§ Amendment made: In page 30, line 28, leave out the word "Private."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
I beg to move, in page 30, line 28, after the word "company," to insert the words "to which this Part of this Act applies."
§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
There is a point which could be raised on a later Amendment by my hon. 2210 Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) if you, Sir, propose to call it. We do not want to take the discussion twice over.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: (Mr. Dunnico)
I had not intended to select the hon. Member's Amendment, though I am always willing, as far as possible, to select those Amendments which have substance, and to which hon. Members attach special importance.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
Perhaps in that case my hon. Friend would prefer to make his observations on this occasion.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now proposing to alter the wording of the definition Clause in such a way that, instead of referring to private companies all through, it refers to companies to which this part of the Act applies. I understand that that carries with it the intention that the rest of the definition of "private" company should stand as it is in the Bill. In spite of the general objections that one has to legislation by reference, if you have complicated, difficult and intricate legislation of this kind, and you have in an Act which has been in operation for some years a definition long, intricate, complicated and difficult, which no one but a lawyer could understand, but one which has been found to be watertight from the point of view of the Revenue, and not objectionable to the business community generally, I suggest that, if ever legislation by reference is justified, it is here; and, after all, I doubt whether it is in a true or objectionable sense of the term legislation by reference simply to refer back to a definition of a particular type of company in a previous Act.
The whole language of our Acts of Parliament, in order to be understood and construed, requires a knowledge of the meaning of a number of words, and a large number of those words, which are included in all Acts of Parliament, have some kind of recognised definition, statutory or otherwise, some of them under the Interpretation Act, and, therefore, I do not think in this case the gibe of the Attorney-General at our having ventured to suggest legislation by reference has any foundation. On the other hand, I know that the Attorney-General desires to make this legislation as little intricate and difficult as possible, and, although the Finance Acts of 1922 and 1927 were directed to dealing with evasion of Surtax, while this Bill is directed to the evasion of Death Duties, that is no reason why we should not have the same definition of a controlled company of a private nature when you have a definition of the same subject in a previous Act. You would have the advantage of a definition which has been acted upon for some 2212 years, and there would, therefore, not be the liability to go to the Courts for the interpretation of an entirely new definition. Perhaps it would be permissible to refer to the words "wheresoever incorporated" unless you, Sir, are proposing to call my Amendment. If you are, I will not say anything about it now.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The fact that I may not select certain Amendments does not entitle hon. Members to anticipate them and to discuss them on prior Amendments. The proper place to discuss any matter in an Amendment that is not selected is on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
I quite agree, and I will not go into it. My excuse must be that I was invited to use the Chancellor's Amendment for the purpose of saying a few words on the general definition raised by a later Amendment of my own. I suggest to the Chancellor that, following the alteration which he has made to get rid of the use of that expression "private company," which already has a statutory meaning, he should consider whether he cannot improve the Clause still more by adopting the old, well known, tried and proved definition of the particular type of company to which we want this legislation to apply.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I should like to ask if this Amendment alters the statement made in the White Paper dealing with the Clause, that the effect of the definition inserted in the Bill is to include all private companies within the meaning of the Companies Acts? I have an Amendment to substitute "means" for "includes," and perhaps I may put a question on it if you, Sir, are not intending to call it.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think hon. Members are falling into a very bad habit in asking the Chair beforehand what Amendments it is going to select and what it is not. In this case I intend to call the hon. Member's Amendment.
§ Captain BOURNE
I think this is really a point on which we must raise the exact type of company which comes within these Clauses, and we must know, before we part from this Clause, exactly what companies are coming in. I am advised that a very large company near my own constituency would come in under 2213 this definition, "company to which this part of the Act applies." I want to know, in a case where a company issues preference shares and the founder of the company retains the ordinary shares——
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
On a point of Order. I submit that this method of procedure is making the Clause very confusing. This is only a consequential Amendment on alterations made in Clauses 29 and 32.
§ Mr. O'CONNOR
Is not the hon. Member missing the point? We are dealing with a group of Clauses which were originally headed "private companies," because they dealt with companies defined in Clause 33 as private companies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has struck out the word "private," and now the Clauses are to deal, not only with all companies that are known to the law, but, in addition, with certain other companies which are included in the sub-definition in this Clause. I submit that my hon. and gallant Friend was in order in making the point he was making. Ought we not to have an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he is going to substitute the word "means" for the word "includes"?
§ Mr. LEIF JONES
Further to my point of Order. I submit that the point which the hon. Member has made really does not answer my point. What the phrase "company to which this Act applies" means includes or affects, we do not know at all until we come to the further words of the Clause. What we have to define is the company to which this Act applies, and I do not think that we ought to go into the further provisions of the Clause.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
May I make a suggestion so that we may not waste time over points of Order? We want to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer his Clause within the time stated and do not want to waste time unduly. If we could have an expression of his intention, perhaps we could condense the discussion of what should come under the Clause in the light of the expression of his intention. That would, I think, shorten our discussion very considerably.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
If I may be permitted to strain the rules of order in 2214 order to facilitate business, I do not hesitate to do so. I understand that the Committee want to know whether I am prepared to consent to the next Amendment on the Paper to which the name of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is attached, namely, to leave out the word "includes" and to insert instead thereof the word "means." Is that what the right hon. Gentleman means?
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I beg to move, in page 30, line 28, to leave out the word "includes," and to insert instead thereof the word "means."
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has notified that he is going to accept the Amendment, it does not require that I should argue the need for its acceptance.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir B. MERRIMAN
I beg to move, in page 30, line 31, to leave out from the word "thereof," to the end of line 34.
The point of this Amendment is to obtain some elucidation as to what is aimed at by this definition of company. The test in the first paragraph (ii) of this Clause is that the company:has not issued to the public more than half of the shares by the holders whereof it is controlled.I would ask the Attorney-General to consider whether that is a definition which really elucidates the matter at all? I invite his attention to the fact that in the Companies Act itself there is no definition of the word "public," and that in the Companies Act itself the word is used in different senses in different Sections. And it may or may not include, for example, existing members of a company or existing debenture holders of a company; it may or may not include a very limited class of persons who happen to be members of the public; and it may or may not include even a single person according to the circumstances of the particular case. Without going into elaborate details, that is the effect of the review of the exisitng state of the law which is given in a well known text book 2215 with which both the learned Attorney-General and I are familiar. Is it Wise in those circumstances to leave the vital definition on which the whole of this set of Clauses hangs in a fashion so nebulous as that?
Let me Point out to the learned Attorney-General that you are now adding a third definition in which the issue of shares to the public forms a part. Under the Finance Act, 1922, in connection with the Income Tax, the test is:which has not issued any of its shares as a result of a public invitation to subscribe for shares.This is not necessarily the same thing as "has not made an issue of shares to the public." Under the Companies Act itself the test of a private company is that it has prohibited any invitation to the public to subscribe for shares, and now you are adding yet a third test, that it does, in fact, issue shares to the public although the public is nowhere defined. I suggest that, having regard to all the implications which hang upon this definition, it is absolutely vital that something more precise than that should be arrived at. I should also like to put this point to the learned Attorney-General. The crucial time when it really matters whether a company is or is not within the definition in this Clause is the time of the original transfer. We tried to get an Amendment accepted that the character of the company had to remain the same throughout the whole transaction, that it had to be a com-company as defined at the time the transfer was made, and that it had still to be a company within the definition at the time the benefit was received. That Amendment was rejected. The crucial point, therefore, is that if you get a transfer to a company which is a company within the meaning of this definition at the time the transfer is made, all the rest follows if the benefit is received later on, whether the company is still a company within the meaning of the definition or not.
Is it intended to catch this sort of case where the company which is in process of formation has never intended to be a company within this definition at all? It is not so constituted as not to be controlled by its shareholders; on the contrary it is constituted to give complete control to the shareholders. But at the 2216 time the company is in process of formation, the transfer is made to it, just after its formation, but before it has completed the issue of shares which it intends to issue to the public. Is it intended, although things go on in the ordinary course, and in due course, though after the transfer has been effected, the company issues to the public more than half the shares by which it is controlled as it always intended to do, that nevertheless the transaction is going to be rendered an offending transaction by the fact that the person who made the transfer is in receipt of a benefit at some date before his death and within the prescribed period. I venture to think that the learned Attorney-General—I do not expect an answer on the spur of the moment—will agree that these are matters which require very serious consideration in connection with the definition of the word "company."
§ Viscount WOLMER
Before the learned Attorney-General replies, may I call his attention to the case of a company in which I happen to have a few shares? The Sudan Plantations Syndicate 30 years ago had a capital of £500,000. It has had a very prosperous career and its capital is now £2,500,000. The whole of that capital has been obtained by the issue of shares to its own shareholders and not to the public. Taking a company like that, it is certainly true to say that it has not issued half the shares to the public. A great deal more than half of the shares have been issued to ordinary members during the ordinary course of the extension of the business. Do words such as these touch a company of that sort?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I agree that the word "public" is a word necessarily of somewhat vague import, but there are certain contexts which give it a precise definition. After all, it is not the first time that the word "public" has been used in connection with the word "company.' In spite of the fact that the word "public" has been used, I have never heard of any extraordinary difficult arising. The Finance Act, 1927, includes the definition of company—in which the public are substantially interested.It is the definition which the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) 2217 desired me to accept in this very Clause. The definition of a company "in which the public are substantially interested" is—again these are the essential words—that at least 25 per cent. of the voting power is at the end of the year for which the accounts of the company have been made up, beneficially held by the public. That is the Act of 1927, with which the hon. and learned Gentleman was, no doubt, equally concerned. At any rate, it is an Act which he will not desire to criticise too adversely, nor do I. As far as I know, it has worked well. In short, it is always difficult to attempt a definition with regard to a subject matter which we must know in the last resort involves a question of degree. I cannot do it.
The question of degree is a question of fact and the Commissioners, as I have said before, would be a very competent body of men trained in business methods entitled to determine and adjudge whether on the given facts of a given case the circumstances, and the extent and the degree of the issue, did or did not constitute, an issue to the public. With regard to the other point which the hon. and learned Member put to me—a fine and ingenious point—he was good enough to say that he did not expect an answer on the spur of the moment, and I should certainly like to consider it. I understand that the point is this. Here you have a company which always intends to issue to the public the whole of its shares, but immediately the company is incorporated, say the day after the company is incorporated, and before it has had time to make its issue, the transfer is made to it, is it or is it not a company to which the Act is applied?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The hon. and learned Member was good enough to say that I should not give an answer on the spur of the moment. I shall certainly think over the matter in the still watches of the night before I give an answer. Obviously, we do not mean to hit that company. The effect of leaving out those words would be that we should limit the company to a company which is so constituted as not to be controlled by its shareholders or by any class thereof. The class of company which I have very much in mind—I must not say too much—and which I have come across in litiga- 2218 tion, is a company which has, perhaps, a very large amount of preference shares and a very large amount of ordinary shares, possibly running into even £1,000,000. It is controlled as far as voting power is concerned by what are called management shares—four or eight management shares. It is obvious that that company ought to be brought in. That is manifestly the sort of company to which we want to apply our Measure. The Amendment would confine the definition of a private company to one that:is so constituted as not to be controlled by its shareholders or by any class thereof.Here is a company which is controlled by one class of shareholder, to wit, management shares. I can anticipate at this point a question which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) is going to ask me. He puts a hypothetical case of a company which has a large amount of preference shares issued to the public, while its block of ordinary shares are held by one individual and the voting power rests with the ordinary shares. I presume that the preference shares have no voting power unless there is default. That company would be caught, because it has not issued to the public more than half of the shares by which it is controlled. It is controlled by the holder of its ordinary shares and it has not issued to the public more than half those shares. The case which the Noble Lord put to me seems again to involve a question of degree. Degree is always a question of fact and not of law, and one which the commissioners would have to decide, but I would not like to pronounce a definite opinion upon the case which he raised before I had a clear apprehension of the facts.
§ Major HILLS
May I suggest that a good deal of difficulty in connection with this Clause arises from the use of the word "issued"? Take the case of a company with existing shareholders, which wants to raise more capital. It has two courses before it when it issues new shares, courses which are quite distinct and separate in the mind of any business man. Does it issue its shares to the public or issue them to existing shareholders? Surely, the court which may be called upon to give an interpretation would accept the ordinary meaning of an 2219 issue to the public as ruling out an issue to existing shareholders. I think the Attorney-General will agree that in the strict business acceptance of an issue of new capital, an issue to the public is quite a different thing from an issue to existing shareholders, and yet there is no mischief in an issue to existing shareholders. Many large, reputable and leading companies, with a fine record behind them, take that course of raising new capital. I do not think that they should be caught by this Sub-section. Of course, my opinion on a point of law is not worth much in comparison with that of the Attorney-General, and I do not ask for an answer now, but will he look into the point? I believe we all mean the same thing.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I am not quite certain whether the company mentioned by my noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) was not a private company at the outset. It is quite possible that you may have a company which was a private company at the start, and you may have some of these shares afterwards transferred and beneficially owned by a large number of persons, and where an issue of new shares to existing shareholders would still not be an issue to the public. We would like the Attorney-General to look into this matter carefully. In regard to the case that he mentioned, perhaps that ought to be a company within the meaning of this Clause. At the same time, I wonder whether it would not be possible to accept the suggestion in the Amendment, which was not moved, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert)—in page 30, line 28, leave out from the word "includes," to end of line 34, and insert instead thereof:any company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested as defined by Section thirty-one of Subsection (3), of the Finance Act, 1927.That would mean that instead of accepting paragraph (ii) we could accept the definition given in Section 31 (3) of the Finance Act, 1927.
§ Mr. O'CONNOR
The Attorney-General must have swallowed so much of his legal self-respect in accepting these monstrous Clauses that perhaps it would not be too much to ask him, even 2220 at this last moment, to reconsider this definition of a company, upon which the whole of the Clauses hinge. This is just another instance of how utterly futile and fatuous these Clauses are in their inception and in the method of carrying them out. In order to devise the method at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aiming, they have had to adopt a perfectly casual and unreasonable method of computing assets, and now they are introducing into our language a new definition of what is a public company. That is not the definition of the law at the present time. They are threatening a large number of companies of a kind which are increasingly coming into existence, the type of company which is not mainly controlled by the public, and which has not issued more than half of its shares to the public. There is a great tendency to form these companies to-day. More and more we are moving in the direction of public utility companies, where the shareholder does not control the company. The Government are sweeping these companies within the ambit and definition of this Clause. In order to catch an infinitesimally small number of companies they are bringing within the survey of the Treasury review not only a vast number of companies that exist at the present time, but also a vast number of companies such as are defined by this Clause. This is only another example of the ludicrous limits to which the Treasury is prepared to go, and the wide extension of bureaucratic powers which it is giving in order to catch a very few people. I hope that even at this late time the Attorney-General—whose acceptance of these Clauses shows either that he has not shown very much of that legal acumen which he possesses or that he is prepared to subordinate it to his neighbour on the Treasury bench—will reconsider the matter and not alter the whole definition of companies.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I should like to have the opportunity at once of saying something in reply to the hon. and learned Member who has just made an accusation against me. I regard what he has said as an accusation. I regard it as my duty as Attorney-General to advise the Committee upon points of law that are put to me, and it is clearly my duty 2221 to advise the Committee as best I can. I can honestly say, and I think the Committee will agree with me, that although I have made mistakes—no doubt I have made mistakes in some of the answers which I have given; I am conscious of one, which I will take the opportunity of correcting—I have done my best in the advice that I have given, and I resent the accusation that I have swallowed my legal self-respect, and have not given the Committee the benefit of the legal acumen which I am supposed to possess. I do resent that accusation. I have advised the Committee to the best of my ability.
§ Mr. O'CONNOR
If my words conveyed the impression that I meant to say that of the Attorney-General, I withdraw them without any reservation whatsoever. That was not what I meant. What I did mean was that the learned Attorney-General had some responsibility for allowing the Government to accept this particular method of catching the type of tax evader we all want to catch. That was all that I meant. My reference was to the method.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I accept without the smallest hesitation what my hon. and learned Friend has been good enough to say. I felt sure that he did not mean what I think was the only meaning which his words seemed to convey. I am anxious not to mislead the Committee by holding out false hopes. If I may use a legal phrase I would say, "entirely without prejudice" I will look into this matter, but I do not want to be understood as holding out any hope or giving the remotest shadow of promise that any alteration will be made.
§ Major NATHAN
Arising out of what was said by the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) I should like to assure the Attorney-General, although I think the assurance is not necessary, that on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues we have taken a considerable part in the proceedings—we have a keen appreciation of the courtesy and assistance which has been extended to us not only by the Attorney-General but by the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Throughout these discussions since we began the debate on Clause 29, such intervention as I have made has been to direct attention not to the taxpayer 2222 but to the innocent company that might find itself in a difficulty by reason of these provisions. I wonder whether the Government have fully appreciated the range of companies covered by this definition. The White Paper points out that it includes all private companies within the meaning of the Companies Acts, and also public companies which are under the control of a limited number of persons. I think a more apt definition or a clearer definition would have been all corporations, wheresoever incorporated, except those which have made a public issue of 50 per cent. of their controlling shares. The definition really goes much further than that. The Government are unable to tell us to how many companies incorporated under the Companies Acts this provision applies. I asked a question on the 19th June of the President of the Board of Trade, and he said quite frankly that the Government were unable to say how many companies were affected, but he gave this remarkable information that of 110,000 companies registered, 91,000 are private companies.
In addition to those 91,000 there are a very large number of public companies which come within this provision, and I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that of all the companies incorporated in this country, with a capital involving something in the neighbourhood of £5,000,000,000—I am quoting from the 38th General Annual Report of the Board of Trade for 1929—over £1,500,000,000, approaching £2,000,000,000 of Capital, is covered by these provisions. That is a very large figure; over one-third of the total capital embarked in company enterprises throughout this country. The definition goes very much further. I wonder if hon. Members opposite appreciate that it includes every co-operative society. Do they appreciate that it includes, if not all, at any rate a very large number of public utility societies, not only registered here but elsewhere. I want to address a question to the Treasury. I should like to know the view of the Secretary of State for the Dominions with regard to this proposal. What, for instance, is Canada or South Africa going to say with regard to a tax imposed upon companies, it may be, in respect of transactions which took place there by persons who were nationals of that country and 2223 not of this country at all? Yet, under this Clause and definition, if a domiciled Canadian, having entered into a transaction perfectly lawful by the law of the land in which he lives, comes over here and acquires an English domicile, then a Canadian company would become liable in respect of a Canadian transaction relating to Canadian property entered into with a Canadian subject which was perfectly lawful and without any suspicion at the time, and would find itself liable to taxation in this country in respect to Death Duties. What will the Government representatives of Canada, South Africa and Australia say about that at the time of the Imperial Conference? It is all very well to talk about the bonds binding the Empire together——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is really getting very far afield from the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Major NATHAN
I am only too anxious not to go too far afield, but I would point out that the public companies incorporated to here and public companies wheresoever they are incorporated are included, and it is not only within the bounds of the Empire but throughout the world that it is now suggested for the first time the writ of a King of England is to run. It is a novel proposition, and is entirely contrary to all the canons of international law. It has been laid down again and again that one country will not pay attention in its courts of justice to the revenue laws of another. It was only in 1928 that the Queen of Holland came here, submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of this country, and said, "I claim Death Duties in Holland from a subject, a person who is liable in Holland but who is within the jurisdiction of the British Courts." Mr. Justice Tomlin, as he then was, giving judgment in that case, said, "We cannot recognise a claim like this. It is contrary to the whole course of legal history of this country for upwards of 200 years." There is another consideration which I should ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into account in dealing with this matter. Is it wise and dignified that the British House of Commons should pass into law penal provisions which are incapable of fulfilment or may very well 2224 be incapable of enforcement? Let me take the case of France, a company registered in France, property situated in France, and a French subject. He sells this property in France under conditions which under the provisions of this Bill would be an offending transaction. He comes over here, a foreigner seeking the hospitality of these shares, establishes a domicile here and dies here. That French company is then automatically under an obligation here to make a return, and, furthermore, is liable to pay duties here. I ask the Attorney-General how it is suggested that these penal provisions, these taxing provisions, should be made enforceable against those who owe no allegiance to this country, who are not within the jurisdiction and who by all the canons of international law are exempt from taxation liability or submission to a jurisdiction to which they are not subject?
§ Sir BASIL PETO
I am encouraged by what the right hon. Gentleman said last to make one observation. He said he would be prepared to consider the matter between now and Report stage. Earlier in his previous speech he pointed out why this second paragraph was necessary, and said that it was to enable the Treasury to get the class of company which escaped from the first paragraph and which it was their object to catch. Is it wise to put this tax on a bona fide class of company that you do not want to catch but which has not issued to the public more than half its shares? I take the case of a company I have known for 40 years which has always made it a principle that it does not issue its ordinary stock to the public but to those who have the management of its affairs, so that those who have the management of the company should take the risk of their own doings, whether good or bad. I suggest that that is not a principle of company administration to be held up—I will not say to scorn—as something inferior in morality to the ordinary company which issues its prospectus when it has no record of past business to assure the public, puts in a lot of flowery language about what it is going to do and gets the public to subscribe 80 or 90 per cent. of its ordinary capital.
That is the kind of company you want to get and not the frugally-managed com- 2225 pany which has always allowed its preference stock to be subscribed by a public because it is safe and which has always issued its ordinary stock to those who, in a greater or less degree, are responsible for the management of a company. I do not think that the question whether a company does or does not issue 50 per cent. of its ordinary capital to the public is a wise definition to put in here. I can quite understand the first paragraph which refers to companies not to be controlled by their shareholders, but, if anything further than that is needed, I do not think it should be on the lines of making it the test whether or not more than half the ordinary capital has been issued to the public.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I want briefly to put two points. The first concerns the question of issuing shares to the public. When an issue is made to existing shareholders, can it be said that they are members of the public? In the company I have in mind the issue was made to the existing
§ shareholders. Secondly, take the case of a company, which comes under the provisions of this Clause and which wants to increase its capital for the purpose of developing land for building or some other purpose, and does indeed make a public issue but the public for some reason do not take up that issue and, as often happens, the directors and their friends, the controllers of the company, find the money out of their private resources to take up these shares. Would that mean that they have not issued to the public more than half the shares of the company although there has been a sincere attempt to issue the shares, and the public for some reason did not take them up? Would that come under this definition?
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 131.2229
|Division No. 409.]||AYES.||[7.12 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Cove, William G.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Daggar, George||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Dallas, George||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Day, Harry||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Arnott, John||Ede, James Chuter||Isaacs, George|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Edmunds, J. E.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Ayles, Walter||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Johnston, Thomas|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Egan, W. H.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Elmley, Viscount||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Foot, Isaac||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Barr, James||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Batey, Joseph||Freeman, Peter||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Gibbins, Joseph||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.|
|Benson, G.||Gill, T. H.||Kinley, J.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Glassey, A. E.||Knight, Holford|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Gossling, A. G.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lang, Gordon|
|Bowen, J. W.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Gray, Milner||Lathan, G.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Brooke, W.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Brothers, M.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Groves, Thomas E.||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lawson, John James|
|Buchanan, G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Burgess, E. G.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Leach, W.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Hall, Capt. W. R. (Portsmouth, C.)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Hardie, George D.||Lees, J.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Harris, Percy A.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Cape, Thomas||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Lindley, Fred W.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Chater, Daniel||Haycock, A. W.||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Church, Major A. G.||Hayes, John Harvey||Longden, F.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Lowth, Thomas|
|Cluse, W. S.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Lunn, William|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Cocks, Fredrick Seymour||Herriotts, J.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Compton, Joseph||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||McElwee, A.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Snell, Harry|
|McKinlay, A.||Pole, Major D. G.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Potts, John S.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Price, M. P.||Sorensen, R.|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Stephen, Campbell|
|Mansfield, W.||Rathbone, Eleanor||Strauss, G. R.|
|March, S.||Raynes, W. R.||Sullivan, J.|
|Marcus, M.||Richards, R.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Markham, S. F.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Marley, J.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Marshall, Fred||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Mathers, George||Ritson, J.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Matters, L. W.||Romeril, H. G.||Toole, Joseph|
|Maxton, James||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Tout, W. J.|
|Messer, Fred||Rowson, Guy||Townend, A. E.|
|Middleton, G.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Turner, B.|
|Millar, J. D.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Milner, Major J.||Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Viant, S. P.|
|Montague, Frederick||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Sanders, W. S.||Walker, J.|
|Morley, Ralph||Sandham, E.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Sawyer, G. F.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Scrymgeour, E.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Scurr, John||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Mort, D. L.||Sexton, James||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Sherwood, G. H.||West, F. R.|
|Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Shield, George William||Westwood, Joseph|
|Muff, G.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||White, H. G.|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Shillaker, J. F.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Murnin, Hugh||Shinwell, E.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Nathan, Major H. L.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Naylor, T. E.||Simmons, C. J.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Sinkinson, George||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Sitch, Charles H.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Oliver, P. V. (Man., Blackley)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Palin, John Henry||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Paling, Wilfrid||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Palmer, E. T.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Perry, S. F.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)|
|Albery, Irving James||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Lymington, Viscount|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Marjoribanks, E. C.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Fermoy, Lord||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Atkinson, C.||Fielden E. B.||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Bainiel, Lord||Ganzoni, Sir John||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Berry, Sir George||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Gower, Sir Robert||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||O'Neill, Sir H.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Peake, Captain Osbert|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Penny, Sir George|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Bracken, B.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hartington, Marquess of||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Haslam, Henry C.||Remer, John R.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hurd, Percy A.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Iveagh, Countess of||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Warrender, Sir Victor||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Womersley, W. J.|
|Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert||Withers, Sir John James||Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain|
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I beg to move, in page 30, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:or at a fixed rate in conjunction with a right to some further participation in the profits.I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee, otherwise I should have asked my friends to divide upon the principle of this Amendment. I want to draw attention as briefly as I can to it, and to demonstrate once again the absolute inapplicability of the measure of annual income which the Government have introduced in the previous Clause. Here, again, is one of the fruits of it; it has led them to make a new definition of preference shares in a way that I think has not taken place before. We have never got a definition of preference shares as "non-participating preference shares." I ask the Government to realise the illogical mess into which it leads them. If you confine the preference shares to non-participating preference shares, then what becomes of your measure of annual income? The whole basis of the idea of annual income was that you wished to arrive at the free distributable pool of income. The moment you confine your preference shares to non-participating preference shares, you make your pool too big, according to your own idea, because you leave in it dividends on participating preference shares. On the other hand, if you were not to make this definition, if you make preference shares include both participating and non-participating preference shares, then you make the pool too small, because you will have taken out of the pool free income of the company analogous to that which is distributed on ordinary shares.
That is the kind of absurdity that is reached by this conception, absolutely unreal, of annual income. I realise quite well that in devising this Clause, among all the other difficulties that are inherent in it, the framers of it had to create some unit of measurement by which to measure whether a benefit is too big or too small. This occurred to them, perhaps quite naturally as the unit they should choose. 2230 It has already been shown in a speech yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) to what absurdities it leads. Here is another absurdity. The Government can get an infinitely better measurement or yard-stick by using the earnings of the company, with a proper definition of earnings. I do not wish to take the time up any longer, but I do want to demonstrate once again the different fundamental faults of this Clause. The definition of "company" was bad, but the definition of the unit measurement of annual income puts the Clause into a worse state of unreality and inapplicability than even the definition of "company."
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Major NATHAN
I beg to move, in page 31, line 16, after the word "employés," to insert the words:or otherwise for the benefit of them, or their dependents or relatives,I am glad that we are about to part company with this series of Clauses, and I know the Committee will be glad, too. The Amendment I propose is with regard to the payment of pensions. It is the usual and common practice I think, indeed the invariable practice in connection with pension schemes for employés, to make provision also for their dependent relatives. My object is to bring the Clause into line with every-day practice.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Viscount WOLMER
I want to say two words only on this Motion. I hope very much that the Attorney-General will reconsider the words of this Clause between now and the Report stage. We have had no sort of reply from the Treasury Bench to the very forcible and cogent speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). When the commercial 2231 community outside realises that this Bill brings into its scope something like 100,000 companies including some of the biggest and most important companies in the country, that every company which has issued more than half its capital to its own shareholders or to its own employés, every gas company, every public utility company, is brought into the scope of this Bill, then I think that the commercial community will have something to say to the Government about it. I would protest, that such treatment of the most important parts of our business machinery will have very serious effects in weakening confidence in the country and in making it increasingly difficult for business to be carried on. The Government have already done a good deal to weaken confidence, and the results are reflected in a large extent in our unemployment returns. What the Government have been doing by this Clause adds further to that tendency. It will tend to increase the difficulties of industry, to add to unemployment and to add also to the discredit into which the Government are falling.
§ Captain BOURNE
Earlier in the evening the Attorney-General anticipated a question which I put to him. I expected the answer he gave; but it does not make me regard this Clause as being less evil in its effects than I considered it to be. Under Clause 31 the liability to Death Duty is placed on the company. That is my protest against the whole of these Clauses. The kind of company I have in mind is one which is doing useful work and employing hundreds of people. Why on earth should it be liable to Death Duties? I do not want the principal shareholder to get off the payment of the duty, but why should the liability be placed upon the company? It might land it in the Bankruptcy Court, or cause it to shut down much of its activities and throw hundreds of men cut of employment. These Clauses are ill-conceived. They are founded on the idea that in their formation private companies exist only for the purpose of dodging taxation. Only a very small number in fact have been formed for that purpose. The real lesson to be learned is this: that it is no use trying to put up elaborate machinery to stop tax evasion, you only injure legitimate enterprises and 2232 catch very few people. The real method of stopping tax evasion is so to graduate your taxes that nobody wishes to evade them.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
We are now saying Goodbye" to this Clause so far as this Committee is concerned, and the Government no doubt will realise that the Opposition have foregone discussion on many points of importance, some of which may come up on Report stage. We have compressed the discussion within very narrow limits indeed. We cannot say "Goodbye" to this Clause without realising that it is an epitome of our discussions on the rest of the Bill. The same good sense should have been applied to Clauses 29 to 33 as was applied in the case of the original Clause 12, which was withdrawn. We shall consider the new Clause 12 in a few moments; it is entirely different from the Clause which was postponed. The same procedure should have been adopted in regard to Clauses 29 and 30, certainly in regard to Clause 33. We have attempted to co-operate with the Government in trying to see that those companies which are trying to evade taxation are caught, but we must realise that we have a great deal more than that to achieve. The Attorney - General throughout our discussions has spoken of that company in which the person who wishes to evade taxation is parting with his property but reserves benefit for himself. It is quite clear now that the companies which will come under the ambit of this Clause is not only that company, but a vast number of other companies which no one ever contemplated should be brought under provisions of an Act of Parliament framed to deal with tax evasion. When it comes to the means taken to deal with those who try to frustrate their obligations to pay taxes, which other taxpayers pay, the moment you try to measure the real benefit, which is the way by which you frustrate the tax-dodger, the definition of benefit breaks in two in your hands. From that point of view we are bound to vote against this Clause and express our opinion that it is as badly conceived as any legislation that has ever been brought before the House of Commons.
§ Mr. J. JONES
We have often heard hon. Members opposite protesting against taxation in various forms. 2233 We are trying by this Finance Bill to make those pay who can afford to pay. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) tells us that he is up against the tax-dodger just as much as the Government are. Why did he not use his influence with the last Government to deal With the tax-dodger during the years they were in power? Companies have been formed for the purpose of evading taxation——
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
If the hon. Member will exercise his Memory he will find that in the Budgets of previous years we made special provisions for the prevention of tax evasion which were better framed to achieve that object than this Clause.
§ Mr. JONES
There is the formation of companies by great landlords. That was not dealt with by the last Government. We have people who turn their private estates into public companies; and thereby evade taxation. The last Government were after the poor men all the time. Now we are after them all, whether they are big or little; if they try to evade taxation, they will have to go through the mill. The right hon. Member and his friends are always talking about the big man and forget the little man. In the West End of London we have had Members of this House and
§ of the other House forming their estates into private companies in order to escape certain taxes placed Upon them by the Budget of the year. They have sold out and got a good price, and only pay ordinary Income Tax. My property will be sold when I am dead for about £10. I shall not be there to see that the price is paid over. I want to remind hon. Members opposite, when they talk about the burdens of taxation, that it is the working classes who still pay the highest amount in taxation, and they have to work for what they get.
Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL
I must protest against the speeches continually made by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) with regard to those who, perhaps, have had sufficient brains to enable them to snake a certain amount of money which is used for the benefit of the working classes of this country. The hon. Member has never anything to say with regard to those who have endeavoured to make and look after the places of many of the working classes, and I protest against the continual cant and hypocrisy of the hon. Member.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes; 126.2237
|Division No. 410.]||AYES.||[7.41 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Cameron, A. G.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Cape, Thomas||Granville, E.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Charleton, H. C.||Gray, Milner|
|Alpass, J. H.||Chater, Daniel||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Church, Major A. G.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Arnott, John||Clarke, J. S.||Groves, Thomas E.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Cluse, W. S.||Grundy, Thomas W.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)|
|Ayles, Walter||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Compton, Joseph||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Cove, William G.||Hardie, George D.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Daggar, George||Harris, Percy A.|
|Barr, James||Dallas, George||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon|
|Batey, Joseph||Day, Harry||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Bellamy, Albert||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Haycock, A. W.|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Duncan, Charles||Hayes, John Harvey|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Ede, James Chuter||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Benson, G.||Edmunds, J. E.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Egan, W. H.||Herriotts, J.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Elmley, Viscount||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Foot, Isaac||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Freeman, Peter||Hore-Belisha, Leslie|
|Brooke, W.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Brothers, M.||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Gibbins, Joseph||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Buchanan, G.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Isaacs, George|
|Burgess, F. G.||Gill, T. H.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||Glassey, A. E.||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Gossling, A. G.||Johnston, Thomas|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Shinwell, E.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Morley, Ralph||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Simmons, C. J.|
|Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Mort, D. L.||Sinkinson, George|
|Kelly, W. T.||Moses, J. J. H.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Kennedy, Thomas||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Kinley, J.||Muff, G.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Knight, Holford||Muggeridge, H. T.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Lang, Gordon||Murnin, Hugh||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Nathan, Major H. L.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Lathan, G.||Naylor, T. E.||Snell, Harry|
|Law, Albert (Bolton)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Law, A. (Rosendale)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Oldfield, J. R.||Sorensen, R.|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Lawson, John James||Palin, John Henry||Stephen, Campbell|
|Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Paling, Wilfrid||Strauss, G. R.|
|Leach, W.||Palmer, E. T.||Sullivan, J.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Perry, S. F.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Lees, J.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Phillips, Dr. Marion||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Lindley, Fred W.||Pole, Major D. G.||Tout, W. J.|
|Lloyd, C. Ellis||Potts, John S.||Townend, A. E.|
|Logan, David Gilbert||Price, M. P.||Turner, B.|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Pybus, Percy John||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Longden, F.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Viant, S. P.|
|Lowth, Thomas||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Walkden, A. G.|
|Lunn, William||Raynes, W. R.||Walker, J.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Richards, R.||Wallace, H. W.|
|McElwee, A.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Watkins, F. C.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|McKinlay, A.||Ritson, J.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Romeril, H. G.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||West, F. R.|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Rowson, Guy||Westwood, Joseph|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||White, H. G.|
|Mansfield, W.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|March, S.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Marcus, M.||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Markham, S. F.||Sanders, W. S.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Marley, J.||Sandham, E.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Marshall, Fred||Sawyer, G. F.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Mathers, George||Scrymgeour, E.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Matters, L. W.||Scurr, John||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Maxton, James||Sexton, James||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Messer, Fred||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Middleton, G.||Sherwood, G. H.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Millar, J. D.||Shield, George William|
|Milner, Major J.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Montague, Frederick||Shillaker, J. F.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Colman, N. C. D.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.|
|Albery, Irving James||Colville, Major D. J.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Cranborne, Viscount||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Atkinson, C.||Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Bainiel, Lord||Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Berry, Sir George||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)|
|Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Bracken, B.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Fermoy, Lord||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Ford, Sir P. J.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Ganzoni, Sir John||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Gower, Sir Robert||McConnell, Sir Joseph|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Christie, J. A.||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Marjoribanks, E. C.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Merriman, Sir F. Bovd|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Remer, John R.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Train, J.|
|Muirhead, A. J.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Salmon, Major I.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Warrender, Sir victor|
|O'Connor, T. J.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|O'Neill, Sir R.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Peake, Capt. Osbert||Skelton, A. N.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Penny, Sir George||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Captain Margesson and Captain|
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Following what I may now call the usual practice, I think at this stage in our proceedings I might, for the general convenience of the Committee and to facilitate public business, move this Motion for the purpose of ascertaining from the Chancellor of the Exchequer his views, not only upon the immediate progress of the Bill this evening, but, taking a rather more extensive view, upon its future progress. In fact I might ask him—though I have no knowledge of whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make any response or not—what his ideas are as regards the completion of the Committee stage. We are now going to embark on what was originally Clause 12 in its revised form, and if that Clause, on examination, is found to be one which can be disposed of with some rapidity, we might come to the other new Clauses to-day, and then, if we work hard and amicably on Monday, we might dispose of quite a number of new Clauses. One or two of these are important. There is one which we are anxious to discuss, which is not yet on the Paper, but I think that on the lines which I have suggested we might, conceivably, map out our work in a manner which would secure the highest efficiency in debate and the least inroads upon the already heavily strained physical energy of the Members of the Committee.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
I am afraid I cannot say anything about the programme beyond to-day's proceedings. I expressed the hope last night, and I think I repeated it to-day, that we should be able to make considerable inroads on the new Clauses this evening. 2238 On how far we get to-night, of course, will largely depend what further time may be required for the completion of the Committee stage of the Bill. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have to be content at the moment with a repetition of what I have already said, namely, that I hope that this Clause which was originally Clause 12 of the Bill and which in its amended form is not at all controversial, will not occupy much time. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, mentioned two new Clauses to which he appeared to attach great importance. I am always anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman's convenience and I do not wish to have those Clauses debated in the small hours of the morning when, perhaps, only a small number of Members will be able to hear the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman, and when he would not have that attention which he would certainly receive if he delivered his oration in an earlier part of our proceedings. But at the moment I cannot say more than this—that we must get on with the first new Clause which is the revised form of the original Clause 12, and then see what progress we can make with the other new Clauses. I may, perhaps, add that I do not think it will be necessary that the Committee should sit to-night later than 12 o'clock.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Perhaps at about 10 o'clock I may put another question to the right hon. Gentleman with a view to accelerating business as much as possible. I am not complaining of what he has said, but he must know that if these matters are kept in suspense for a long time, hon. Members become exceedingly anxious and disturbed as to the future progress of the Bill, and tend to dwell with more insistency and thoroughness on some of its aspects than perhaps they 2239 would if they understood that the happy relationships established during the conduct of this very controversial Measure were going to continue. Therefore, I hope that if, say at 10 o'clock, the right hon. Gentleman should feel that the light is shining a little more clearly on his path and that he can discern more accurately the general scope of the further stages which we have to take, he will not hesitate to tell us, for his own sake no less than for ours. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.