§ Mr. WISE
I beg to move, in page 13, line 12, after the word "not," to insert the words "citizens of or."
The purpose of this Amendment and of the following Amendment in Subsection (1, b) of Clause 22—in line 18, after the word "in," to insert the words "nor citizens of "—is to take out of 619 the operation of this Clause British subjects resident or partly resident abroad. The purpose of the Clause is to enable the Treasury to issue securities free of Income Tax, and also, under Sub-section (1, b), free of other taxes. When this matter was under discussion on the Financial Resolution, we were told by the Treasury that the corresponding paragraphs of the Financial Resolution were there because it was necessary to provide some inducement to foreign holders of 5 per cent. War Loan, which was issued free of Income Tax, to convert. But I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Clause in the Finance Bill goes very much further than, apparently, we were led to understand on the previous occasion.
There may be a case for inducing foreigners who are exempt from Income Tax in respect of their present holdings of 5 per cent. War Loan to convert on a similar basis, although as a matter of fact that particular practice has been condemned by Royal Commissions and Committees which have examined it. But the purpose here apparently is to enable the Treasury at any time to issue securities entirely unconnected with conversion operations to foreigners or to British subjects resident abroad, which are immune from taxation. I should like to know the reason why the Government should at this moment offer an inducement to British subjects to take themselves and their capital abroad and to fly from the pound. I should particularly like to know what their purpose is in regard to paragraph (b). That is not a question of Income Tax. Under that paragraph powers which the Treasury have at this moment for levying Income Tax on the estate of British subjects who, though they die abroad, hold property in this country would disappear, at any rate in respect of any bonds issued with this condition.
I understand the hon. Member wishes to discuss both his Amendments together. If that is so, there is no objection to that course on the understanding that no discussion will be permissible on the second Amendment.
§ Mr. WISE
I think that is the more convenient course, and that was sug- 620 gested to me by your predecessor in the Chair, Sir, at an earlier stage of the discussion. The present law is that, if you can prove foreign domicile, a very tricky and difficult point of law, you can escape duty on foreign holdings, but you are still liable to duty on property in the United Kingdom, including War Loan. The effect of this Clause is that you can gain immunity from Death Duties even though you hold British Government securities. I think it is very undesirable that the Treasury should have power at all to issue securities which are immune from taxation. I think it is very undesirable in the case of foreigners, and more undesirable in the case of British subjects. A good many people have threatened from time to time to leave the country and take their property abroad in order to evade taxation. They have threatened less in the last few days since the pound has been over par, but I have no doubt on the first convenient opportunity they will start again.
I do not see any reason at all why we should offer any special inducement, particularly of this sort, to such persons to retain the security which the country can give and has given in respect of its Government stock whilst obtaining by residence abroad immunity from British taxation. British citizens who live in Belgium or the South of France for more than six months in the year—six months and a day is sufficient for their purpose —in order to avoid British Income Tax, constantly use the services and the prestige and the advantage which British citizenship 'brings. They never fail—no one complains of it—to claim the protection of British consular and diplomatic officers and the British Army in order to obtain all the advantages that arise from the existence of this country and its institutions, paid for by the British taxpayer. Moreover, a good many of them seem to spend a great deal of their time in offering advice, through the columns of "The Times," as to how we should conduct our affairs. There is no reason from the point of view of the general administration of taxation, and there is no reason at all in equity and in justice, why we should offer any opportunities for the evasion of payment of British taxation.
At this moment, when we are told it is only possible for the Government to carry on the institutions of the country by 621 forcing small children to pay a penny to go into Kew Gardens, it is preposterous to give opportunities to people like Lady Houston and others to pay large sums to the bar—the bar will probably benefit more than anyone else out of this provision—to argue the very intricate and difficult cases that will arise if they can, under this paragraph, manage to evade British taxation. This is a proposal to give the Government power to issue securities, at any time without coming to the House, without reference to anyone, which will be immune from taxation. It is an opportunity which we do not think the Treasury ought to have without coming to the House on every occasion. It has nothing to do with conversion operations. It has nothing to do with the immediate problem of balancing the Budget. It is the other way in that respect. It will make the Budget more difficult to balance in the future. It is a method by which in five years time we may be faced with the sort of arguments we have heard this evening—as to their merits I have nothing to say—that, if we try to bring in people who have taken their money abroad for the purpose of evading taxation, we are guilty of a breach of faith and of repudiation.
If this Clause goes through, and if the Treasury uses the power which it will then have of issuing securities which will offer an easy way for wealthy persons to evade taxation, we shall not, in future, pay any attention in this case, whatever happens in others, to the charge of repudiation. We are not going to be bound by any dodges of this sort binding our hands or the hands of any Government in the future. This scheme of issuing stock free from tax, whether to foreigners or to British citizens, is thoroughly bad. It may be necessary in the case of foreigners in the case of a conversion loan, but I see no reason at all why the Treasury should be given the wide general power of evading the control of the House in enabling individuals to evade taxation which this Clause might give.
§ Major ELLIOT
I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding the hon. Member's mental processes. His line seems to be that, if you cannot do enough to people, you should make faces at them. The proposal here is quite simple. It is to continue a power which we have had before with the object of facilitating 622 conversion. The hon. Member went through a long argument to prove that this was disadvantageous to the British Treasury. Of course it is, but we have to weigh that up against the balance of disadvantage to the British Treasury, in carrying through conversion, of having suddenly to find a sum in cash. How does the hon. Member propose to deal with that?
§ Major ELLIOT
Indeed I am. How does the hon. Member propose to deal with the person who does not like the bargain that is offered and, consequently, refuses to convert?
§ Major ELLIOT
It is a little hard. I listened patiently to the hon. Member and then he carries on a conversation with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Price). I do not complain, but here you are dealing with a commercial transaction. The Treasury desires to have power to convert. Conversion will need to carry facilities which are advantageous to the person whom you desire to induce to convert. Granted that it is a privilege, the question is whether the granting of the privilege is a greater disadvantage to the country than the withholding of the privilege and the forcing of the individual in question not to convert.
§ Major ELLIOT
The Treasury take a wide power which it is not intended in any way to extend generally or to anyone to whom it is not urgently necessary as a commercial transaction to extend it.
§ Major ELLIOT
Not on any account. This conversion may not cover simply the Five per cent. War Loan. It may be necessary to deal with other conversions. 623 The hon. Member talks about a fertile field for lawyers. His words would mean a fertile field for lawyers. "Citizens of the United Kingdom" is a term absolutely unknown to the law. It has no meaning. "British subjects" will not do either. It would include all the inhabitants of the Dominions, and you certainly do not want to discourage inhabitants of the Dominions from holding securities of this kind. The only remaining test that you have is domicile or ordinary residence, and it is with reference to these that the Clause is framed. The hon. Member argues the case most convincingly from the point of view of abstract theory, but he never gets into touch with the facts of the case. The facts of the case are that stock has been issued in the past under these conditions. These are not new conditions. They are not brought out for the first time. They are customary provisions. Both 5 per cent. War Loan and 4 per cent. Funding Loan were issued on these terms. That is the problem to which the hon. Member must address himself. How does he propose to deal with this question?
It is no doubt very annoying that there are people who are domiciled out of the United Kingdom and who have their funds outside the Kingdom. I am not making any apology for them. I am not doing any more than registering the fact that such persons exist. I am not making any excuse, though I am prepared to argue the case when the time comes. I am dealing with the facts. Here is a person who has a certain kind of security which carries certain rights. We desire to carry out a conversion operation. We do not wish to have to pay off in cash the great mass of these securities. We find that it is necessary for commercial reasons, to allow these privileges to continue as they have done in the past. It is very convenient if we can dictate our own terms, but we cannot. You have to carry through a bargain and consider what terms you can offer. The hon. Member did not address himself to that point at all. He argued quite convincingly that it was a great pity that such things should be, and he might have quoted a number of authorities. He might have quoted the Colwyn Committee. Many 624 committees have deprecated the issue of securities with tax exemptions. Of course it is a nuisance, but it is a matter of very small moment in comparison with the importance to the country of facilitating the conversion of 5 per cent. War Loan. The whole argument of the case is that we are dealing with a practical problem.
§ Major ELLIOT
If I have satisfied the hon. Member on the other points, I am perfectly willing to deal with that point also. I should like, first of all, to see whether we have cleared up and disposed of the first part of the argument. The hon. Member will not even agree to that. It seems, then, a little unnecessary to ask me to prove the smaller point if he does not even concede the larger one. I will give him an answer. The reason why we are taking general powers is that if we put those powers into Part III we should not be able to use them at all unless we began by giving formal notice to repay. We might desire to carry out other operations. Upon this matter we have to rely upon the officers of the Treasury to safeguard the interests of the British taxpayer and of the British Treasury. I do not think any accusation has been brought against them in the past that they were remiss or lax in these cases, but rather that they were over-scrupulous and over-exacting. The general case for the Clause is the case more or less against the Amendment. The Amendment, however, touches a narrower point than the Clause itself. The Clause takes power to issue securities both to foreigners and to persons who may be Englishmen, Scotch-men, Welshmen or Ulster men, but are residing outwith the country.
As to the general point of foreigners, I can do no more than say that the argument which I advanced to the Committee, that it is desirable not to have to pay off great sums in cash, is the governing argument. The narrower point should thus be confined only to foreigners and not to citizens of this country. But I say that the general argument that you do 625 not wish to pay over sums in cash, whether those bonds are tendered by citizens of this country residing abroad or by foreigners living abroad, holds for both of these cases. I do not wish in any way to ride out of the matter on the technical question of domicile, and I can assure the hon. Member that words such as he has drawn would not cover the case. I am willing to argue the general case. He might say that if those words did not cover the case, it would be for the Parliamentary draftsmen to bring forward words which did. I am willing to accept that argument, but the object is not one which can be carried out under this Clause with reference to the particular machinery he has in view.
Many proposals have been brought forward for the purpose of dealing with British subjects going abroad. We have seen them adopted in other countries in Europe, and possibly in time to come they may be adopted here. We have seen proposals adopted by the Italian, Government and by the German Government. There are many ways in which it is possible to deal with the nationals of a country residing abroad and to place upon them a greater share of the taxation of the country than they have previously been paying. But I assure him that the proposals which he has brought forward would defeat his own end, if we placed upon the shoulders of this country a heavier burden instead of a lighter burden, a burden of finding great sums in cash instead of carrying out a conversion, and for these reasons I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I really think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has dealt with the Amendment brought forward by my hon. Friend in a most flippant way. He attempted to start his speech by putting a, number of clever and adroit questions which he thought would put my hon. Friend into a corner, and, having failed in that, he attempted, quite in vain, to substantiate a case against the Amendment by putting the case of the Clause as a whole. The Financial Secretary has never really answered the fundamental question as to why it is necessary to take absolutely general and unlimited powers, when, as he says, the only object is to deal with conversions of certain existing loans. There may be an argument for saying 626 that you have at the present time certain holders of existing loans, and that you may want in the early future to induce those people to convert. There is the 5 per cent. War Loan and the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, and there may possibly be—I do not know—other loans in the same position. It is an argument which at any rate can be put forward where you have holders of those loans who have the precise conditions which are covered here, that you must in a conversion give the Treasury power to put in the same conditions. But that is no argument whatever why you should give general powers of this kind.
The Financial Secretary says that if this had been put into the previous part of the Bill, there might have been some complications. Surely he will not say that it is outside the power of the draftsmen—we know that the Government draftsmen are very able, especially when assisted by the advice and instruction of the Financial Secretary himself—to use words which limit the provisions of this Clause to the particular conversions it may be desired to effect. If instead of choosing such a Clause he chooses to put forward this very much wider provision, he cannot be surprised if we object to it. He said: "Oh, you must trust the Treasury. The Treasury is a very wise institution. It is not likely to do anything which is undesirable from the taxpayer's point of view. Therefore, throw the reins on to the horse's neck, because it is a jolly good horse and it will not run away."
Let us examine the position. What is the sole reason why we have carried Part III through the Committee? It is because the Treasury during the War made a fundamental blunder in its terms of prospectus in regard to the 5 per cent. War Loan. I pointed out earlier in the day—and I do not think that it was seriously challenged by anyone who knew anything about. it—that had the prospectus been of a slightly different form, which would not have affected, as far as I can see, the psychology of the investor, we should have had none of the difficulties we are experiencing at the present time. For the hon. and gallant Gentleman to come down to the Committee and say that the House of Commons need take no care as to the precise limits of the power it gives because we can trust 627 the Treasury always to do the right thing, seems to be entirely derogatory to the dignity and privileges of this Committee. It is our business in the House of Commons to safeguard the provisions we make, although I should be the very last person to have any adverse doubt about the Treasury, whose value I know fully as well as the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he has only been Financial Secretary for a comparatively short time. I have certainly a very great respect for the Treasury, but that is no reason why Parliament should be asked to give the Treasury powers which are quite unnecessary and go far beyond the needs of the case.
I will come to the needs of the case and more particularly to the Amendment. We recognise on this side of the Committee quite as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite that as far as foreigners are concerned it will be very difficult indeed to insist upon an entirely new basis, or new terms for a conversion as against the existing stock. Therefore as far as, at any rate, the Front Bench are concerned, I could not support a proposal which would prevent the conversion by compelling foreigners to accept cash or a taxable loan. But this Amendment is confined solely to British subjects, and it is the obvious intention of my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment not only to exclude foreigners, but citizens of the Dominions, and I think that that is a sound course. That is no ground: at all why Englishmen and Scotsmen should have the privileges contained in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a) and paragraph (b), which is, I think, a very serious matter indeed.
My hon. Friend in moving the Amendment pointed out—and I do not think that the Financial Secretary has denied it—that at the present time subjects of this country, even though they may be domiciled abroad, are liable on account of property held in this country. I do not know, but I imagine that it includes holdings of British loans. But if it is not so, no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us. If in fact loans which are not declared to be tax free are included in the estate of a British subject who is domiciled abroad and thereby becomes liable to Death Duty, I think that it is a very serious thing in- 628 deed in that case, if it be so, that they are to be rendered free of all liability. The hon. and gallant Member says that it is so according to the present 5 per cent. War Loan and the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, and if we are going to alter the position, we shall have to pay these people in cash. I realise as far as the foreign holdings of these loans and the 5 per cent. War Loan in particular, are concerned, that it would be a very considerable amount, but I should very much doubt whether any considerable sum was involved, as far as British subjects are concerned. I should imagine it was comparatively small and that the amount we should have to find in order to pay them off need not be very seriously considered for that reason.
In any case a very dangerous practice was carried out during the War at a time when there was very loose thinking about these loans and when money was urgently required by the Government of the day, and when they gave very generous terms in respect of the loans. It will be very dangerous to carry out that practice in the future. Even if we have to find a small amount of cash in order to deal with the case of the British subjects who are not at this time domiciled in this country, the small additional burden of cash we shall have to find in consequence is fully worth while if it prevents us from being committed in the future to these very serious provisions. So far as paragraph (a) is concerned, the hon. and gallant Member has made out no case whatever for resisting the Amendments, and so far as paragraph (b) is concerned I think his case is very much worse. Unless we have some completely different answer put before us, we shall certainly vote solidly in favour of the Amendments, and I suggest to the Government that they are making a great mistake in resisting the substance of them.
§ Mr. MacLAREN
One cannot but admire the resourcefulness and ingenuity of the hon. and gallant Member in trying to circumvent the difficulty which he admits exists. It seems to me that we cannot define what is a British citizen, or if we attempt to do so litigation would run riot. Even then we might not be successful in circumventing the evasion which these Amendments are attempting 629 to stop. If there are standing contracts in regard to previous loans and it would be tantamount to breaking our word or our bond if we were to curtail the payments due, one can, of course, appreciate the difficulty. On the legal point one can see the necessity of using the words "any taxation present or future," in paragraph (b), but in the use of these words the word "future" might be regarded also as covering any future loans. That is a point against which we are protesting. I do not agree that the ingenuity of the Treasury or even of my hon. and gallant Friend is at a standstill, and that no device can be found in the English language or in legal terminology to make safeguards against any evasions in the future. I am speaking specifically of British subjects.
I will give an example of what is going on. The other day, a letter arrived at the House, and its recipient, a Member of this House, showed it to me. It was from relatives of his who have been Indian civil servants, who have retired at middle age with a very nice competence. I do not grudge them that, but they are refusing to come home. They have written to England intimating that they have settled down on the Continent, in a colony of retired civil servants from India, with whom they are enjoying pensions and refusing to come home. The letter states bluntly that they are not coming home to be subjected to the heavy taxation of this country. They go on in the letter to give my hon. Friend a long lecture on the tendencies of the Labour party and to show why he should support the National Government. Good, loyal patriots, enjoying the dignity, the reputation and the protection of the British Empire! Born, bred and educated in this country, qualified here for their tasks and for the salaries that they drew, they are living on the Continent, to avoid British taxation; living, as they deem it to be, at a lower cost, and then dabbling in our politics and giving us curtain lectures as to how we should behave, but taking care not to come here, lest they be made subject to our taxation.
These same people have invested in the loans that are the subject of our discussion to-night. I appreciate the difficulties that might arise in trying to 630 secure tribute from these people who are avoiding taxation on the Continent, but I object to the loose manner in which the two paragraphs are drawn. It is high time that the Committee awoke to the fact of this constant practice of evasion by people who cry from the housetops about patriotism and supporting the British Empire, and yet continue to do this mean thing. I am not objecting to our fulfilling obligations which have been entered into in connection with previous loans. There may be something to be said for our not doing anything that would hinder foreigners entering into our loans, but I do say that the time has come when we should not give exemptions in the future, whatever may have been entered into in the past. The time has come when we should deal with this form of evasion. While admitting that, there is difficulty in drawing Clauses which would meet the objects at which we are aiming, I think this Debate will be fruitful in that it will draw the attention of the Treasury to what is going on, if they are not already conscious of it, and that this House will take steps, more especially in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, to call upon those dear, loyal subjects of the British Empire to come within the ambit of the law, and not to escape in the future.
§ Major ELLIOT
The case quoted by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) is exactly the kind of case which illustrates the difficulty. This is obviously not a party matter. We are examining it from the point of view of how we can best protect the revenues of this country. There can be no doubt that one of the grievances felt by citizens of this country is that other citizens reside abroad or go abroad from this country and escape a portion or the whole of the heavy taxation to which those who remain at home are subjected. Let us, however, address ourselves to it as a practical matter. The Treasury will be more than grateful to the Committee if it can bring its mind to bear upon this subject and make constructive suggestions which it will be possible to carry into effect. For that reason, I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) for having submitted his Amendment, although I do not think it will carry out the object he has in view.
631 Let me examine the case put forward by the hon. Member for Burslem. He quotes the case of an Indian civil servant. That Indian civil servant has earned his salary and pension, not in this country, but in India. He says that that Indian civil servant has invested in these loans. That may be so, but there is nothing to compel him to invest in them. You have to attract him. There is no law which says that he must invest his money in 5 per cent. British War Loan.
§ Major ELLIOT
He has earned this money, not in this country, but in India, and he is drawing his pension at the end of the day, not from this country, but from India. The hon. Member for Burslem says that it is a shame that he should hold this loan free of taxation. I cannot conceive any method by which we can prevent him from selling that stock. He may be living in Italy or France, and he may sell the loan, and buy dollars. It is the last thing that we should wish to do in this country, to bring pressure to bear which would have that effect in regard to these amounts be they large or small. The hon. Member for East Leicester said that the amounts were usually small. Granted that they are small, the last thing that we want to do is to have these moneys transferred, say, into dollars. For that reason, I beg the Committee to consider this matter, not from the point of view of an abstract desire, but from the point of view that when a British citizen resident abroad has money to invest we desire that he should invest it in our funds. If he does not like the security which we offer, it is open to him to buy Continental funds or American funds. We have to remember that if he is the holder of British funds it is open for him to sell those funds and buy others.
Whatever we may think of the equity of the matter we have to face the fact that there are burdens which the residents in the United Kingdom suffer which are not suffered by citizens resident outside the United Kingdom. As a mere matter of practical administration the arguments advanced by hon. Members do not 632 in fact carry out the proposal they have in view.
§ Mr. PRICE
We all agree that we should not approach this problem from the point of view of trying to score party points. The Financial Secretary has referred to the cake of Indian civil servants who are drawing pensions. I would suggest that there are other sources in this country which are no doubt known to the Treasury. There are companies in the City which have been engaged for same years past in making investments abroad in holding companies resident in countries where there is a low Income Tax. For instance in the Graz Canton in Switzerland there is a low Income Tax, in the Grand Duchy of Lichtenstein there is no Income Tax at all, and in Luxemberg—
§ Major ELLIOT
Surely the hon. Member does not want to give assistance to these companies by advertising them?
§ Mr. PRICE
I think we are entitled to use this House with the object of showing that we know of the existence of these cases and that we hope something will be done. I do not doubt that the Treasury are anxious to find means of dealing with this situation, and if it is clear that we do know something about these cases it might help them. The reason why we have moved this Amendment is because we think the powers of the Treasury are too wide. We want to narrow them down and to make it quite definite that they shall deal with this matter. It is no argument to say that we are likely to have a flood of demands for conversion. I should like to know what percentage which goes abroad is liable to conversion. I imagine that it is not large. Moreover, the argument of the Financial Secretary that we should have to include the citizens of the Dominions will not hold water, because it is clear that the Clause refers to persons who are not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
§ Major ELLIOT
There is no such a thing as a citizen of the United Kingdom. It is not determinable in law.
§ Sir G. HURST
I realise the cogency of the arguments of the Financial Secretary as to the undesirability of accepting the Amendment inasmuch as it would limit conversion to the 5 per cent. War Loan and would not apply to the Funding Loan, which is outside Part III and of which conversion may at some time be necessary. As a large amount of the 4 per cent. Funding Loan is held abroad by British nationals ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom, it may be essential in the process of conversion to offer securities which hold out the same advantages to them. Having regard to the fact that Part III does not include the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, it may be necessary to have Clause 22 in general terms. At the same time, I am in thorough accord with the observations of hon. Members opposite. This is not a party question and the Amendment does draw attention to what is nothing less than a public scandal.
This grievance falls under two heads. There is the case of British nationals domiciled abroad for the sole purpose and intention of avoiding taxation and death duties, and it is high time the State proposed legislation to put an end to it. That may be outside the ambit of this Clause, but the holder of War Loan and 4 per cent. Funding Loan, ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom, at the present time enjoys absolute exemption from taxation on these securities. This is a growing evil. From my own knowledge of trusteeship it is becoming more and more the practice of beneficiaries under a trusteeship to persuade their trustees to convert existing securities in the trust estate into 4 per cent. War Loan. There is no need for the beneficiaries to be domiciled abroad, to have their permanent home there; it is only necessary for them to be ordinarily resident abroad to be entirely exempt from taxation on the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, and this process of converting trustee securities into this special security, which enjoys immunity from 634 ordinary taxation, is a growing tendency, and an unfair advantage is being taken of it by people who desire to avoid the common burden of citizenship to-day.
I suggest to the Financial Secretary, although no doubt it is necessary to frame Clause 22 on sufficiently comprehensive lines to apply to a. possible future conversion of the Funding Loan as well as the conversion of the 5 per cent. War Loan, that the wording of the Clause is too wide. It not only applies to future conversions of stock which was issued under the exigencies of the War but it also opens the gate to the Treasury at any time in the future issuing securities on conditions which our experiences since the War have clearly shown to be disadvantageous to the general mass of the nation. Although I am prepared to support the Government in voting against this specific Amendment, which is in error in not dealing with the 4 per cent. Funding Loan, I hope the Financial Secretary will consider the. advisability of not opening the door so wide as to enable the Treasury, in cases quite outside the ambit of ordinary conversion operations, to repeat what experience has shown to have been a mistake made during the War.
§ Mr. G. HARDIE
I want the Financial Secretary to look at paragraph (b) of Clause 22 and the last word, "future." We all realise the meaning of that word, but as it stands it can be read in more than one way. I think the Financial Secretary might take into consideration some word which would prevent the application of the Clause to fresh loans. What the word "future" does is to give a continuation to that which it is seeking to prevent. I think it would be possible to find words to confine what is herein contained to present contracts and not to any future loans. Would it not be possible to find a set of words that would govern the future in relation to fresh loans? If the present provision were made more water-tight, a great service would be done.
§ Mr. WISE
I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will respond to the appeals made to him from both sides of the Committee, that lie inquire whether justification was given for these general powers applicable to loans "under any Act," past, present or future. The powers are much wider than those that we were told, in the previous 635 speeches of the Financial Secretary, it was necessary to provide for, in connection with these conversion operations. If the Financial Secretary would agree to bring in words on the Report Stage to limit the operation of this part of the Clause, I am prepared not to press this Amendment. It is quite plain that the Clause, as it stands, gives into the hands of the Treasury matters of which the House of Commons ought not to lose control. Treasury officials have made mistakes in the past and will probably make mistakes in the future. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been longer in his office he will learn what the view is in the Departments, as to dependence upon the mistakes of Treasury officials.
We are not merely concerned with Treasury officials, but with what right hon. Gentlemen on that Front Bench may do in respect of future operations at any time. It is not Treasury officials who decide questions of policy, or who have responsibility for questions of policy, but Ministers. Ministers in this or some succeeding administration might completely evade the intentions of the taxes by providing a wide-open door for the removing abroad of capital by British subjects, in order to avoid taxation. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to take the opportunity now held out to him that, between now and the Report stage, he should consider the point raised, and see if something can be done.
§ Major ELLIOT
This Clause does not seem to me to have special reference to this particular operation or to be the place in which it should be dealt with. The question which has been brought up in many parts of the Committee as to funds that are not subject to the sweep of the Treasury and thereby are evading a portion of the taxation, is, as I have frequently said, a source of grievance to the citizens of this country and of loss to the revenue. I do not believe that on this Clause it will be possible to draft any form of words which would fulfil the desires which have been expressed in the Committee. I could not agree to give the undertaking that I would look into this matter and bring up words between now and Report stage. I am very sorry that it is not possible for me to give an 636 undertaking, and it is much franker that I should tell hon. Members so. It is not a thing that can be done in the Finance Bill as at present drawn up. I gave examples of other nations and States which had taken power to deal with operations of this kind. Germany has strengthened her regulations, and so has the Government of Italy, as to nationals leaving the country, because of the greater burdens of taxation that are placed upon the subjects of the country by those who are trying to leave it. It could not possibly be done under this Clause. I appreciate the spirit in which this matter has been brought forward and the way it has been discussed by all sides of the Committee. It would be impossible for me to give the undertaking asked for. I ask hon. Members, now that they have raised the point and have been told that it would not be possible, to withdraw their Amendment.
§ Major ELLIOT
No, it would not be possible to give the undertaking. In regard to other securities exchanged for 5 per cent. War Loan you might find yourself in considerable difficulties, if you attempted to define the Clause as is suggested. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury has been into the matter, and that it has not been possible for us to find any form of words applicable to the present situation and to meet the main point of objection. We must attract a man to invest his money in our funds. We have not been able to find any form of words such as hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have suggested, so that money invested in these funds should be subject to the full weight of taxation. If a man is residing abroad it is inevitable that he will have to be given a certain amount of advantage. I cannot hold out any hope of a new form of words.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 237.617
|Division No. 508.]||AYES.||[7.31 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Christle, I. A.|
|Ainsworth. Lieut.-Col. Charles||Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Clydesdale, Marquess of|
|Albery, Irving James||Boyce, Lestle||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Briscoe, Richard George||Cohen, Major J. Brunei|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp' L. W.)||Broadbent, Colonel J.||Colfox, Major William Philip|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)||Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Buchan, John||Colman, N. C. D.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Colville, Major D. J.|
|Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Conway, Sir W. Martin|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Burton, Colonel H. w.||Cooper, A. Duff|
|Atkinson, C.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Courtauld, Major J. S.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Caine, Hall-Derwent||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Campbell, E. T.||Cowan, D. M.|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Carver, Major W. H.||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Bainiel, Lord||Castle Stewart, Earl of||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.||Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillp|
|Berry, Sir George||Cecll, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Chamberlain Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)|
|Blindell, James||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. M. (Edgbaston)||Davies, Dr. Vernon|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Chapman, Sir S.||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)||Jones, Llewellyn-, F.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)||Rothschild, J. de|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Salmon, Major I.|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)||Savery, S. S.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-S-M.)||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Scott James|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Llewellin, Major J. J.||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Ferquson, Sir John||Locker-Lempson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Fielden, E. B.||Locker-Lampion, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Fison, F. G. Clavering||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Skelton, A. N.|
|Foot, Isaac||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Ford, Sir P. J.||Lymington, Viscount||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||McConnell, Sir Joseph||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Macquisten, F. A.||Somerset, Thomas|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Gillett, George M.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Marjoribanks, Edward||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Glassey, A. E.||Markham, S. F.||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Millar, J. D.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.||Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Granville, E.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Thompson, Luke|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Muirhead, A. J.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Nall-Caln, A. R. N.||Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nathan, Major H. L.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Train, J.|
|Hanbury, C.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||O'Connor, T. J.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Hartington. Marquess of||Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Peake, Capt. Osbert||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Penny, Sir George||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hore-Belisha, Leslie.||Power, Sir John Cecil||Withers, Sir John James|
|Horne, Rt. Hon, Sir Robert S||Pybus, Percy John||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Womersley, W. J.|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Ramsbotham, H.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Rathbone, Eleanor||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Reld, David D. (County Down)||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Remer, John R.|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Captain Margesson and Viscount|
|Iveagh, Countess of||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)||Elmley.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)||Charleton, H. C.||Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Clarke, J. S.||Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Cluse, W. S.||Haycock, A. W.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hayes, John Henry|
|Arnott, John||Cove, William G.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Cripps, Sir Stafford||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Ayles, Walter||Daggar, Georgt||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)||Dalton, Hugh||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)|
|Barr, James.||Day, Harry||Harriotts, J.|
|Benson, G.||Dukrs, C.||Hicks, Ernest George|
|Bowen, J. W.||Duncan, Charles||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Dunnico, H.||Hollins, A.|
|Bromfield. William||Ede, James Chuter||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Brooke, W.||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Egan, W. H.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Brawn, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Freeman, Peter||Jenkins, sir William|
|Burgess, F. G.||Gossling, A. G.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks W. R. Elland)||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Cape, Thomas||Groves, Thomes E.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Muggeridge, H. T.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Kirkwood, D.||Noel Baker, P. J.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Lawrence, Susan||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)||Sorensen, R.|
|Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Lawson, John James||Palin, John Henry||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Leach, W.||Palmer, E. T.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Sullivan, J.|
|Leonard, W.||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Tillett, Ben|
|Longbottom, A. W.||Potts, John S.||Toole, Joseph|
|Longden, F.||Price. M. P.||Viant, S. P.|
|McElwee, A.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Walker, J.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Raynes, W. R.||Watkins, F. C.|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Ritson, J.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Romerll, H. G.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|McShane, John James||Salter. Dr. Alfred||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|March, S.||Sanders, w. s.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Marcus, M.||Sandham, E.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Marley, J.||Sawyer, G. F.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Mathers, George||Scrymgeour, E.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Messer, Fred||Starr, John||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Middleton, G.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Milner, Major J.||Sherwood, G. H.||Wise, E. F.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Shield, George William||Young, Sir R, (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Morley, Ralph||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Shillaker, J. F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mort, D. L.||Simmons, C. J||Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Thurtle.|
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 509.]||AYES.||[8.45 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Herriotts, J.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Alpass, J. H.||Hicks, Ernest George||Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)|
|Arnott, John||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hopkin, Daniel||Sandham, E.|
|Ayles, Walter||Horrabin, J. F.||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)||Hudson James H. (Huddersfield)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Jenkins, Sir William||Scurr, John|
|Barr, James||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Batey, Joseph||Kelly, W. T.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Benson, G.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Shield, George William|
|Bowen, J. W.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Kinley, J.||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Bromfield, William||Kirkwood, D.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Lawrence, Susan||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Buchanan, G.||Lawson, John James||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Leach, W.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Lonqden, F.||Sullivan, J.|
|Cape, Thomas||McElwee, A.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Clarks, J. S.||McEntee, V. L.||Tillett, Ben|
|Cluse, W. S.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Toole, Joseph|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Vaughan, David|
|Cove, William G.||Marcus, M.||Viant, S. P.|
|Cripps, Sir Stafford||Marley, J.||Walker, J.|
|Daggar, George||Mathers, George||Watkins, F. C.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Messer, Fred||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Dukes, C.||Middleton, G.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Duncan, Charles||Milner, Major J.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Dunnico, H.||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Ede, James Chuter||Morley, Ralph||West, F. R.|
|Egan, W. H.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Freeman, Peter||Mort, D. L.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Gossling, A. G.||Muggeridge, H. T.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Noel Baker, P. J.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Palin, John Henry||Winterton, G E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Hardie, David (Rutherglen)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wise, E. F.|
|Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Haycock. A. W.||Potts, John S.|
|Hayes, John Henry||Price, M. P.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Quibell, D. J. K.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Henderson, Arthur, junr, (Cardiff, S.)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||William Whiteley.|
|Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Ritson, J.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Castle Stewart, Earl of||Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert|
|Albery, Irving James||Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Duckworth, G. A. V.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Dudgeon, Major C, R.|
|Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)||Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton||Dugdale, Capt. T. L.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)||Eden, Captain Anthony|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Edge, Sir William|
|Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)||Chapman, Sir S.||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Alholl, Duchess of||Christie, J. A.||Elliot, Major Walter E.|
|Atkinson, C.||Clydesdale, Marquess of||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Everard, W. Lindsay|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Ferguson, Sir John|
|Balniel, Lord||Colfox, Major William Philip||Fison, F. G. Clavering|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Colman, N. C. D.||Foot, Isaac|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Colville, Major D. J.||Ford, Sir P. J.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.|
|Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)||Cooper, A. Duff||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Berry, Sir George||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Butterton, Sir Henry B.||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L||Ganzoni, Sir John|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Cowan, D. M.||Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton|
|Blinded. James||Cranborne, Viscount||George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Gillett, George M.|
|Boyce, Leslie||Crookshank, Capt. H. C.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Bracken, B.||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Glassey, A. E.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Glyn, Major R. G. C.|
|Broadbent, Colonel J.||Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Brown, Briq.- Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Granville, E.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward||Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Caine, Hall-, Derwent||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Greene, W. P. Crawford|
|Campbell. E. T.||Dawson, Sir Philip||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Markham, S. F.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Calthness)|
|Hanbury, C.||Merriman, Sir F. Boyd||Skelton, A. N.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Millar, J. D.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Harris, Percy A.||Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Monsell, Evres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Haslam, Henry C.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Somerset, Thomas|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Muirhead, A. J.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Nall-Cain, A. R. N.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H,|
|Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||O'Connor, T. J.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.|
|Hurd, Percy A.||Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Peake, Capt. Osbert||Thompson, Luke|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas||Penny, Sir George||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Iveagh, Countess of||Perkins, W. R. D.||Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Power, Sir John Cecil||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Pybus, Percy John||Train, J.|
|Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Kindersley, Major G. M.||Ramsbotham, H.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Knox, Sir Alfred||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Reid, David D. (County Down)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. Georqe R.||Remer, John R.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||White, H. G.|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Llewellin, Major J. J.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Withers, Sir John James|
|Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Ross, Ronald D.||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Long, Major Hon. Eric||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Lymington, Viscount||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|McConnell, Sir Joseph||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. O. (Tavlst'k)|
|MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton|
|Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)||Savery, S. S.|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Scott, James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.||Captain Euan Wallace and Viscount Elmley.|
§ Question put, "That those words be these inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 238.