§ Sub-section (8) of section two of the Finance Act, 1928, which provides for the repayment of duty paid in respect of hydrocarbon oil used on board fishing boats, shall be extended so as to apply to duty paid in respect of hydrocarbon oil used on board lifeboats owned by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, or for the purposes of any tractor or gear owned by the said institution and used for the purpose of launching or hauling in any such lifeboats.—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
1502 This Clause is to carry out, not a pledge but a wish that was very strongly expressed in many quarters in Committee to exempt from duty hydrocarbon oil used on lifeboats owned by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or in their tractors and gear. The House is well aware that there is always a danger in making concessions, which appear to be small, without very full consideration. I have had this matter fully discussed by the Customs authorities, and they think that they can work the rebate without, perhaps, any very serious consequences. The cost is not very large—at the outside about £500 a year, but, of course, as the number of tractors increases, the cost will increase proportionately. May I add this, that I am very glad to be able to make this concession to an institution which does such excellent work.
§ Rear-Admiral BEAMISH
I only rise to express my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the graceful concession he has made, which is much appreciated by those who are associated with me. In fact, he has actually given us rather more than we asked for.
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ NEW CLAUSE.—(Money payable under life assurance policies applied for payment of estate duty not to be aggregated for purposes of ascertaining rate of duty.)
§ Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act of Parliament to the contrary money to which this section refers passing on a death of a deceased person shall be deemed to form an estate by itself for purposes of estate duty payable on the death of the deceased and shall not be aggregated with any other property for the purpose of ascertaining the rate of estate duty payable in respect of property passing on the death of the deceased.
§ The money to which this section refers is money payable on the death of the deceased (and not at any earlier date) under a policy or policies of life assurance on the deceased's life to the extent to which such money is applied in payment of estate duty payable on the death of the deceased.—[Sir D. Herbert.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.1503
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
May I rise to a point of Order for the purpose of asking Mr. Speaker whether you can give us any guidance as to the new Clauses you propose to select or as to the principle upon which they will be selected. There is, for instance, the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) which was not the subject of any discussion during the Committee stage. Some importance is attached to it although it is not an important point.
There is also another new Clause upon the Order Paper on the same point. Perhaps you would be good enough to give us some guidance as to the principle upon which the new Clauses will be selected so that we can prepare ourselves for the discussion.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the right hon. Gentleman desires to know the new Clauses I propose to select I am quite prepared to tell him, but I do not think it would be serving any useful purpose if I gave the reasons for selecting them. It is not the practice of the House to do so, and, indeed, I am saved from that obligation by the Standing Orders. My intention is to call the new Clause standing in the name of the Noble Lord and after that the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert).
§ Mr. SMITHERS
There is an Amendment standing in my name and other hon. Members dealing with a reduction of the Stamp Duty on foreign marketable securities, a matter which was not raised in Committee. We have been asked to raise this question by large and powerful interests in the City, and I respectfully submit that it might be allowed to be discussed.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is now entering into an argument. The new Clause to which he has referred will create a charge, and is therefore out of order.
§ Sir D. HERBERT
The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that there are cases in which a man who is likely to leave a very large estate on his death and who desires to provide for Death Duty by means of an insurance on his life, has to effect an insurance for a very large amount. The result, under the law 1504 as it stands at present, is that the addition to his estate of that very large amount of insurance money, which is for the purpose of paying Death Duty, increases very likely the rate of the duty payable on the whole estate. The Amendment is not drawn with a view of excluding these policy moneys from the payment of Death Duty, but it proposes that they should form "an estate by itself" and therefore only pay a rate of duty calculated upon the amount of the policy money. A concession of this kind would probably not cost the Treasury anything in the end because the effecting of life assurance policies of such high figures as people would wish is hindered at the present time by the fear that the rate of duty on their estate will be largely increased.
Since I put this new Clause on the Order Paper an hon. Member has suggested to me, and indeed has embodied the suggestion in a new Clause, a concession which would be rather smaller on the part of the Treasury. My proposal is that these policy moneys should pay a rate of duty calculated as if the policy moneys were "an estate by itself," and, therefore, pay at a comparatively low rate. My hon. Friend's suggestion is that they should not be aggregated so as to increase the total but that the rate of duty they should pay should be the same rate of duty as the rest of the estate would pay if it were not technically increased by these policy moneys. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will think that some concession on these lines would not only tend to increase life assurance in this country but would keep up if not even increase the yield of Estate Duty. It would mean that the duty would be much more easily collected than is the case at the present time.
If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give the somewhat less concession it would be perfectly easy to amend this new Clause in such a way as to provide that the rate of duty on these insurance moneys shall be the rate of duty payable on the rest of the estate. Suppose an estate pays duty at the rate of 20 per cent. Under my new Clause with the suggested alteration, which could easily be made, the life assurance money would still pay duty at the same rate as the estate, but it would not be 1505 added to the estate for the purpose of raising the duty by another one per cent. This is a concession which I should like to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I hope he will give it his most earnest consideration. It would be easy to revise the new Clause in order to make that slight alteration.
§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to second the Motion.
I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give some concession on this matter. Obviously, from the point of view of the Revenue it must be desirable that people should be encouraged to insure in order to meet the payment of Death Duties, because it would prevent capital, which is urgently needed in industry, being kept back in order to provide for the payment of Death Duties. One of the absurdities of the present situation is that if the rate of the Death Duties rises owing to a change in the law and a man has to take out a larger policy, the effect of this being aggregated into his estate may actually lose money. It is a question whether the additional payment brings the total estate over the balancing point. I feel that that is a most undesirable thing.
§ Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL
The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) took the case of a man with a very large fortune and paying 20 per cent. in Death Duty. I am going to pursue the case of the smaller man with a fortune, say, of £500, the small shopkeeper, the small factory owner, with a fortune of £8,000 or £10,000. When this matter was discussed on the last occasion the Financial Secretary electrified us by what he said, because it showed that he had not understood what I said when I dealt with the matter, or that he had not grasped the essence of the insurance point. What the Financial Secretary said was this:The man who has got a business and does not attempt to increase it by saving, but who puts his money into life assurance.What is life assurance but saving? Many men in business do not put their savings into their own businesses entirely. A man with £500 saved, a little greengrocer or shoemaker, will take out a small assurance policy of £500, upon which he will pay a premium of £10 a year. If he puts 1506 his saved money entirely into his business it is very difficult to realise what may be required to wind up his estate, and it is better for him to put some money into a life assurance policy. The Financial Secretary went on to say:As a matter of fact, the Government already treats a man who saves by life insurance in a more favourable way, because, whereas a man who saves by means of increasing his ordinary investments has to pay the full Income Tax upon what he puts to increasing his capital, the man who saves by means of life insurance is allowed a peculiar form of exemption which is the statutory law of the land with regard to life insurance premiums."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1930; col. 155, Vol. 241.]The Financial Secretary fails entirely to grasp the facts. When a man pays a premium on a life insurance policy that premium provides the nest-egg by which at his death he provides for the payment of Death Duty. His premium pays income tax. The insurance company puts the premiums out at interest, and upon the interest that the company receives it pays Income Tax, very often at a higher rate than that for which the insured person is probably liable in his private life. The Financial Secretary said that the Government already treat the man who saves by means of life insurance in a more favourable way because he has certain allowances provided by the Act of 1918 or the amending Act of 1920. But the Financial Secretary is entirely wrong. The insured person does not get any preference. The report of the Royal Commission pointed out that these allowances were made owing to the fact that insurance companies were charged on a man's premiums a higher rate of Income Tax than was really applicable to the man who had insured his life.
Let me show how this aggregation of a policy to a man's estate hurts him. Take the case of a little shopkeeper in the country. We will assume that he is a small man, and that he insures for £500 on payment of £10 a year. If his estate without the life policy is only £500 on death it pays only 1 per cent., I believe. Suppose that his insurance policy has earned £100 bonus, and is worth £600. Aggregating the £600 to the £500 you have £1,100, and under the scheme that man has to pay, on his original £500 estate 3 per cent. as against 1. That may be all right for the 1507 Revenue, but it is not worth while to insure. Take the case of a man with a factory. I have had a good deal of experience of this myself. Take the case, not of a limited liability company, but a plain family business. Suppose that a man has £9,500, all invested in the factory. Imagine that he takes out an insurance policy for £1,500 to protect the business against drain on capital at his death. On a £9,500 estate the tax will be 4 per cent. All the money is in bricks and mortar, or machinery and stock-in-trade, or book debts, and it is difficult to get that money out to pay the Revenue. He, therefore, says that in order that the business shall not be destroyed he will insure for £1,500. His £9,500 of stock-in-trade is aggregated to the £1,500. If he had £9,500 only he would pay £380, but by adding the £1,500 to the £9,500 the estate of £9,500 is subject to 5 per cent. tax, and is penalised to the extent of £95 simply by aggregation.
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that, quite apart from the Exchequer side of the matter, it is against public policy to put any clog upon thrift so far as the citizen is concerned, and that it is bad for the State that anything should be done to reduce the "work-while" to insure. As I said the other day, we shall support any effort that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may make towards converting some of our big War Loans. No type of subscriber to conversions of these War Loans will be more helpful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the great insurance companies. The more you strengthen the insurance companies, the more you help the thrift of the people through the insurance companies, the better will be your chance of finding money quickly for the conversion of loans.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer must remember that whatever concession he may make, whether on the lines of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) or on the lines of the not quite so drastic Amendment which I put on the Paper, he will not be making a complete surrender of money to the public. As the premiums accumulate in the hands of the life insurance company, the income thereof 1508 at compound interest always pays Income Tax at the higher rate. Therefore, the more the Chancellor of the Exchequer can get life insurance carried out the larger will be the tax yield from the life insurance fund. Life insurance is a very good handmaiden of the Treasury. This country is very much behind-hand with it. I believe that in this country the amount per head per year is only £30, compared with £90 in the United States. Apart from that, I lay down the principle that a man ought not, to suffer a penalty by having his death duties increased for that part of his estate which represents no life insurance simply because he has been thrifty and has increased his asset by insuring his life for death duties.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
I really must, protest against the statement that the hon. Member has made two or three times, namely, that by the present practice of aggregating the proceeds of a life insurance policy to the general estate a man is being penalised. There is no justification for that statement. The hon. Member bases his statement upon some impression that there is a special virtue in saving by means of a life insurance policy. I quite agree that the State has appreciated that point by dealing very generously with payments made for insurance premiums. But there is a great deal to be said on the other side. Life insurance is not the only form of saving. Building societies offer an equally good method of saving. Take the case cited by the hon. Member of a business man, and the point on which he criticised an observation made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. Surely if a man is in business it, is just as worthy a purpose to apply his savings or profits from the business to the extension of that business as it is to take out a life insurance policy?
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
If he is making profits out of his business it is a very good thing that he should do so. This matter was discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill. The object of hon. Members who are associated with this Amendment and with similar Amendments is to extend preferential treatment to moneys from a policy insuring a sum payable at death. The insured 1509 person has had the advantage of a reduction of his Income Tax upon premium payments during the currency of the policy, and what the hon. Member asks is that he should be given a double advantage when the sum insured becomes payable at his death. That is a position which I cannot accept. It must not be assumed that I am in any way hostile to life insurance. On the contrary I am a strong advocate of it. It is an admirable way of making provision, by an endowment policy for a rainy day or old age, or by a death policy for the benefit of those who may be dependent upon the insured person.
There is a great deal of difference between the speech of the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) and the terms of the Amendment itself. The hon. Member put a different construction on the Amendment from that which the words of the Amendment would obviously convey. As I understand the Amendment, it proposes to depart from the present practice of aggregating the insurance policy with the rest of the estate and to treat it separately, and that this concession would apply to the amount of the policy money used for payment of Estate Duty. The hon. Member said he hoped it would be no disadvantage to the Revenue, but such is not the case. The officials of the Revenue calculate that if the Amendment were adopted it would cost £2,000,000 a year on the existing amount of insurance. Of course we know that if such an advantage as this were granted there would be greater recourse to insurance policies in order that estates might be assessed at a lower rate than that which would be applicable to the aggregated estate. That may be a very good thing from the point of view of life insurance, but it does not commend itself to those who look at the question from the Revenue standpoint.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) did not intend his remarks to convey the impression that in some quarters they might convey. He referred to the help that insurance companies are or can be in the matter of taking up Government stock. Of course we all know that. Large insurance companies are very large holders of Government stock, but that fact ought not to be used as an argument. No Minister and no House of 1510 Commons would give concessions which could not be justified on their merits to insurance companies, in the hope that those companies might be induced to subscribe to Government stock. For all these reasons I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not dealt with the point that the Revenue is getting Income Tax all the time that these premiums are being paid, and that therefore double tax is being paid. I may not have understood him, but I do not think that he cleared up that point.
§ Sir BASIL PETO
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ended his argument by talking of the Amendment as one designed to give advantage to the insurance companies. He complained that we have said that the insurer was penalised by the present system of aggregation. He also suggested that we were asking him to give the insurer preferential treatment during his life and make a present to his estate on his death. I think if there is any exaggeration on the one side there is also exaggeration on the other. The proposed new Clause does not suggest that these insurance policies should not pay Death Duties, but it does propose a change in the present system under which it is almost impossible to catch up with the amount required to meet Death Duties from scale to scale in the range of those duties without inflicting hardship, without imposing a fine, as it were, on the insured person, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like the use of the word "penalising" in this connection.
I wish to repeat the case which I put to the Financial Secretary during the Committee stage. Take the case of a man who has reason to believe that be will die worth about £100,000. He takes out a policy to cover the 19 per cent. duty which would be due on that estate, representing a sum of £19,000. If, as a matter of fact, he dies worth £101,000—his estimate having been very nearly accurate—and the £19,000 is added to the estate, a figure of £120,000 is arrived at and the scale of Death Duties on that estate would be 20 per cent. If it exceeds that sum by only a few pounds, a 22 per cent. scale is reached, and if a 22 per cent. rate is applied—as it might 1511 easily be with the aggregation of the insurance to the estate and the addition of £1,000 or £2,000 of capital not anticipated by the deceased—then a sum of £24,000 would be payable instead of £19,000.
It is a matter of no less than £5,000 additional charge, although this man might have made a very accurate calculation of what would be necessary to meet Estate Duty on the amount of his estate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that all these things ought to be allowed for in the insurance, but that means that in every case it would be necessary to take out a vastly larger policy than appears to be necessary according to the scale of Estate Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks of this proposal as being of advantage to the insurance companies, but I think, on the other hand, it would be of immense advantage to the Treasury. He also says that it would cost £2,000,000 at the present time. Has he considered the advantage which the Treasury will gain through encouraging the provision, by this particular method, of the sums necessary to meet Estate Duty? There is no possible means by which cash can so certainly be provided at, so to speak, a moment's notice, on the death of a person, as through the insurance company paying up the amount of an insurance policy. From the national point of view also, it is of great advantage that this system of insuring should be encouraged because, in every case, where there is adequate insurance for Estate Duty there is not that dislocation which would otherwise occur, either to a business or to the management of an estate, on the death of the owner or holder of that business or estate.
Both from the national point of view and, from the Chancellor's point of view, it would be an advantage to accept the new Clause. All that it asks is that the amount of insurance policies which are actually applied to the payment of Estate Duty, on the death of the deceased, should not be aggregated to the estate. The proposal is strictly limited to money actually provided and used for the payment of Estate Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is on very weak ground when he suggests, as his final reason for opposing this new Clause, that 1512 it would act as such an encouragement to the provision of sums for the payment of Estate Duty, by means of insurance, that there would be a vastly greater number of such policies in the future. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that that would cost even more than the £2,000,000, but I cannot see that for myself. It seems to me that the more people provide for Estate Duty by means of insurance, the better it is for the Treasury and the country.
The money which is used to provide an insurance policy of this kind is not always money which would otherwise be saved in some alternative form. It is often money which would be spent if it were not for the inducement of having an insurance policy of this kind and the necessity of keeping the premiums paid up in order to keep the policy alive. That is the best spur to saving that one could have. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite wrong in contrasting two methods of saving and saying that the one is just as virtuous as the other. It is all to the advantage of the Treasury that the largest possible amount of money should be provided for the payment of Estate Duty by insurance during the lifetime of the person concerned. Of that I am perfectly convinced, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's main reason for not accepting the new Clause is one to which he will give further and serious consideration.
§ Mr. ALBERY
When I put my name to a somewhat similar proposal during the Committee stage I had not in my mind any intention of introducing some provision into this Bill which would be especially favourable to life insurance companies. What I had in mind was that it would be helpful to the Treasury and would also be helpful to those who have to pay very heavy taxation. When taxation is very heavy, especially taxation of this kind, it is wise on the part of the State, if, indeed, it is not the duty of the State, to make the payment of that taxation as easy as possible and to provide all reasonable facilities for payment. In these circumstances, people taking out life insurance policies with the object of meeting approximately the amount of the Death Duties which will one day be due from their estates are only in effect saying to the State, "I desire to start paying in advance. I desire, year by year, to set aside a certain 1513 amount in order to pay you, when the time comes, without undue dislocation what will be your due."
There is another point which the Treasury officials must have missed. I do not think that the Treasury would lose by this proposal. I admit that I am not in a position to work out these figures with any degree of accuracy, nor have I any experience of that kind, but there are a great many estates to-day which pass before death takes place. If this proposal were adopted it might make a considerable difference in that respect. If people were able to provide in this way for Death Duties, there would not be the large amount of property passing before death which is undoubtedly passing at the present time. Whether that is desirable or not from the general point of view is no doubt open to argument, but, from the Treasury point of view, there can be no doubt whatever that it would be a distinct gain.
§ Mr. ATKINSON
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to assume that what he calls saving by insurance, ought not to get any more encouragement than any other form of saving. It all depends on the view one takes of insurance, whether one considers that the State should encourage it or not. The difference between insurance and other saving is that, ordinarily speaking, a man saves at the last what, he has not spent on pleasure and the like during the year, but in the case of insurance it is a first charge on income. It is the first thing a man pays, and he pays it even if he has to go short of something else. Therefore it, is a form of thrift which, in a sense, acts by compulsion and it is one which the State has regarded as worthy of encouragement. It seems uncommonly hard on one who adopts that form of thrift, not merely that this money should have to be paid in Estate Duty, but that it should also go to increase the rate of duty payable on the whole estate.
There is a further point. The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that this is money which would be saved in any case. Supposing a man dies within two or three years after taking out an insurance policy, the premium on which comes to £500 a year. If he had been saving that money in the ordinary way it would have amounted to £1,500 on his death, but because this man has had— 1514 from the insurance point of view, of course—the luck to die within two or three years after effecting a policy there may be £10,000 or £20,000 payable to his estate and that is treated as a windfall by the Treasury. The present system operates very unfairly in that respect, and I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something, even if only on a small scale, to encourage insurance—which is getting less popular than it used to be because people are beginning to realise how heavily this kind of thing is hit in one form or another.
§ Major NATHAN
I find myself quite unable to support the new Clause. It does not seem to me to be apt for the purpose of meeting the point which it has in view. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman however that this is a problem which requires the careful and sympathetic consideration of the Treasury. It must be to the advantage of the Treasury and the public at large that the payment of Estate Duty should be facilitated as far as possible. It must be an advantage that there should be available, at the moment when it is required, a sum of money which can be paid over to the Treasury on account of Estate Duty without dislocation. Reference has already been made to the possibility of dislocation to the business of a deceased person, perhaps depriving that business of working capital which it urgently needs for development purposes. That is all very true. There have, indeed, been many cases where men advancing in years and foreseeing the necessity of paying Estate Duty under the present rules, have formed private businesses into public companies for no other purpose than to meet that situation.
The special consideration to which I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is this. On the whole, the people who insure against Death Duties are the wealthy members of the community, and, speaking quite broadly, they are people whose property is invested in stocks and shares. As things are, those stocks and shares have to be realised for the purpose of paying Estate Duty, and in the case of a large estate the immediate result is to depreciate the market value of the securities in question. It is well known that the death of a prominent industrialist known to have large investments in any particular 1515 security, will have an effect on the market even before a single sale has taken place. Even the news of the serious illness of such a person may have a great influence in depreciating the market. [Interruption.] I did not quite catch the right hon. Gentleman's intervention, but I hope he is not suggesting what is contrary to all experience, namely, that the apprehension that large quantities of stock may be thrown upon the market, will not have a depreciatory effect upon that stock. I could quote, within my own experience, case after case where, when Death Duties have had to be found by selling securities upon the market, the greatest care has had to be taken to ensure that the market will not be unduly depreciated. I would like to say this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am satisfied, with all respect to him, of the substance of the point, that if you have a deceased dying possessed and well-known to be possessed of large blocks of securities in any particular companies, and it is known that there will have to be a liquidation of securities for the purpose of paying Death Duty, the market depreciates, with the result that other persons possessing the same securities find during the period of liquidation that their shares have depreciated
§ below the point at which they would have stood had it not been necessary to sell the securities. I believe that, to a large extent, the Treasury frequently loses large sums in that way. While we on this side are unable to support this Amendment, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer before next year to give consideration to the principle which underlies it.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I want to say a word in reply to what has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken. For the whole of my life I have been on the Stock Exchange, and I do not remember a case of a large shareholder dying which has affected the price of the shares because of his death. It is absurd to say that, if Lord Melchett died tomorrow, there would be a fall in Imperial Chemicals, or, if Lord Bearsted died, there would be a fall in Shell oil. The statement that the death of a man who is known to be a big shareholder of certain kinds of shares affects the price in the way which has been stated is one with which from my own personal experience I cannot agree.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 271.1519
|Division No. 438.]||AYES.||[5.4 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Duckworth, G. A. V.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.|
|Albery, Irving James||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Eden, Captain Anthony||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Atkinson, C.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)|
|Bainiel, Lord||Falie, Sir Bertram G.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Ferguson, Sir John||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Fermoy, Lord||Long, Major Eric|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Lymington, Viscount|
|Boyce, H. L.||Ganzoni, Sir John||McConnell, Sir Joseph|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Gower, Sir Robert||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Grace, John||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Buchan, John||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Marjorlbanks, E. C.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Meller, R. J.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Gritten, W. G. Hcward||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hanbury, C.||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)|
|Christie, J. A.||Hartington, Marquess of||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Haslam, Henry C.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Penny, Sir George|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Hurd, Percy A.||Remer, John R.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Ross, Major Ronald D.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Salmon, Major I.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Thomson, Sir F.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.||Tinne, J. A.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Savery, S. S.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Todd, Capt. A. J.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Skelton, A. N.||Train, J.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.|
|Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Turton, Robert Hugh||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Smithers, Waldron||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon||Captain Sir George Bowyer and|
|Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert||Captain Wallace.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Gill, T. H.||Lowth, Thomas|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gillett, George M.||Lunn, William|
|Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.||Glassey, A. E.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Gossling, A. G.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Gould, F.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||McElwee, A.|
|Arnott, John||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm (Edin., Cent.)||McEntee, V. L.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Granville, E.||MacLaren, Andrew|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Gray, Milner||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)|
|Ayles, Walter||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||McShane, John James|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Batey, Joseph||Groves, Thomas E.||Mansfield, W.|
|Bellamy, Albert||Grundy, Thomas W.||March, S.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Marcus, M.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Marley, J.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Marshall, Fred|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Mathers, George|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Matters, L. W.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hardle, George D.||Maxton, James|
|Bromfield, William||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Messer, Fred|
|Brooke, W.||Haycock, A. W.||Middleton, G.|
|Brothers, M.||Hayday, Arthur||Millar, J. D.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Mills, J. E.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Milner, Major J.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Montague, Frederick|
|Buchanan, G.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Morgan, Dr. H. S.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Herriotts, J.||Morley, Ralph|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Calne, Derwent Hall-||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hoffman, P. C.||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Cape, Thomas||Hopkin, Daniel||Mort, D. L.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Horrabin, J. F.||Moses, J. J. H.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Chater, Daniel||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Murnin, Hugh|
|Church, Major A. G.||Isaacs, George||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Clarke, J. S.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Johnston, Thomas||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Compton, Joseph||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Cove, William G.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Cowan, D. M.||Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Daggar, George||Kelly, W. T.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)|
|Dallas, George||Kennedy, Thomas||Palln, John Henry|
|Dalton, Hugh||Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Knight, Holford||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Day, Harry||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Perry, S. F.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lang, Gordon||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Dickson, T.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lathan, G.||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Dukes, C.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Duncan, Charles||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Potts, John S.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lawrence, Susan||Price, M. P.|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Quibell, D. F. K.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lawson, John James||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Egan, W. H.||Leach, W.||Raynes, W. R.|
|England, Colonel A.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Richards, R.|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Freeman, Peter||Lindley, Fred W.||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Logan, David Gilbert||Ritson, J.|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Longbottom, A. W.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Longden, F.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Rowson, Guy||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Salter, Dr. Alfred||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Snell, Harry||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Sanders, W. S.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Sandham, E.||Stamford, Thomas W.||West, F. R.|
|Sawyer, G. F.||Stephen, Campbell||Westwood, Joseph|
|Scurr, John||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Sexton, James||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Strauss, G. R.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Shield, George William||Sullivan, J.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Sutton, J. E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Shillaker, J. F.||Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Shinwell, E.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Simmons, C. J.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Tillett, Ben||Wise, E. F.|
|Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Tinker, John Joseph||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Tout, W. J.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Sinkinson, George||Townend, A. E.|
|Sitch, Charles H.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Viant, S. P.||Mr. Hayes and Mr. William|
|Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Walkden, A. G.||Whiteley.|
|Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Walker, J.|
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.