HC Deb 03 June 1930 vol 239 cc2115-25

The next Amendment which I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), in page 6, line 11, to leave out the words "one shilling" and to insert instead thereof the word "Ninepence." As there is a series of Amendments dealing with the same point, it may be for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion.


On a point of Order. Is my Amendment—to leave out "1929–30" and insert "1930–31"—out of order, or is it not selected?


It is not selected.


On a point of Order. That particular Amendment raises an important point of substance, and I would invite you, as you have not selected it, to inform us at what point in the discussion of the Bill it will be proper to raise this matter because it clearly raises a great deal of public interest in the country.


May I ask you to repeat in a louder voice what Amendments you are selecting?


I try as far as possible to select Amendments of relatively greater importance and substance than those passed over. The particular Amendment referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is not out of order, and if in his opinion it is one of great importance, I am willing to meet the wish of the Committee and select it.


I think that the general discussion that we are to have upon this Clause might just as advantageously take place on the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), as the one which you had previously selected, and, if you are willing in pursuance of what you have just said, to allow it to be taken on the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, that would be more in accordance with the wishes of those who sit on this side of the House.


I am willing to permit that.


I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out "1929–30," and to insert instead thereof "1930–31."

This clearly raises an important point of principle. Under the Finance Act of 1929, Section 1— Income Tax for the year 1929–30"— that is, for the year expiring on 5th April this year— shall be charged at the standard rate of four shillings in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at the same higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as were charged for the year 1928–29. That complies with Section 31 of the Income Tax Act of 1927, which was referred to on a preceding Amendment and which required the Income Tax to be fixed on a higher rate for Surtax payers. Until the passage of the Finance Act, 1929, every Surtax payer and Income Tax payer, in accordance with what had been the custom since 1860, knew the amount of his liability, and he was in a position to provide for it and raise the taxes by the time they became payable. Payment of the Surtax is deferred to the 1st January following. The Surtax for 1929–30 becomes due on 1st January 1931. This Clause seeks to alter the rate of Surtax levied by the Finance Act for 1929. A year after the rate was then fixed, it is seeking to fix a different and, as it happens in this case, a higher rate. The preceding Clause, Clause 7, instead of fixing a definite rate of Surtax, left it to be fixed by a succeeding Session of Parliament. This is an entirely new method of procedure. According to the history of our financial legislation, His Majesty the King in his Speech from the Throne, asks the House of Commons to provide for the revenue of the particular year, and in each single year there is a separate Finance Bill dealing only with the revenue of the year.

If this alteration is allowed it will make it immensely more difficult for the tax-payer to provide for his liabilities. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members call out and ask me to speak up, and other hon. Members make it difficult for me to be heard by talking so loudly among themselves. Take the case of a Surtax payer who died on 1st June this year. He is liable to pay Surtax on his income for the year 1930–31, which cannot be calculated until 5th April, 1931, and the amount he has to pay is not payable till 1st January, 1932. His estate cannot, therefore, be wound up, because they do not know the rate of tax which will be levied. It may not be this Parliament which is going to fix that rate of Surtax. That Surtax is to be fixed in the next Parliament, or in the next Session of this Parliament, and the amount cannot meanwhile be calculated. I submit to the Chancellor and his advisers that the administrative difficulties are almost insuperable, and that there will be immense hardship on Surtax payers. Surtax is an extremely oppressive tax, whatever view one may take of its justice. It requires a great deal of foresight to prepare for it, and the taxpayer is in a difficult position in preparing for it if he does not know the amount and if his executors are not going to know, in some cases, until long after he is dead. That is an absurd method of procedure in a civilised country, and I will leave it to be developed. I am not in the habit of using strong language. I am now proposing that we should revert to what has been the existing procedure since the Super-tax was first initiated, and fix the rate of the Surtax for the actual year with which we are dealing, and I am seeking, by my Amendment, to alter "1929–30" to "1930–31."


I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley). I observed that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury shook his head when my hon. and learned Friend made a certain statement of the position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I think the Financial Secretary must have been under a misapprehension. Let me repeat that statement in order to see how far the hon. Member agrees with me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I am speaking quite loudly, and hon. Members opposite who do not hear me can carry on their conversations much more conveniently to themselves as well as to us in the Smoking-room. I am suggesting to the Financial Secretary that under this Bill, as it is drawn at present, the Surtax at the increased rate for the present year 1930–31 is not payable until January, 1932. Is that plain? [Interruption.] According to the provisions of this Bill, the tax for the year 1930–31 will be payable in 1932. Is that right?


The hon. Gentleman has not read Clause 21, which makes the matter plain.


My point is not affected by that clause. It is far more important than that particular argument. I hope the country will take notice of what is being done. The tax for the year 1929–30, i.e., the financial year ending on 5th April last, was fixed perfectly properly, as it always has been, by the Finance Act of last year. The tax for the previous financial year was fixed by the previous year's Finance Act. This year the Chancellor is proposing to say that the tax for last year, which was fixed by last year's Finance Act, shall be altered and increased. In this Bill, it is proposed to pass a Clause which says that the tax for last year shall not be at the rate at which it was fixed in last year's Finance Act, but shall be at a higher rate. Let me put this matter in perfectly plain language. Parliament, within limits, can do what it chooses. It can be honest or dishonest. A man can enter into a contract to render certain services or transfer certain property to somebody else for the sum, let us say, of £5,000. That is governed by the ordinary law of contracts, and, when that bargain is concluded, he cannot come the next year and say that he is not going to do it for less than £6,000. The Government made a bargain and the liability of the taxpayer for last year was fixed. The whole matter to any honest intelligent person was closed and done with. Now the new Government comes along and in another Finance Bill makes provisions for another financial year and goes bank on last year and says, "You people who were taxed under last year's Act for last year at a certain rate are to be taxed for last year at a higher rate. We are going to take advantage of the fact that a certain part of your tax for last year is described in the Act of Parliament as deferred, and the deferred Income Tax which has not yet been paid will be increased." Is that honest? In all the many wrong things which the House of Commons has done I do not think it has ever done anything which is so dishonest to the taxpayer.

There is another point which I shall wish to refer to again in connection with this Bill, for we shall not finish all its stages to-night. I might say a word about the Section in the Act of 1927 which created this tax in its present existing form, known as the Surtax. The Attorney-General has explained to us most lucidly and clearly that that Act, which first created Surtax as an increased rate of Income Tax, and a deferred instalment of Income Tax, in Section 38 expressly provides that the Income Tax at the standard rate and the Income Tax at the increased rate shall be charged together for each year; and the Attorney-General says that, if you do not charge them both, you are not complying with the terms of that Section. Therefore, the Attorney-General ventures to defend a scheme by a method which I can only suggest might well have certain well-known slang terms applied to it—a "dodge" to "get out of" this Section of the Act of 1927 by saying: "It seems that we have got to charge both Income Tax and Surtax, but we propose to charge Income Tax at the standard rate, which we are stating, and we propose to charge the other as an unknown amount." Parliament, according to the Attorney-General, is actually proposing to charge the taxpayers of this country with a tax—that was the Attorney-General's own defence, his own explanation—for this year, the amount of which they are not to know until next year. It is no use the Financial Secretary shaking his head. I am prepared to stick to it, and I am perfectly certain that if the Attorney-General were here he would agree with me that the explanation I have given is perfectly and absolutely correct; it is nothing more than the explanation which the Attorney-General has already given himself on the previous Clause.

May I put this further point? These two taxes, if I may call them two taxes, or two portions of the Income Tax—I do not care how they are described—are so thoroughly one tax that the assessment for the purposes of the standard rate of Income Tax in any one year is made conclusive on the taxpayer for the purposes of the Surtax. Therefore, again you have the clearest evidence that Parliament intended, in passing the Act of 1927 —and, indeed, one could only suppose in those days that Parliament did intend—to do something which was perfectly honourable. And let it be remembered that Income Tax, whether it be the standard rate of Income Tax, or whether it be Surtax—the increased rate of Income Tax—is an annual tax. There is no Income Tax and no Surtax imposed upon the taxpayers of this country except from year to year, and for that particular year. [Interruption.] We know, of course, that we shall get it every year, but my point is that the fact that these two taxes, or two branches of one tax, are, under our financial system, re-imposed every year, and each year only for one year at a time, is an additional argument to show that the two branches of the one tax ought both to be dealt with together, and that it never was the intention of Parliament that the standard rate of tax should be fixed for one year in one year, and that the increased Surtax should be fixed for that same year in another future year. I support the Amendment, and I hope that between now and the Report stage the Government will see something of the kind of mess into which they are leading our financial procedure by a course of this kind.

12 m.


This difficulty arises out of the alteration that was carried out by the right hon. Gentleman three years ago when he changed the Super-tax into the Surtax. The old Super-tax was charged for the year in which it was assessed and collected and, therefore, no such difficulty as the one in which we are at the moment could have arisen under those circumstances. But the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that this Super-tax was not a tax for the year in which it was assessed but that it was a deferred part of the Income Tax upon the previous year, that it was really a tax paid in respect of the previous year and, therefore, he called it a Surtax. The Surtax, being regarded as a deferred payment of Income Tax for the previous year, had its rate fixed in that year. The result is that the Surtax is taken out of the purview of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last year we fixed the rate of Surtax for this year. It would be just as reasonable to apply that to the ordinary Income Tax and fix the rate not merely for one year but for any number of years.


For an annual tax?


Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman in the earlier part of our debates failed to realise that Income Tax and Surtax were part of one tax.


I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is mixing me up with someone else. I never did otherwise than believe and know—it is my business to know—that Income Tax at the standard rate and Income Tax at the increased rate, otherwise known as Surtax, are both Income Tax. Of course, they are separated and distinct from one another in certain respects, but I never suggested that they are not both part of one and the same tax.


I apologise, and I unreservedly accept what the hon. and and learned Gentleman has said. The point I am making is that the Surtax has now been taken out of the immediate control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, unless there can be some alteration of the law, it will be impossible, whatever the needs of the nation may be in the current year, to make any contribution to that need from an increase in the Surtax. This involves a revenue of something like £60,000,000. We might as well apply it to the Income Tax. That would be an utterly impossible position.


Will the right hon. Gentleman state the amount of money involved in the change that he is making in the previous incidence of the tax?


I am speaking from memory, but I think the revenue will be about £3,500,000 increase this year, and £7,000,000 in a full year. I have taken power to increase the tax upon this deferred part of the Income Tax which is called Surtax, and I am reverting to the position as it was with the old Super-Tax, so that the charge will be fixed in the year in which it is assessed. Apart from that, there is no material change. I must correct the figures I have given. I said it would be £7,000,000 in a full year. It is estimated to be £79,500,000 this year and £12,500,000 in a full year. On the 1st January, 1930, taxpayers paid Surtax for the first time. That was Surtax for 1928–29, and was charged on the statutory income of that year. If there had been no change such as the change made in 1927 by the right hon. Gentleman they would have paid just the same. They would have paid Super-Tax for 1929–30, but it would have been charged on the statutory income of 1928–29. I am, making an annual review of the Surtax.


I think that much of the indignation is due to some misunderstanding. I would recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consult the phraseology of his Income Tax Clauses. We are dealing with tax payable on the 1st January, 1931, but we have not settled what Income Tax is to be paid on that date. The Income Tax payable on the 1st January, 1931, ought to be called Income Tax for 1930–31. There is a lag of two years in one case and one year in another. A great deal of confusion would be avoided if we called the Income Tax payable on the 1st January, 1931, the tax at the standard rate of Surtax for the year 1930–31. I submit that if that were done, there would be a good deal less confusion in settling the tax, but it cannot be alleged against the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in this Budget he is doing anything unfair to the taxpayer in opening this matter of the Surtax. It is, in my view, far better to simplify these things.


I want to make an appeal to the parties of the Opposition, and I take full responsibility myself in saying that we under-estimated the gravity and complexity of the problems which arise on these two Clauses. I must admit that, taking full responsibility for any part that I had in that miscalculation. The right hon. Gentleman proposed earlier in the day not to proceed beyond Clause 9, and it was my belief that, while we might sit on till the very late hours of to-morrow morning, Clause 9 would probably be within the compass of the Government to achieve by that time, but its difficulty has undoubtedly been borne in increasingly on the Committee this evening, and a number of extremely difficult and complicated questions have arisen which have not been adequately discussed. Nevertheless, I did say, taking full responsibility myself, that we did not consider that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was unreasonable. Therefore, I must appeal to hon. Members on this side to facilitate the termination of our discussion at the period which was considered to be in accord with the general convenience of the Committee. But I must say that it is clear, from our survey of Clauses 7 and 8, that these issues must be raised in the fullest possible manner upon Report, and I trust that you, Sir, in the Chair, will also bear in mind the abridgement of the discussion on this occasion, which has arisen from a perfectly sincere and natural error, and that you will, in your

capacity in the Chair, also guard us from any abridgement of the discussion when the Report stage is reached.

Amendment negatived.


I do not propose to move any one of the next 10 Amendments standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, but I wish to reserve my rights to raise very important questions regarding the Surtax on the Report stage.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee Divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 127.

Division No.334.] AYES. [12.18 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Gould, F. Logan, David Gilbert
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Longden, F.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Granville, E. Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Gray, Milner Lunn, William
Alpass, J. H. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Arnott, John Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Aske, Sir Robert Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) McElwee, A.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Groves, Thomas E. McEntee, V. L.
Barnes, Alfred John Grundy, Thomas W. McKinlay, A.
Batey, Joseph Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) McShane, John James
Bellamy, Albert Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Benson, G. Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) Mansfield, W.
Bentham, Dr. Ethel Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Marcus, M.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Harbord, A. Markham, S. F.
Birkett, W. Norman Hardie, George D. Marley, J.
Bowen, J. W. Harris, Percy A. Mathers, George
Bromfield, William Hastings, Dr. Somerville Matters, L. W.
Bromley, J. Haycock, A. W. Maxton, James
Brooke, W. Hayday, Arthur Messer, Fred
Brothers, M. Hayes, John Henry Middleton, G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.) Milner, Major J.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Montague, Frederick
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Herriotts, J. Morley, Ralph
Buchanan, G. Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Burgess, F. G. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Mort, D. L.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Hollins, A. Moses, J. J. H.
Caine, Derwent Hall- Hopkin, Daniel Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cape, Thomas Horrabin, J. F. Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Muff, G.
Charleton, H. C. Hunter, Dr. Joseph Nathan, Major H. L.
Chater, Daniel Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Church, Major A. G. Isaacs, George Noel Baker, P. J.
Clarke, J. S. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Oliver, George Harold (IIkeston)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour John, William (Rhondda, West) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Compton, Joseph Johnston, Thomas Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Daggar, George Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) Palin, John Henry
Dallas, George Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Paling, Wilfrid
Dalton, Hugh Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne) Palmer, E. T.
Day, Harry Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Perry, S. F.
Dickson, T. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Dudneon, Major C. R. Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Dukes, C. Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) Potts, John S.
Duncan, Charles Kennedy, Thomas Price, M. P.
Ede, James Chuter Kinley, J. Pybus, Percy John
Edmunds, J. E. Kirkwood, D. Quibell, D. J. K.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lathan, G. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Egan, W. H. Law, Albert (Bolton) Rathbone, Eleanor
Elmley, Viscount Law, A. (Rosendale) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Ritson, J.
Foot, Isaac Leach, W. Romeril, H. G.
Freeman, Peter Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Rowson, Guy
Gibbins, Joseph Lees, J. Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) Lewis, T. (Southampton) Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Gill, T. H. Lindley, Fred W. Sanders, W. S.
Gossling, A. G. Lloyd, C. Ellis Sandham, E.
Sawyer, G. F. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Welsh, James (Paisley)
Scott, James Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Westwood, Joseph
Scrymgeour, E. Stamford, Thomas W. White, H. G.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis Stephen, Campbell Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Sherwood, G. H. Strachey, E. J. St. Loe Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Shield, George William Strauss, G. R. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Shillaker, J. F. Sullivan, J. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Simmons, C. J. Tinker, John Joseph Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Sinkinson, George Tout, W. J. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Sitch, Charles H. Townend, A. E. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) Turner, B. Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh).
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Vaughan, D. J. Wise, E. F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Wallace, H. W. Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Cot. D. (Rhondda) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Smith, W. H. (Norwich) Wellock, Wilfred Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
William Whiteley.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Everard, W. Lindsay Ramsbotham, H.
Albery, Irving James Falle, Sir Bertram G. Remer, John R.
Atkinson, C. Ferguson, Sir John Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Fermoy, Lord Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) Fielden, E. B. Ross, Major Ronald D.
Balniel, Lord Fison, F. G. Clavering Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Beaumont, M. W. Ford, Sir P. J. Salmon, Major I.
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bird, Ernest Roy Gower, Sir Robert Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Boothby, R. J. G. Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Savery, S. S.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Greene, W. P. Crawford Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Bracken, B. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Brass, Captain Sir William Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Briscoe, Richard George Gunston, Captain D. W. Smithers, Waldron
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Buckingham, Sir H. Hartington, Marquess of Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Butler, R. A. Haslam, Henry C. Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Carver, Major W. H. Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Christie, J. A. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Todd, Capt. A. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Iveagh, Countess of Train, J.
Colfox, Major William Philip Knox, Sir Alfred Turton, Robert Hugh
Colville, Major D. J. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Courtauld, Major J. S. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Cranborne, Viscount Leighton, Major B. E. P. Warrender, Sir Victor
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Long, Major Eric Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Wells, Sydney R.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Marjoribanks, E. C. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Dalkeith, Earl of Mason, Colonel Glyn K. Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Womersley, W. J.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Dixey, A. C. Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Duckworth, G. A. V. O'Neill, Sir H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Eden, Captain Anthony Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain
Edmondson, Major A. J. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Euan Wallace.
Elliot, Major Walter E. Pownall, Sir Assheton

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.