. P. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Potts. John S. Wright, W.
Gibbins, Joseph Purcell, A. A. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Gillett, George M. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring;
Gosling, Harry Riley, Ben TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."


I do feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should make some answer to the very important point which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for

Division No. 215.] AYES. [6.39 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Dean, Arthur Wellesley Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Dixey, A. C. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Drewe, C. Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman Eden, Captain Anthony Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Edmondson, Major A. J. Loder, J. de V.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Elliot, Major Walter E. Lougher, Lewis
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Ellis, R. G. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Atholl, Duchess of Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith Lumley, L. R.
Balniel, Lord Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Lynn, Sir R. J.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Everard, W. Lindsay MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Fairfax, Captain J. G. Maclntyre, Ian
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon Falle, Sir Bertram G. McLean, Major A.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Fanshawe, Captain G. D. Macmillan, Captain H.
Bethel, A. Flelden, E. B. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Betterton, Henry B. Finburgh, S. MacRobert, Alexander M.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Forrest, W. Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Foster, Sir Harry S. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Margesson, Captain D.
Boothby, R. J. G. Fraser, Captain Ian Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Frece, Sir Walter de Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Brass, Captain W. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Brassey, Sir Leonard Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Briggs, J. Harold Galbraith, J. F. W. Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Briscoe, Richard George Ganzoni, Sir John Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Buchan, John Goff, Sir Park Nelson, Sir Frank
Buckingham, Sir H. Gower, Sir Robert Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bullock, Captain M. Grace, John Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Burman, J. B. Grant, Sir J. A. Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Greene, W. P. Crawford Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Caine, Gordon Hall Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E) Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Campbell, E. T. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Nuttall, Ellis
Carver, Major W. H. Grotrian, H. Brent Oakley, T.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Hacking, Douglas H. Penny, Frederick George
Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.) Hammersley, S. S. Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Perring, Sir William George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Harland, A. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Chapman, Sir S. Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Christie, J. A. Harrison, G. J. C. Pilcher, G.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Preston, William
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Haslam, Henry C. Radford, E. A.
Clarry, Reginald George Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Raine, Sir Walter
Cobb, Sir Cyril Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley) Ramsden, E.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian Rawson, Sir Cooper
Cohen, Major J. Brunei Henn, Sir Sydney H. Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Cooper, A. Duff Hilton, Cecil Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Cope, Major Sir William Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Couper, J. B. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Holt, Capt. H. P. Ropner, Major L.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hopkins, J. W. W. Russell, Alexander West, (Tynemouth)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Rye, F. G.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Salmon, Major I.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hume, Sir G. H Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Illffe, Sir Edward M. Sandeman, N. Stewart
Dalkeith, Earl of Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Savery, S. S.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Jephcott, A. R. Shepperson, E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Kennedy, A. R. (Preston). Skelton, A. N.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) King, Commodore Henry Douglas Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & K'nc'dine.C.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Smithers, Waldron
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Oxford (Captain Bourne) and myself. We ought not to leave the matter as it stands. We ought to have some assurance that before the Report stage they will consider the matter.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 129.

Sprot, Sir Alexander Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Wayland, Sir William A.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell. Wells, S. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Western'eland) Tinne, J. A. White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Streatfeild, Captain S. R. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Withers, John James
Styles, Captain H. Walter Waddington, R. Womersley, W. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston on-Hull) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Tasker, R. Inigo Warrender, Sir Victor
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Waterhouse, Captain Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Watts, Sir Thomas Captain Bowyer and Captain
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Griffith, F. Kingsley Salter, Dr. Alfred
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Groves, T. Scrymgeour, E.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Grundy, T. W. Scurr, John
Ammon, Charles George Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Sexton, James
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hardle, George D. Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Baker, Walter Harney, E. A. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Shinwell, E.
Barnes, A. Hayes, John Henry Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Batey, Joseph Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bondfield, Margaret Hirst, G. H. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Sitch, Charles H.
Briant, Frank Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Bromfield, William Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Smillie, Robert
Bromley, J. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Snell, Harry
Buchanan, G. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cape, Thomas Kelly, W. T. Stephen, Campbell
Charleton, H. C. Kennedy, T. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cluse, W. S. Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M. Strauss, E. A.
Compton, Joseph Kirkwood, D Sullivan, J.
Connolly, M. Lansbury, George Sutton, J. E.
Cove, W. G. Lee, F. Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lowth, T. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Crawfurd, H. E. Lunn, William Thurtle, Ernest
Dalton, Hugh Mackinder, W. Tinker, John Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) MacLaren, Andrew Townend, A. E.
Day, Harry Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Trevelyan, Rt Hon. C. P.
Dennison, R. Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Varley, Frank B.
Duckworth, John March, S. Viant, S. P.
Dunnico, H. Maxton, James Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Edge, Sir William Montague, Frederick Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Morris, R. H. Wellock, Wilfred
England. Colonel A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Westwood, J.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.) Murnin, H. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Fenby, T. D. Owen, Major G. Whiteley, W.
Gardner, J. P. Palln, John Henry Wiggins, William Martin
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gibbins, Joseph Potts, John S. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gillett, George M. Purcell, A. A. Wright, W.
Gosling, Harry Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Riley, Ben
Greenall, T. Ritson, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Saklatvala, Shapurji Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.

Clauses 20 (Payment to Exchequer out of unclaimed dividends account), 21 (Interest on Victory Bonds or Funding Loan held by National Debt Commissioners not to be paid), 22 (Power to make temporary advances to Road Fund), 23 (Fines under 17 & 18 Geo 5. c. 37 to be paid into the Exchequer), 24 (Power to borrow sums required for meeting interest on savings certificates), 25 (Exemption from income tax, estate duty and stamp duties in case of trust funds and gifts for reduction of National Debt), 26 (Extension of s. 114 of Stamp Act, 1891, to stock of certain guaranteed loans), 27 (Amendment of s. 37 of 7 & 8 Geo. 5. c. 31) and 28 (Construction, short title, application and repeal), ordered to stand part of the Bill.