HC Deb 30 June 1931 vol 254 cc1139-55

For the purpose of enabling deductions from revenue receipts of expired capital outlay on inherently wasting assets to be allowed by the additional commissioners claims in respect of those deductions shall be included in the annual statement requrred to be delivered under the Income Tax Acts of the profits and gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, and concern, and where such a deduction from the revenue receipts is made, and has been made, from the commencement of the actuol employment of the inherently wasting assets in seeking profits, during a period of not less than three years to the end of the usual financial year of the particular trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern last prior to the year of assessment, and provided such deduction is so made as to prevent the same being available as profits, the additional commissioners, in assessing those profits and gains, shall make such allowances in respect of those claims as they think just and reasonable. For the purpose of this Section the term inherently wasting assets "means assets which necessarily waste in the process of seeking profits. Provided always that such wasting assets are not the value of transferred rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made.—[Sir B. Peto.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir BASIL PETO

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

This Amendment is one which has been before the House on many Finance Bills for a considerable number of years. It was first moved as long ago as 1912 by Sir Ernest Pollock, now the Master of the Rolls, and before that, in slightly different form which would not have excluded leaseholds from the list of wasting assets, it was moved by Mr. Gibson Bowles in 1910. The fact that it has a long history is no reason why I should not call the attention of the House to it in this particular year. On the contrary, I hope to show that the question of allowing industry in this country a proper deduction from Income Tax charges in respect of money not divisible as profits but required in order to carry on industry, and to be placed aside for depreciation of wasting and obsolescent assets, is more real than ever it was before. There is no doubt that our industry is in such a condition at present that it has never needed stimulus more than it does to-day, and the Government can give it a stimulus by removing a portion of what I regard as an unjust share of Income Tax which falls upon it.

The Amendment has always been received with sympathy, from whomsoever occupied the Treasury Bench, and from successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. When it was first moved the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told Sir Ernest Pollock that there was a real case that had to be dealt with, and in supporting an Amendment moved last year from the benches below, which had a very similar object, enabling the granting of additional relief in respect of money spent upon new machinery and plant, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs supported the Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) enthusiastically. In 1924 the President of the Board of Trade got nearer than ever before to giving some sort of pledge to do something practical about it. He said that he hoped to put something upon the Order Paper the next year. The next year he was not in a position to carry out that pious hope, because another Government had taken the place of the one which was then in power, but it showed that he had the matter strongly in mind. Last year, when he was replying upon this Amendment, he pointed out to the House that he had taken an active interest in the question, particularly in the year 1918, and said that he was one of the few Members of the House who took a really active interest in the question. He said: I think that it was during the Parliament of 1918 or later—he and I"— that is, myself and the right hon. Gentleman— were sometimes almost alone in pressing for the consideration of wasting assets, depreciation, obsolescence and kindred problems in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1930; col. 99, Vol. 241.] As I had his active support, it is interesting to see what he said at the conclusion of the speech. He had told the House that active negotiations had been going on between the Treasury and the Federation of British Industries and the Associated Chambers of Commerce to try to arrive at an agreement based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1920. He told the House what was the difficulty. There were two limitations in what the Royal Commission recommended—one that wasting assets, should not have a longer life than 35 years, and the other that their proposals did not touch the wide question of minerals as wasting assets at all. He said that he hoped these difficulties would be removed, and expressed the hope that those consultations would continue and that together they should seek as soon as possible to work out a programme which could be considered in a future Budget.

One of the first things I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is going to reply, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is to reply, is, how have those negotiations proceeded, and, in view of the fact that industry is now in such a serious condition and so urgently needs this relief, how is it that in the interval of a year which has elapsed since the 7th July last, when the President of the Board of Trade spoke the words which I have just mentioned to the House, these negotiations have somehow not fructified, and that there is no proposal on the part of the Government to deal with this problem which has been hanging over the country at any rate for the 10 or 11 years which have elapsed since the Royal Commission reported? All successive Governments have recognised with regard to Income Tax, that what they want to tax are profits and not money exclusively to be used for the proper conduct of industry. That fact was recognised in the report of the Royal Commission. I will read to the House the summary paragraph in which they make their recommendations. It is paragraph 200 of Part III of the Report under the heading of "Allowances and Reliefs." It says: We come now to the general or main class of wasting assets to which we recommend that a depreciation allowance should be extended. Subject always to the limita- tion that their life falls short of 35 years, we recommend that an allowance shall be given in respect of all inherently wasting material assets which have been created by the expenditure of capital, such as buildings and foundations, surface works, permanent way and equipment of railways and tramways, docks and shaft-sinkings, and initial work on development. In every case the allowance should be calculated by reference not to the absolute but to the relative liability to waste. 7.0 p.m.

This is quite definitely the recommendation. The House will notice that in the words I have read minerals are definitely excluded, and, of course, there is the other provision that the assets must not have a longer life than 35 years. The President of the Board of Trade indicated in the negotiations he had had with those two great organisations of industry that it was upon those points there was difference of opinion. It was on those points that he hoped to arrive at a conclusion. Even though these negotiations have proved abortive, it was clearly the duty of the Government, in view of the state of industry in the country and the long history of this question in relation to this House, to have this year dealt with this question in their own way and to have incorporated the finding of the Royal Commission, so as to give, if not the full measure of relief for which industry was asking, at least some measure of relief.

May I briefly refer to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Luton last year, which dealt with only a part of the subject, but on very wide lines? It proposed to cut the Gordian knot and to say boldly and plainly that any money expended in the next three years on new plant and machinery under schemes of rationalisation to replace obsolescent plant and machinery, the use of which was uneconomic, any expenditure at all excluding buildings on plant and machinery, should be free of Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably remember the speech that he made in reply. He said the Amendment was so widely framed that it would apply to the ice-cream vendor, and he also referred to the brewers. I never understand why those particular industries are never considered worthy of any financial assistance at all. At any rate they employ somebody, and an in- dustry that employs anybody at the present time seems an industry worth encouraging. He also said that it would apply to a doctor with a lucrative practice, who could buy himself a Rolls-Royce car and claim 4s. 6d. in the pound on the price of the car less the cost of the car he replaced, which he estimated would be of a much lower value. I do not want to deal with his somewhat sarcastic criticisms of the Amendment or the reasons he gave why he could not accept it, but I am entitled to recall to him and to the House two sympathetic passages in his speech: The hon. Gentleman says that he has made this proposal because he believes that it will encourage the scrapping of old plant and re-equipment. I think that is a most desirable and most necessary object at the present time. We may differ as to the best means by which that purpose is to be achieved, but there can be no doubt as to the desirability of doing what we can to attain that object. The other passage to which I want to refer is the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech last year: I realise that the hon. Member and his friends who have put down this proposal have not had expert advice or official knowledge at their disposal, but I recognise that it is an honest and a sincere attempt to make a contribution to the solution of this problem. In its present form, however, it is quite unacceptable, and if I reject it, I am quite ready to consider any proposal put forward for the same purpose and in the same spirit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1930; cols. 483–490, Vol. 241.] In view of those words, I specially ask the favourable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the modest and well-tried proposal embodied in this Amendment. Although it is drafted somewhat wider than the recommendation of the Royal Commission, yet it expressly includes in the proviso that: such wasting assets are not the value of transferred rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made. Those words exclude all questions of leaseholds and matters of that kind. I am not asking in this Amendment for a complete exemption from Income Tax of all sums required to replace obsolescent machinery. I am merely asking that the Commissioners, in assessing such profits and gains, shall make such allowances in respect of those claims as they think just and reasonable. Surely those words are very just and reasonable words to put into the Finance Bill of the present year, considering the state of industry. The earlier part of the new Clause provides that: For the purpose of enabling deductions from revenue receipts of expired capital outlay on inherently wasting assets to be allowed by the additional commissioners claims in respect of those deductions shall be included in the annual statement required to be delivered under the Income Tax Acts of the profits and gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, and concern, and where such a deduction from the revenue receipts is made, and has been made, from the commencement of the actual employment of the inherently wasting assets in seeking profits, or during a period of not less than three years to the end of the usual financial year of the particular trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern last prior to the year of assessment. That is the principle in the Amendment, and it leaves the exact amount of the allowance to be made to the discretion of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. That is the scope of the proposal, and very briefly the history of this proposal as it has been before the House. In conclusion, I feel that we have a grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury in this matter. We have a Finance Bill before us, of which seven-eighths is occupied by proposals for a new tax, which we say would undoubtedly put an additional burden on a great many, if not all, the industries of the country, at a time when we have had repeated assurances from Chancellor after Chancellor that this question is urgent and that they recognise that this is a relief that industry has a right to demand and to have conceded to it.

That being so, I cannot help reflecting how much more easily this Finance Bill would have passed through this House, and how there would have been no need for the Guillotine procedure under which we are acting, if only the Chancellor had carried out—I will not say these pledges, because I do not want to overstate—these hopes, repeatedly expressed from the Treasury Bench, that a solution of the problem might be found, and had incorporated in his Finance Bill, instead of this land taxation, a couple of simple Clauses, one dealing with this problem of wasting assets and the other with the problem raised from the benches below me last year, when, on a Division, the Government had a majority of only two in its favour. Surely, those are the things the House has shown it is interested in and that industry requires. We could have had a Finance Bill with all the taxing proposals necessary to finance the country for the present year, and the two Clauses dealing with a long overdue relief to industry, instead of all this vast mass of proposals which are so contentious and which are bound to impose further imposts and burdens on industry. I, therefore, move this new Clause, confidently expecting that I shall receive the support of every hon. Member below me, because it incorporates a large part of what they so urgently asked last year. I feel confident, too, that the Chancellor on reflection will feel he ought to include it in the Finance Bill.

Sir HILTON YOUNG

I beg to second the Motion.

When we are having a direct Debate on unemployment, how great would be the interest if anyone were to state that he was in possession of a direct proposal for reducing unemployment. Now, in the course of the discussion on the Finance Bill, we do have an opportunity of dealing with a proposal which it is reasonable to suggest would have more direct benefit in a root cure of unemployment than almost any other single act performed by the Government. It is not unnatural, therefore, that we should ask for it the serious consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The general basis of the proposal is that a difference should be made in accordance with the destination of income. We recognise, of course, that that is a very big and rather revolutionary proposal as regards the Income Tax. This particular Clause, this ever popular Clause of my hon. Friend, looks as if it were meant only for a private fight of Income Tax experts, but it does raise this very broad principle in practically the only way in which it can be raised by a private Member, because every other Clause and Amendment proposed to raise this matter has fallen a victim to the Rules of Order, and this alone survives. The contention it raises is that at the present time the greatest need of our productive system is all those forms of energy which are necessary for re-equipment, reorganisation and expansion. Principal among those forms of energy is fresh capital. Fresh capital can be obtained only from savings, and those savings occur first in the form of the revenue of these businesses. The contention is, further, that at the present time the fund, which is the essential energy for the restoration of the production of the country, is being unduly depleted by taxation.

I shall not go into the general question of whether the whole burden of taxation is too great, because this is a convenient occasion for proposing another equally important topic, that the same evil results are due to a maladjustment of the burdens of taxation. Income Tax can only avoid doing infinite harm, when it arrives at the severity of our present tax, if it is well adjusted. That surely is a very obvious proposal. No ill-adjustment could be more mischievous than any which has the effect of making the burden of the tax fall, not upon true profits, but on that part of the income of the business which is not true profits, but which is essential for re-investment in the business. That is the contention and that that is the nature of the maladjustment of our Income Tax is not doubted by any business man or any official of the Inland Revenue Department.

There is a maladjustment of our Income Tax at the present time in that too great a part of it falls, not upon the true profits of the business, but upon the part of it necessary for restoration and re-equipment. Allowances are made, but they are not great enough for modern requirements. The allowances for depreciation and so on might have been good enough when first instituted, but circumstances then were very different. The original system was established at a time when the temper, the rate of discovery was much less than it is now. The rate of advance in discovery is so much greater now that much bigger reinvestments are required, and much greater allowances ought to be made.

One of the gravest reasons why we fall behind our competitors in other parts of the world in production, why we are losing our international trade, is because this handicap is imposed upon our producers. In comparison with their foreign rivals they are not allowed by the tax collector to have so much of their revenue for reinvestment in their business-In other nations, where the system is more scientific, a much larger allowance is made than in this country. I contend that in modern conditions it is quite impossible for any nation, considered as a productive unit, to make good in competition with its rivals unless it gives its producers as favourable treatment in regard to this matter as any other national unit gives to its producers. It has been admitted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and by past Chancellors of the Exchequer that this question requires serious and immediate attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has narrated the history. Those of us who are familiar with the Debates on this particular matter are quite used to hear that such and such a proposal will not hold water, it will lose so much revenue here and so much revenue there, and that it will not affect our purpose; that altogether that it is a rotton Clause. That may be so, but goodness knows Income Tax law is now in such a state of complexity that nobody who does not spend his life at it and is not equipped with the brain of a mathematician or the persistency of a hygienist can hope to frame a Clause which will hold water. It is the obligation of the Government to propose the right Clause to deal with this matter, and we are offering them an opportunity to tell us that our Clause is wrong and that they will produce a new Clause which will achieve the purpose. We should be most grateful.

The matter may be summed up in this way: We are always told with justice and with truth that it is one of the tables of the law, one of the bases of the Income Tax, that you must not allow deductions in respect of allocations of revenue for capital purposes, and that you must not consider the destination of revenue. We may admit that both these principles are necessary and sound in the original Income Tax scheme, when the tax was an inconsiderable part of the burden of the cost of industry, but surely it is time we oponed our eyes to the fact that the burden has now mounted to a point when it is one of the principal outlets and drains upon industry, upon the capital income of industry, and that although you may like to be able to maintain these principles for the sake of the simplicity of the tax you cannot afford to do so any longer. Unless you are prepared to give some relief to industry, you are going to inflict upon it a wound which must mean long and slow decay.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE

The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) has referred to this proposal as a popular Clause and although he afterwards qualified that by saying that no doubt it would be described as a rotten Clause, yet I think his description of popular must remain. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said how popular the Budget would have been if it had included two new Clauses, one the Clause which he has moved and the other a Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) last year.

Sir B. PETO

I did not suggest the Clause which was actually moved by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

A Clause containing in the main the suggestions put forward by the hon. Member for Luton. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member for Barnstaple. Of course, any Clause which makes large remissions of taxation is always popular, and if you take the two new Clauses to which the hon. Member for Barnstaple has referred they would mean a loss to the revenue of certainly £30,000,000 a year, and probably between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 a year. In themselves these proposals would undoubtedly be exceedingly popular, but the hon. Member is not so simple as to imagine that they could stand alone. If they were introduced they would have to be accompanied by other Clauses imposing a similar amount to make good the loss inflicted by them, and it would mean an addition of sixpence on the Income Tax and probably the full amount of one shilling. I am not at all sure that if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced a Budget containing these two new Clauses and in addition a further sixpence or one shilling on the Income Tax it would have been as popular as the hon. Member seems to imagine.

It is admitted on all sides of the House that the present position is not wholly satisfactory, and hon. Members will recollect that the Royal Commission on Income Tax made certain recommendations in their report. I am not going to take up the time of the House by referring to these recommendations in detail but, broadly speaking, their effect was that they would increase the allowances in certain cases and reduce them in others, and it was because of the dual nature of the recommendations that they did not meet with the acceptance and approval of industry as a whole. Last year the President of the Board of Trade pointed out that these proposals were not acceptable to the Federation of British Industries. The hon. Member for Barnstaple has asked whether further negotiations and discussions have been proceeding on these lines. I will only say this, that I have had on one occasion the views of the Federation of British Industries and they have not put before the Government any practicable acceptance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. While they are anxious to obtain any additional allowances they are not prepared to have such allowances taken away from them as contemplated by the Royal Commission in its report. The proposals they desire to see are exceedingly sweeping and would involve very considerable reductions in revenue.

The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks quite properly pointed out that since Income Tax was inaugurated great changes in industry have taken place and that the relationship of income to capital is different to what it was in the simple old days when the demarcation could be more, closely and definitely defined. That, however, is a very big question, and I am not at all sure that the balance is wholly on one side. There are many sums which come to the taxpayer which, because we are dealing with income, are excluded from the purview of taxation, whereas if we included ail increases of capita] we should cover a much wider field. It may he the case that in days to come the strictly Income Tax character of this taxation will be modified, but when it comes to be modified it may not be all on one side and solely for the benefit of the taxpayer. [Interruption.] What I mean is this, that the line which divides income in the strict sense from increases or decreases of wealth through appreciation or depreciation of capital is a line which becomes blurred in modern life, but I agree that some change in Income Tax practice may be adopted in the years to come. Some would be in favour of the taxpayer and some would be to his detriment. As far as the new Clause is concerned I will not go as far as the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks, but I am afraid in its present form it is unacceptable and I must ask the House to reject it.

Mr. LEIF JONES

It is rather remarkable that the speech of the Financial Secretary is much less favourable to the view put forward in support of the Amendment than it was seven years ago. The President of the Board of Trade, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, promised faithfully to inquire into this question and see what could be done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was sitting beside him and we gathered then that an investigation was to be made. Seven years have passed

and the right hon. Gentleman is again the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is a little disappointing that the reply on this subject, which certainly wants investigating, should be less favourable than it was seven years ago.

Mr. HASLAM

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that the loss to the revenue if this proposal were accepted would be from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) may well feel justified in having moved this new Clause, because that admission shows that this amount of money is being unjustifiably taken from industry and is a condemnation of the Income Tax system as at present imposed.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 284.

Division No. 361.] AYES. [7.30 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Chapman, Sir S. Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles Christie, J. A. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Albery, Irving James Clydesdale, Marquess of Gritten, W. G. Howard
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Cobb, Sir Cyril Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Allen, Sir J. sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Colfox, Major William Philip Gunston, Captain D. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Colman, N. C. D. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover) Colville, Major D. J. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Astor, Viscountess Conway, Sir W. Martin Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Atholl, Duchess of Cooper, A. Duff Hammersley, S. S.
Atkinson, C. Courtauld, Major J. S. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Cranborne, Viscount Haslam, Henry C.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (l. of Thanet) Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Balniel, Lord Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro) Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Beaumont, M. W. Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Dalkeith, Earl of Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Bird, Ernest Roy Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Boothby, R. J. G. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Bowyer, Captain Sir Gorge E. W. Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Hurd, Percy A.
Boyce, Leslie Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Bracken, B. Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Braithwalte, Major A. N. Eden, Captain Anthony Inskip, Sir Thomas
Brass, Captain Sir William Edmondson, Major A. J. Iveagh, Countess of
Briscoe, Richard George Elliot, Major Walter E. Kindersley, Major G. M.
Broadbent, Colonel J. England, Colonel A. Knox, Sir Alfred
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) Everard, W. Lindsay Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Buchan, John Falle, Sir Bertram G. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Ferguson, Sir John Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' Whitby)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Fielden, E. B. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Fison, F. G. Clavering Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Butler, R. A. Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Llewellin, Major J. J
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Frece, Sir Walter de Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Campbell, E. T. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Carver, Major W. H. Galbraith, J. F. W. Long, Major Hon. Eric
Castle Stewart, Earl of Ganzonl, Sir John Lymington, Viscount
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Macquisten, F. A.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Gower, Sir Robert Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Margesson, Captain H. D.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Marjoribanks, Edward
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Greene, W. P. Crawford Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S. Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell Thompson, Luke
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Ross, Ronald D. Thomson, Sir F.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) Rothschild, J. de Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. Todd, Capt. A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Train, J.
Morrison, Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Salmon, Major I. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Muirhead, A. J. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Turton, Robert Hugh
Nall-Cain, A. R. N. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld) Savery, S. S. Warrender, Sir Victor
Oman, Sir Charles William C. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome Wayland, Sir William A.
Peake, Capt. Osbert Skelton, A. N. Wells, Sydney R.
Penny, Sir George Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Perkins, W. R. D. Smith-Carington, Neville W. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Somerset, Thomas Withers, Sir John James
Pllditch, Sir Philip Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Pownall, Sir Assheton Southby, Commander A. R. J. Womersley, W. J.
Ramsbotham, H. Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Rawson, Sir Cooper Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)
Reid, David D. (County Down) Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland) Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Remer, John R. Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. Stewart, W. J (Belfast South) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Major Sir George Hennessy and
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. Major the Marquess of Tihchfield.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Daggar, George Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Dallas, George Herrlotts, J.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Dalton, Hugh Hicks, Ernest George
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M. Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Alpass, J. H. Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ammon, Charles George Day, Harry Hoffman, P. C.
Angell, Sir Norman Denman, Hon. R. D. Hollins, A.
Arnott, John Dudgeon, Major C. R Hopkin, Daniel
Aske, Sir Robert Dukes, C. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Attlee, Clement Richard Duncan, Charles John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ayles, Walter Ede, James Chuter Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Edmunds, J. E. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Barnes, Alfred John Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Barr, James Egan, W. H. Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Batey, Joseph Elmley, Viscount Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Kelly, W. T.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Benson, G. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Kirkwood, D.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Gibbins, Joseph Knight, Holford
Birkett, W. Norman Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Lang, Gordon
Bilndell, James Gill, T. H. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret Gillett, George M. Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Bowen, J. W. Glassey, A. E. Law, Albert (Bolton)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Gossling, A. G. Law, A. (Rosendale)
Broad, Francis Alfred Gould, F. Lawrence, Susan
Brockway, A. Fenner Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.) Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Bromfield, William Gray, Milner Lawson, John James
Bromley, J. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine) Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Brooke, W. Grenfelt, D. R. (Glamorgan) Leach, W.
Brothers, M. Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Groves, Thomas E. Lees, J.
Buchanan, G. Grundy, Thomas W. Leonard, W.
Burgess, F. G. Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Lewis. T. (Southampton)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lindley, Fred W.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Lloyd, C. Ellis
Cameron, A. G. Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) Logan. David Gilbert
Cape, Thomas Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Longbottom, A. W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Longden, F.
Charleton, H. C. Hardie, David (Rutherglen) Lunn, William
Chater, Daniel Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Church, Major A. G. Harris, Percy A. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Clarke, J S. Hastings, Dr. Somerville MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Cluse, W. S. Haycock, A. W. McElwee, A.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Hayday, Arthur McEntee, V. L.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hayes, John Henry McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Compton, Joseph Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) McKinlay, A.
Cove, William G. Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) MacLaren, Andrew
Cowan, D. M. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
McShane, John James Price, M. P. Stephen, Campbell
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) Pybus, Percy John Strauss, G. R.
Manning, E. L. Quibell, D. J. K. Sullivan, J.
Mansfield, W. Ramsay, T. B. Wilson Sutton, J. E.
March, S. Rathbone, Eleanor Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Marcus, M. Raynes, W. R. Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Markham, S. F. Richards, R. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Marley, J. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Marshall, Fred Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) Tinker, John Joseph
Mathers, George Ritson, J. Toole, Joseph
Matters. L. W. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) Tout, W. J.
Maxton, James Romerll, H. G. Townend, A. E.
Messer, Fred Rosbotham, D. S. T. Vaughan, David
Middleton, G. Rowson, Guy Viant, S. P.
Millar, J. D. Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Walkden, A. G.
Mliner, Major J. Salter, Dr. Alfred Walker, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Wallace, H. W.
Morley, Ralph Sanders, W. S. Watkins, F. C.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins Sandham, E. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Sawyer, G. F. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) Scott, James Wellock, Wilfred
Mort, D. L. Scurr, John Welsh, James (Paisley)
Mull, G Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Muggerldge, H. T. Shepherd, Arthur Lewis West, F. R.
Murnin, Hugh Sherwood, G. H. Westwood, Joseph
Nathan, Major H. L. Shield, George William White, H. G.
Naylor, T. E. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Shillaker, J. F. Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) Shinwell, E. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Oldfield, J. R. Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Oliver, George Harold (likeston) Simmons, C. J. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Wlthington) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) Sinclair, Sir A, (Caithness) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford) Sinkinson, George Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Palln, John Henry Sitch, Charles H. Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Paling, Wilfrid Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Palmer, E. T. Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Wise, E. F.
Perry, S. F. Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Phillips, Dr. Marlon Snowden, Thomas (Accrlngton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Pole, Major D. G. Sorensen, R. Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Thurtle.
Potts, John S. Stamford, Thomas W.