HC Deb 09 July 1930 vol 241 cc459-77

A company which proves in the manner prescribed by the Fourth Schedule to this Act to the satisfaction of the Commissioners by whom the assessment is made that it has in the accounting year or period of twelve months deemed to be the year the profits and gains of which are to be taken as the profits and gains of the year preceding the year of assessment a balance of undistributed profits and gains derived from profits and gains charged to Income Tax under Case I of Schedule D, and that that balance or part thereof has been invested as capital in the form of plant and machinery used for the purposes of the business or in the form of land or buildings constituting an industrial hereditament used for the purposes of the business shall be entitled to relict from Income Tax upon the amount of that balance or the part thereof so invested as determined by column 10 of the statement to be provided by the Fourth Schedule to this Act at the rate of sixpence in the pound.

In this section— The expression "company" includes any body corporate, wheresoever incorporated, chargeable to Income Tax under Case I of Schedule D; The expression "invested as capital" means moneys charged to the capital account of fixed assets in the balance sheet of the company or deemed to be capital expenditure for Income Tax purposes; The expression "plant and machinery" means plant and machinery in respect of which an allowance has been or will be granted or could alternatively be claimed under Rule 6 of Cases I and II of Schedule D; The expression "industrial hereditament" means any mills, factories, or other similar premises in respect of which the limitation in Rule 5 of Cases I and II of Schedule D has been or will be excluded by the proviso thereto or to which section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1919, applies—[Major Nathan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I regret that the phraseology of this new Clause should be complicated. It is necessarily so, having regard to the fact that it is framed for insertion in legislation which is itself complicated. It is framed for the purpose of embodying a very simple proposition, namely, that a company which applies any of its undistributed profits to expenditure upon plant, machinery, mills or factories shall be entitled to an allowance of 6d. in the £ off Income Tax on the amount so expended. In placing this new Clause before the Committee, it is proper that I should say that I and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Birkett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin), have placed this Clause upon the Order Paper on our own responsibility, and that, in contradistinction to the next new Clause upon the Order Paper, there is no responsibility attaching to the Liberal party as such in respect of this new Clause.

Having said so much, let me proceed to say that this Clause is designed as an integral part of the permanent financial structure of this country. It is not in any sense proposed as a temporary measure to meet any temporary emergency, and it is confined within comparatively narrow limits. For instance, it will be observed, in the first place, that it is confined to companies only, and for this reason, that by far the greatest part of the manufacturing energies of this country are concentrated in companies, and that by including companies, and restricting the operation of the Clause to companies, practically the whole field is covered. Then it is limited to undistributed profits—that is, income chargeable to Income Tax—which are actually applied as capital investment in what is expenditure upon fixed assets for the purposes of the balance sheet, or, alternatively, upon assets on which, for the purposes of Income Tax, there is an allowance made by the Revenue authorities for wear and tear, or who have been disallowed as expenses against revenue as being properly attributable to current capital expenditure. And it is limited to a definite form of expenditure, that definite form being plant, machinery, mills, factories and the like.

It will, therefore, be seen that the Clause is restricted within relatively narrow limits as regards definition, although it covers practically the whole field of British manufacturing industry in its operation. The justification, if any justification is required at this time of day for a Clause of this character, is this. It must be common ground amongst Members of all parties that it is essential that we should keep ourselves in line with the most modern requirements and be up-to-date relatively to our manufacturing competitors all over the world in relation to our equipment and plant, and it is a reflection which I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind, because it is too often overlooked that when a company requires to make a capital expenditure upon plant, and to buy, say, £1,000 worth of plant, it is not £1,000 that it has to find for the purpose. A sum has to be found out of profits which will leave, after Income Tax has been paid, £1,000 available for capital expenditure. In other words, every £1,000 worth of machinery purchased out of profits by a company involves an expenditure, with the present rates of Income Tax, of just short of £1,300; in other words, 77 per cent. alone of our expenditure upon machinery is devoted to that purpose and the balance goes to the State.

With a view to remedying that maladjustment in some small measure, and as a first instalment, this proposed Clause is brought forward. Those who have studied it will observe that the method of computation of the relief is left to a schedule. The whole technique of calculation is to be found in the proposed Fourth Schedule, which appears on the Order Paper in the same names as this proposed Clause. It looks as if it were a complicated matter, but in fact it is simplicity itself. It means that the Inland Revenue will continue to do, in reference to all these matters, what they have done for a great number of years in reference to relief under Rules 5 and 6, Cases 1 and 2 of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act of 1918. There is nothing new in it at all. I do not propose to weary the Committee, especially as they wish to some to another Amendment, by attempting to cover anything like the whole field, or even a considerable part of it, for, after all, this question of taxation of industrial reserves has been for years past a subject of debate after debate in this Chamber, and the subject of a discussion introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) in the debates on the Budget Resolutions, when a reply was given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

The Colwyn Committee also devoted long and anxious attention to this question. Anyone who takes the trouble, as all hon. Members interested in industry should, of studying that report, will observe the qualifications which it makes to the proposition that industrial reserves should be exempted from Income Tax, and how it points out the likelihood that a proposal which is superficially attractive may not actually be practicable. I have borne in mind the limitations referred to by the Colwyn Committee, and I hope that I may claim, not without justice—I am open to correction by those who are better fitted than I am—that my earnest efforts to overcome the various difficulties exposed by the Colwyn Committee have in this proposed Clause been successful. For instance, the Colwyn Committee dealt with the question of industrial reserves generally, and it will be Observed that this proposed new Clause is limited to a distinct class of profit, and to a specific method of expenditure of that profit; and it has been carefully framed with a view to overcoming the various difficulties submitted by the Colwyn Committee.

Those who have read and considered their Report will have observed in Appendix 28 a long series of queries upon this matter. I shall not trouble the Committee by asking them to follow with me those various queries and the manner in which my proposed Clause meets them, but I submit that it will be found that the Clause, read with the Schedule, effectively meets the whole, or at any rate the greater part, of the qualifications and the criticisms of the Colwyn Committee. For instance, the relief is only to be extended to profit chargeable to Income Tax, and for the purpose of this new Clause, it does not matter how reserves are dealt with from the accountancy point of view, whether positively or negatively; it is irrelevant whether assets are taken in at their real or their apparent value. For the purpose of this new Clause, all that matters is actual new expenditure under defined capital purposes, until expenditure is made out of profits on those defined capital purposes there will be no relief.

It has been argued, and it is suggested by the Colwyn Committee, that a Clause of this kind might work to the advantage of prosperous and against depressed industries. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking on a cognate matter on the 1st May, pointed out that company reserves amount to the large sum of £240,000,000, and that, of that sum, £48,000,000, or 20 per cent., actually represents the reserves of the depressed heavy industries. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to direct his attention to the passage, I have reached these figures by a simple calculation from the figures which were given by him in column 472 of the OFFICIAL REPORT on 1st May last. It is sometimes suggested that there should be no differentiation made by the State between one industry and another, but the time has long passed when the House of Commons or any Chancellor of the Exchequer should adopt the position of not taking into account whence income comes or whither it goes. Such things as the Beet Sugar Subsidy are indications of the view that Parliament takes as to the desirability of encouraging certain forms of expenditure and investment. There is the memorable example of Mr. Asquith, who differentiated between earned and unearned income, attributing a higher social value to earned income than to unearned income. There is also the well-known example of the reliefs given for insurance, which have an analogy to this case.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, with justice, that any proposal of this kind will cost money, and it is because I am conscious of that fact and of his difficulties that the proposal that I have put forward is of so modest a character. The figures given by the President of the Board of Trade on 1st May were that the cost of the extra 6d. in the £—the difference between 4s. and 4s. 6d.—would be £6,000,000. From that, I calculate that the company reserves are £240,000,000—that is, 40 times the extra 6d. As regards one-third of that sum, I am satisfied that it is invested in capital assets which are not included within the purview of my proposed Clause at all. As regards another one-third, the main assets of the companies are of an entirely different character from those of manufacturing companies, about which I am speaking. The remaining third of the £240,000,000, which might be conceivably spent in this way, limits the amount which might come within the purview of this new Clause to £80,000,000; and therefore will involve a cost to the Treasury of £2,000,000. That is a relatively small stun when compared with the purposes to be served by other expenditure, which is less remunerative to the nation, to which we are committed.

It may be said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he cannot afford it, but I submit, as every business man knows, that to produce income, you must first invest capital; and to produce more employment, you must first produce more capital. I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is calculated that an expenditure of £400 is involved for every man employed in industry, and that no additional employment can be found for any man unless a capital sum of £400 is available for the purpose. It is quite clear that with high taxation, which may possibly become higher, the savings of individuals will make a diminishing contribution to the savings of the nation, and the national necessity for a continual accumulation of capital must fall more and more to the lot of companies. Already they make a large contribution of £240,000,000, or, after Income Tax has been borne, £186,000,000, which is probably not less than 40 per cent., and perhaps 50 per cent., of our annual national savings. I do not believe that it will be inaccurate or an exaggeration to say that the greatest single influence in saving at the present time are our joint stock companies. They are not merely an influence in saving, but in determining the direction of savings. Let it not be forgotten that the direction of savings is of permanent and integral importance in matters of this kind. The directors of companies are responsible for saying whether the profits of a company shall be distributed as dividends, or set aside as reserves. Dividends on the whole are spent; they are profits which are consumed. Money put to reserve, speaking generally, are monies saved and may be regarded as capital invested and a permanent accretion to our capital resources.

I said that this new Clause is a small contribution to the essential purposes of national reconstruction, and I do not propose to do more except to call in aid Professor Clay, the economic adviser of the banking corporation, which was recently established under the encouraging influence of the Government. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to note Professor Clay's words in a recent book, "The post-war unemployment problem," I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows this work; and anyone who knows Professor Clay or his work will know how great a value is to be attached to a statement of this kind coming from him. These are his words: Anything, therefore, that encourages the application of profits to further expansion, instead of their distribution in dividends, anything that makes possible the application of larger amounts in this way, applies a stimulus to industry automatically at the points where the stimulus must have most effect. Both the industries that are best able to expand, and the firms in each industry that are best able to expand, will be encouraged and enabled to expand. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give that encouragement at the vital point.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden)

I am perfectly familiar with the quotation from Professor Clay, which the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) read. I am equally fogged to see what relevance it has to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument and purpose. He began by explaining that the Liberal party had no responsibility for this Amendment. I am very much interested in that statement, because when I saw the names that are attached to this Amendment I thought that the oft-repeated invitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to those who sit below the Gangway to recognise that the Gangway is very much narrower than the Floor, had at last been accepted. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman's desire to see a coalition beween the two sections of the Opposition for a combined fight against Socialism has not yet been fully accepted. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says very regretfully that that is quite true.

The hon. and gallant Member said the new Clause is of a very simple character. The Clause itself occupies half a page of the Order Paper, and in the Schedule a whole page, and I defy any Member to read the Clause and the Schedule and to get the faintest understanding of what the Clause means. Far from being a simple matter it is one of the greatest complication. The hon. and gallant Member has stated the purpose of the Clause, and as he explained it we can clearly understand its object. He says that by relieving from taxation at 6d. in the pound the reserves of companies which are devoted to capital expenditure a stimulus will be given to business. In passing, may I call attention to the fact that this is not a temporary Measure? The hon. and gallant Member means that his proposal shall be incorporated as a part of our Income Tax system. He went further, and said this was only a beginning, a beginning, I suppose, towards the attainment of the object which was sought in an Amendment moved earlier to secure complete exemption from taxation of all sums placed to reserves by companies.

The hon. and gallant Member said more than once that I might be influenced in my attitude towards this Clause by the cost of the full remission. What the hon. and gallant Member appears to be aiming at would cost between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000 a year. [Interruption.] I am pointing out what would be the logical outcome of his suggestion. He himself said that this was a beginning, but I am not for a moment imputing to him that if he succeeded in carrying this Clause he would propose next year that the whole of the reserves should be exempted; perhaps he might be satisfied if he could add a sixpence to the deduction each year until he had wiped out the whole taxation. The hon. and gallant Member, in recommending this proposal, advanced the argument that it applies only to the reserves of companies. I think he would have been well advised if he had not raised that point. Whatever else might be said in favour of the Clause, if it were confined to companies that would condemn it as inflicting a gross injustice upon all business firms which are not public companies, because private firms and one-man concerns are, as compared with joint stock companies, already in a disadvantageous position to-day. His proposal would mean that they would gain no relief on the sums they put to reserve which were afterwards applied to the purposes of re-equipment or modernisation, yet already the private firm or the one-man concern is in a worse position than the company in that it is liable to Super-tax, and if it be a profitable concern it will contribute to the revenue at a much larger rate of tax than is paid by a public company.

The hon. and gallant Member said his proposal would be an encouragement to saving, and he supported that argument, but what I have already described as an irrelevant quotation from Professor Clay's works. This is not going to affect savings in the slightest degree, because this is a relief upon the reserves of companies; those who provide the capital of the companies, those who subscribe new capital, will not get the benefit of it, but will be taxed for Income Tax exactly as they are at the present time. The hon. and gallant Member spent considerable time in dealing with what the Colwyn Committee say upon this question. I do not wish to say anything that is not fair, but if anyone who had not already read the suggestions of the Colwyn Committee on this matter were to turn to its Report they would find that there was not the slightest justification for the hon. and gallant Member calling in the Colwyn Report in support of his proposal. Quite the contrary.


I fully appreciate the attitude adopted by the Colwyn Committee, and I thought I was careful to direct the attention of this Committee to what had been said by the Colwyn Committee, and to point out that my Clause was designed to avoid the dangers and difficulties to which the Colwyn Committee drew attention.


I do not for a moment agree with the suggestion that the hon. and gallant Member's Clause has got over the difficulty. Nothing could be more emphatic than the condemnation by the Colwyn Committee of the suggestion that company reserves should be exempt from taxation. To use the words of the Colwyn Report, there is a "superficially attractive case" for the exemption of company reserves, especially when they are applied to the expansion of the business; but the practical objections are insurmountable, and if this proposal were adopted it would completely knock the bottom out of the whole Income Tax system. The basis of the Income Tax system is not quite what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested it was. It is quite true—this is an essential part of the Income Tax system—that it does not look at how the money is spent, except, of course, so far as indirect taxation is concerned, and neither does it look at the source from which the income is derived, except, perhaps, in the case which the hon. and gallant Member put of the differentiation between earned and unearned income. I could occupy the whole afternoon in quoting the opinions of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer who have had to face this question, but I will only quote the opinion of one Chancellor. The hon. and gallant Member said the Liberal party are not committed to supporting this proposal. What did his own leader say about this—or, rather, shall I say, his leader upon other questions than this? The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), so recently as 1927, in the course of a debate on this great question of the exemption of company reserves, said: If you begin to say that the purpose for which you use money you have earned is to be taken into account by the Revenue, you will find half your income will escape Income Tax altogether. … There is only one principle upon which you can base your taxation, and that is you tax a man according to his earnings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1927; col. 957, Vol. 208.] The hon. and gallant Member urged in support of his Clause that we must keep ourselves abreast of the times. That was perhaps the only statement in his speech with which I wholeheartedly agreed, but to what extent is the adoption of the hon. and gallant Member's Clause going to help us more successfully to face foreign competition? It would mean giving a relief of £25 upon every £1,000. Does the hon. and gallant Member maintain that that would give any impetus to industrial expansion? Figures have been quoted which are not quite correct, but those figures show what little effect it would have in stimulating investors. The hon. and gallant Member said I should probably decline to accept his proposal because it was costly. That is one of the reasons why I cannot accept it, but it is by no means the only reason. There is not a single argument that can be advanced in support of this Clause. I may say that it would cost not £2,500,000 a year but £3,000,000 a year, and is there anyone who will say that a subsidy out of the general taxpayers' pocket of £3,000,000 a year will do anything to improve the industrial position of the country?

This Clause covers ground which will be covered by the next Clause which is to be called, and as I believe there is in the Committee a good deal more interest—more pleasurable anticipation, shall I say?—in the next Clause I will not say very much more on this matter. The proposal is to give a relief of 6d. in the £ from the taxation on company reserves which are applied to purposes he has specified and which he said were limited. When I look at the three purposes I do not see much limitation. This is to be applied to plant—plant covers practically everything; it is to cover machinery; and going even further than the next Clause—it is to apply to buildings. The general taxpayer is to contribute to the cost of the improvement of a company's buildings! Well, I do not know where we are going to stop. We spent a considerable part of the time of the House of Commons a Session or two ago in discussing a Measure for the relief of industry called the De-rating Bill, which is costing the country £30,000,000 a year. I well remember the roseate pictures which were given us; how we were told that it would set British industry on its feet.


We did not know you were coming in.


To-day who is there who can find anywhere the beneficial effects of that relief, although it amounts to ten times more than the relief suggested in this proposal? I have dealt with a point about the injustice of the limitation of this exemption to companies to the exclusion of private firms and one-man concerns. I would like to give an illustration as to how that will work out. Supposing a company had an undistributed surplus of £12,000 a year and they spent £8,000 on plant. In relief of wear and depreciation they get, say, 5 per cent. and they would take that sum at 4s. 6d. in the £. The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green is asking that they should be given an extra 6d. on the £9,500. If in one year the expenditure exceeds the amount of undistributed profit, they can carry forward the balance to the credit of subsequent years on the undistributed profit of which relief would be given. I think I have now answered all the points which have been raised in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green. It will be evident that I cannot accept his new Clause, and I do not believe the Committee will accept it. If this new Clause is presented to the Committee as a conscientious attempt to restore industry and a contribution towards the relief of unemployment, then I am afraid I should be inclined to describe it in very forcible terms, because it would be little better than an imposture.


I feel sure that the Committee will share my feelings of regret at the reply which has been made to this Amendment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It all goes to show what I have long realised throughout these protracted debates that the right hon. Gentleman never tries or desires to meet the suggestions of his opponents. The right hon. Gentleman always resents, from whatever part of the House they come, any attempts to co-operate with the Government in framing the financial proposals of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contends that great complications would arise if the principle embodied in this Amendment were to be introduced into our legislation. I hope the Committee will not be mislead by that statement. I know how easy it is for high experts at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet any sane and practical proposition which the Government of the day wishes to be embodied in our legislation. All the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has stated are completely dwarfed by the difficulties presented by large chunks of legislation which are now passing through Parliament. The attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now become an obstinate resistance to any co-operation by the House of Commons as a whole in the financial legislation of the year.

What is the principle which we seek to establish by this new Clause? The hon. and gallant Member who has put this proposal on the Paper has the support of a considerable number of his own party. It is quite possible that this new Clause could be re-cast with the assistance of expert officials in a better form, and I am quite certain that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to adopt the principle of the proposal, he could easily produce a form of words which would be satisfactory, and which would give the measure of relief to industry which we desire; but the right hon. Gentleman is only aiming at making difficulties. I think he ought to realise how simple is the principle which we are pressing upon him. We contend that the object of the right hon. Gentleman has been wrong in its general emphasis, and has sought to cast its extra burden too heavily upon industry and employment, and to safeguard too jealously the special interests of the rentier class. It is not for me to condemn a strict Debt repayment system, but the question is how to apportion our action to the circumstances of the hour.


Deal with the new Clause.


I am not to be drawn from my line of argument by interruptions of that kind, and, if I am out of order, the Chairman will call me to order. I was explaining the root principle of this Measure. I consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid too heavy a hand on industry, and he would have been well advised to have relieved industry to a greater extent, even if he had been obliged to abate his energy in Debt amortisation. This is not the first time that I have put this point before the right hon. Gentleman. There is only one way of doing it. The right hon. Gentleman could express this matter in a much more satisfactory form if he chose to meet us, but he done not want to meet us. We want to have a little less of Potsdam from the right hon. Gentleman and a little more of Geneva. [An HON. MEMBER: "You make us sick!"] I should be sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is going to be sick, but, if that is so, I hope he will withdraw from the Chamber. I am not going to allow any interruptions of that kind to interfere with making my point.

If the right hon. Gentleman intended now to try and take the House into partnership in his Budget, be could do so by accepting this new Clause, which would only cost him about £3,000,000; or he could achieve the same end by accepting the Amendment which is to be moved later on, and he could undoubtedly find some other means of altering the balance of his Budget without committing himself to any serious loss of revenue. If the right hon. Gentleman would take that course, he would bring the House much more together upon the financial policy of the year than he has done up to the present. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends are pursuing a policy of pure negation, and, consequently, we shall be obliged to record our votes in favour of the new Clause proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). We shall take that course with the conviction that we are striking the right note at the moment, even if the particular form of this new Clause is not all that could be achieved by anyone who had access to the official machinery of drafting. This is a sound and sensible proposal to lighten the burdens of industry, even if the Government have to slow down their debt amortisation.

I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could express our purpose in a better way if he was only willing to do so. When this new Clause has been disposed of, another Amendment is to be moved with the same object in view. Our object would be met if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "I do not like either of these two forms of words, but I agree with the object in view, and I will re-shape the Budget so that an extra £5,000,000 or £7,000,000 will be given to this object, and I ask the Committee not to press forward this proposal so vigorously." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring forward some other proposal which would effect that end and transfer the sum of money we ask for from one side of the account to the other, our object would be achieved. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to treat us to a "Stone-Wall" Jackson resistance, and merely palm off upon us the stock objections which the Treasury continue to offer to every proposal until they decide to adopt it. If he takes that course, then I am sure he will convince the Committee that reason and friendly persuasion have no effect upon him, and that the only thing he will respect is Parliamentary force expressed by voting strength after protracted discussion at every stage.

5.0 p.m.


This is not a new policy in the finance of other countries. In Holland, companies only pay taxes on dividends distributed and never on the money put to reserve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his reply, said that the Treasury took no interest whatever in the question of how a man spent his money. I think it would be a very wise thing if more interest was taken in that question. That is one of the things that they constantly use to excite class hatred and raise envy, by pointing out the idle rich, how luxury still flourishes, and so on. One of their favourite things is to point out how people spend money at Ascot and other

such places. Here would be an opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage people who, instead of wasting their money, or companies which, instead of distributing all their profits, are using that money for the purpose of helping on industry. It may be a small sum, but it would be a very wise principle to introduce into taxation, and I, for one, very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seized his opportunity, because it would be consistent with many of the arguments which have been offered for the purpose of catching votes by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 278.

Division No. 423.] AYES. [5.1 p.m.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Frece, Sir Walter de Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) Galbraith, J. F. W. O'Neill, Sir H.
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) Ganzoni, Sir John Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Astor, Viscountess Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Peake, Capt. Osbert
Atholl, Duchess of Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Penny, Sir George
Atkinson, C. Gower, Sir Robert Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Ramsbotham, H.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Gritten, W. G. Howard Rawson, Sir Cooper
Beaumont, M. W. Hammersley, S. S. Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Berry, Sir George Hanbury, C. Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Sevan, S. J. (Holborn) Harbord, A. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Bird, Ernest Roy Hartington, Marquess of Ross, Major Ronald D.
Boothby, R. J. G. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Boyce, H. L. Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Savery, S. S.
Bracken, B. Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Briscoe, Richard George Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Skelton, A. N.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Buckingham, Sir H. Hurd, Percy A. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Smithers, Waldron
Carver, Major W. H. Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Somerset, Thomas
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Knox, Sir Alfred Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Chapman, Sir S. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel Leighton, Major B. E. P. Thomson, Sir F.
Cowan, D. M. Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) Tinne, J. A.
Cranborne, Viscount Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey Train, J.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Long, Major Eric Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. Lymington, Viscount Turton, Robert Hugh
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Dalkeith, Earl of Macquisten, F. A. Warrender, Sir Victor
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Makins, Brigadier-General E. Wayland, Sir William A.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Margesson, Captain H. D. Wells, Sydney R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon Meller, R. J. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Withers, Sir John James
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Womersley, W. J.
Eden, Captain Anthony Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) Mond, Hon. Henry Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon Sir L.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Everard, W. Lindsay Morley, Ralph
Fermoy, Lord Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Fielden, E. B. Nathan, Major H. L. Major the Marquess of Titchfield
and Captain Wallace.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mort, D. L.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Moses, J. J. H.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Alpass, J. H. Hardie, George D. Muff, G.
Angell, Norman Harris, Percy A. Muggeridge, H. T.
Arnott, John Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Murnin, Hugh
Attlee, Clement Richard Hastings, Dr. Somerville Naylor, T. E.
Ayles, Walter Haycock, A. W. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hayes, John Henry Noel Baker, P. J.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Barnes, Alfred John Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Palin, John Henry
Barr, James Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Paling, Wilfrid
Batey, Joseph Herriotts, J. Palmer, E. T.
Bellamy, Albert Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Perry, S. F.
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.) Hoffman, P. C. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Hollins, A. Phillips, Dr. Marion
Benson, G. Hopkin, Daniel Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Horrabin, J. F. Pole, Major D. G.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Potts, John S.
Blindell, James Isaacs, George Price, M. P.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Pybus, Percy John
Bowen, J. W. John, William (Rhondda, West) Quibell, D. J. K.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Johnston, Thomas Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Broad, Francis Alfred Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Rathbone, Eleanor
Brockway, A. Fenner Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Raynes, W. R.
Bromfield, William Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Richards, R.
Brooke, W. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Brothers, M. Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Kelly, W. T. Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Kennedy, Thomas Ritson, J.
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Kinley, J. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Buchanan, G. Kirkwood, D. Romeril, H. G.
Burgess, F. G. Knight, Holford Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) Lang, Gordon Rowson, Guy
Caine, Derwent Hall- Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cameron, A. G. Lathan, G. Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Cape, Thomas Law, Albert (Bolton) Sanders, W. S.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Law, A. (Rosendale) Sandham, E.
Charleton, H. C. Lawrence, Susan Sawyer, G. F.
Chater, Daniel Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) Scott, James
Church, Major A. G. Lawson, John James Scrymgeour, E.
Clarke, J. S. Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Scurr, John
Cluse, W. S. Leach, W. Sexton, James
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Compton, Joseph Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sherwood, G. H.
Cove, William G. Lindley, Fred W. Shield, George William
Daggar, George Lloyd, C. Ellis Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Dallas, George Logan, David Gilbert Shillaker, J. F.
Dalton, Hugh Longbottom, A. W. Shinwell, E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Longden, F. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Day, Harry Lowth, Thomas Simmons, C. J.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lunn, William Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Dickson, T. Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Dukes, C. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) Sinkinson, George
Duncan, Charles MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Sitch, Charles H.
Ede, James Chuter McElwee, A. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Edmunds, J. E. McEntee, V. L. Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) McKinlay, A. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Egan, W. H. MacLaren, Andrew Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Foot, Isaac McShane, John James Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Forgan, Dr. Robert Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Snell, Harry
Freeman, Peter Mander, Geoffrey le M. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Mansfield, W. Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) March, S. Sorensen, R.
Gibbins, Joseph Marcus, M. Stamford, Thomas W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Markham, S. F. Stephen, Campbell
Gill, T. H. Marley, J. Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Gillett, George M. Marshall, Fred Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Gossling, A. G. Mathers, George Strauss, G. R.
Gould, F. Matters, L. W. Sullivan, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Maxton, James Sutton, J. E.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Melville, Sir James Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Cray, Milner Middleton, G. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Mills, J. E. Thurtle, Ernest
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Milner, Major J. Tinker, John Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Montague, Frederick Toole, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Tout, W. J.
Grundy, Thomas W. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Townend, A. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Wellock, Wilfred Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Turner, B. Welsh, James (Paisley) Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Vaughan, D. J. Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Viant, S. P. West, F. R. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Walker, J. Westwood, Joseph Wise, E. F.
Wallace, H. W. White, H. G. Wright, W. (Rutherglen)
Wallhead, Richard C. Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Watkins, F. C. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) Williams, David (Swansea, East) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. T.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) Henderson.