§ Where by any provision of this or any subsequent Act any change is made in the classes of goods which are chargeable goods or in the rate at which tax is chargeable in respect of goods of any class,
- (a) any person is the owner of goods coming within that class for the purpose of resale and the purchase price paid by him for those goods includes tax or includes tax at the rate chargeable prior to the date of such change, he shall be entitled to declare to the seller to him of those goods the quantity of them belonging to him at that date and the amount of the tax included in such purchase which would not have been included if he had purchased them after the date of such change;
- (b) if the seller is a registered wholesaler or manufacturer he shall give a rebate to the
452 claimant equal to such amount of tax on proof to his satisfaction of the amount of the purchase and of the tax included in the purchase, and he shall be entitled to claim from the Commissioners an amount equal to such rebate given to the claimant and the claim shall be satisfied by the Commissioners either by repayment or by deduction from tax otherwise due but not yet paid over to the Commissioners by such registered person;
- (c) if the seller who received a claim from the owner of the goods under paragraph (a) of this Subsection is not a registered person he may, on proof of the amount of the purchase and of the tax, claim from the seller to him of the goods an equal amount of tax and so on for each successive sale up to the first registered person in a series of sales of those goods;
- (d) the first registered person shall have the duties and rights mentioned in paragraph (b) of this Subsection and the claimant from him shall be obliged out of the moneys received by him to satisfy claims made upon him and so on for each successive sale of those goods down to the owner of the goods on the date when the change mentioned in paragraph (a) is effective.—[Mr. Peaks.]
§ Brought up and read the First time.
§ Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause is similar to those which were put down to two previous Finance Bills, and the matter was further discussed on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill a year ago. It is designed to meet the undoubted and admitted hardship which falls upon retail traders when Purchase Tax is either reduced or abolished upon a particular class of article. When that occurs, the retailer has to reduce his prices to the public forthwith, although he has stocks upon his shelves of the articles concerned on which Purchase Tax has been paid. I think that this hardship is generally recognised, and, in fact, it has been, by implication, admitted by the Board of Customs and Excise, who advise the right hon. Gentleman upon these questions, because, on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill a year ago, the Financial Secretary—I think it was—in winding up the Debate said that this matter would be considered further to see whether any means could be found of meeting the hardship imposed upon the retail trader.
Soon after that date, I understand, discussions began between the National Chamber of Trade, on the one hand, and officials of the Board of Customs and Excise upon the other. These discussions went on all through the winter and various 453 schemes were examined by which this hardship might he met. Finally, on 6th April, a few days before the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget, the National Chamber of Trade received a letter from the Board of Customs and Excise saying that it was impossible to devise a means of meeting the case which had been put forward. I think, therefore, that the fact that these discussions went on for many months, and that every effort was made to find a means of dealing with the position, shows that the hardship, at any rate, is admitted.
This new Clause is put down in order to get a statement from the Chancellor as to how these negotiations went and why they failed, but one new factor of great importance has emerged since the end of the discussions between the interested parties. On 15th April this year, by Ways and Means Resolution, increased Purchase Tax was imposed upon a wide variety of articles which consume gas and electricity. The Chancellor put up to 66 per cent. the Purchase Tax upon a wide variety of domestic appliances. When we came to the Committee stage of this Bill, these duties, which had been imposed on 15th April, were in many cases, taken off again. The electric kettle is a case in point. Polly put the kettle on, and Suky took it off again.
The Chancellor, in announcing that the tax was coming off these domestic appliances, said that he would devise a scheme to enable the purchaser to recover the excess price which he had paid through the increase of the Purchase Tax as from 15t11 April, and the House has, in fact, accepted on Report an ingenious new Clause to enable anybody who purchased an electric kettle after 15th April and paid the increased Purchase Tax upon it to obtain from the retailer concerned a rebate equivalent to the increase in the Purchase Tax. It does seem extremely strange to me, that if it is possible to devise a scheme whereby a purchaser of an electrical or gas appliance who has paid the additional sum owing to an increase in the Tax can, at the present time, or as soon as the Finance Bill has become law, obtain a rebate equivalent to the excess tax paid, the Chancellor's advisers have been unable to devise a precisely similar scheme as between retailers and manufacturers.
I, therefore, want to get from the Chancellor, if I can, some explanation of 454 this, to me, astonishing discrepancy, and to say that this new Clause would meet a case of undoubted hardship, and that we are very surprised that, after such a prolonged examination, the Government have been unable to meet the case put forward.
§ Mr. Dalton
This is not new, We have discussed this subject not only, I think, last year, but on previous occasions, and every effort was made, and with all good will, to find a practicable solution. I regret to say that all these efforts have failed, and I will seek to give the reasons why. There have been long discussions as were promised when the Finance Bill last year was being considered, and I gave a promise, or I think my right hon. Friend gave it on my behalf, that we would enter into the most full and frank considerations with the National Chamber of Trade, as speaking for a large number of those concerned, as to how we could perhaps safeguard the interests of such traders as, at any rate, for a short period—and I emphasise that phrase—were out of pocket by reason of the reduction of tax, and, at the same time, safeguard the public revenues.
I repeat that the discussions went on for some time, as the right hon. Gentle man says. I do not want to commit the National Chamber of Trade to any particular opinion on the details of the matter. They have been very co operative, as they always were. In ancient days, I belonged to their organisation. The late Mr. Howling was always co-operative and helpful, and his successor, I am sure, has been carrying on that same tradition. I do not know exactly how far they would agree with what I am going to say, but I think they would agree with that part of what I am going to say about the difficulty. The views to which my advisers came, and which I accept, is that it is practically impossible to check what stocks of the goods concerned, on which Purchase Tax had been reduced, many thousands of retailers might have at the date of the tax reduction. It is that which we have to ascertain if this thing is to be workable, and it was that, in particular, which we found extremely difficult.
In addition to that, asuming that we could determine these facts about stocks, and could check them up and be reasonably assured that they were accurate in 455 this vast number of cases, there was no effective means of ensuring that the various retailers concerned would at once mark down their prices and so pass on the benefit to the public. In a certain limited field relating to proprietary articles, we could be sure, but, in the wider field, there was no way of being sure that the public would be given the benefit. I frankly say that I would like to get a solution of this problem, but it must be a solution which also safeguards the public revenue. The difficulty, as I see it, is that we might adopt a scheme which, on the face of it, looks well enough, but which might, in fact, mean that a good deal of public money, which was not designed to go there, would remain in the hands of a certain number of the traders concerned.
I asked for reports, and I would like to have found a way through the difficulty. I frankly confess to the House that I have not succeeded, and the advice which was tendered to me, and which I 2ccept and for which, of course, I take full responsibility, was that no workable scheme of rebates could be devised which would be equally fair to the trader and to the revenue. I think it is worth while saying again that it is easy to exaggerate the grievance from which the retailers suffer. After all, what has happened is that, on some of the things they sell, the tax has been reduced or remitted. It is only on those things that it is to their disadvantage. Under the law, traders are quite free to pass on the tax which they have borne on their tax paid stocks, even if they are subject to controls operated by the Board of Trade or any other Department. When a price control is operating, there is no obligation to lower the price of the goods on which tax has already been paid. Tax paid stocks may continue to carry the pre-tax remission price, and, therefore, there is no reason why they should pass it on prematurely to the consumer as a matter of law, although, of course, competition may make it better for them to do so.
Very soon they pass from a relatively short period, in which they may lose something on their tax paid stock, to a period where they will get the benefit of the reduction. Therefore it is quite possible to put this grievance a good deal higher than it should stand. I think that 456 it I were to say to traders generally, "I am so much impressed with this difficulty that I will never reduce the Purchase Tax on anything again," I do not think the Chamber of Trade would think that was reasonable, and quite rightly so. It is to the advantage of traders that Purchase Tax should come down, but, in the course of its coming down, there is a short-term inconvenience which, I am sorry to say, we have found no means of overcoming.
It has been said that we have managed to do something which looks not unlike this with regard to appliances of different kinds. That is quite true. In a previous discussion, I pointed out how cautious one must be in doing good, because if one does something in a limited field, one is asked to do what looks like the same thing in a much wider field, where the case is really not the same. In the case of electric cookers, and so on, there is no question of refunding any public money, because the tax will never have been due, it having been remitted on those articles. Therefore, due to the change which we subsequently made, there is no question of any public money being endangered. No public money will have been collected by reason of the increased tax. The only question is, Who will get the advantage of the subsequent remission? There is no public money involved, because we are refunding as from the date when the tax was instituted,
In the second place, it is comparatively easy, in this limited field, for the wholesaler to refund to his customer any monies collected by way of tax, because the whole amount so collected will be returned; there is no question of splitting it up. Finally, and this is the most important argument of all, there is no question of our having to get declarations as to what were retailers' stocks on some particular day, which is what has really proved to be the great stumbling block in the other case. We do not need to ensure the marking down of stocks; that is not necessary. Those were the two rocks on which we struck when we were discussing with the trade how the matter could be dealt with more generally.
This is, of course, a relatively limited deal. The number of cookers on which the tax was collected at the higher rate is small, because it is known that, when the tax was raised, most would-be pur- 457 chasers thought again, and the amount of trade done in these articles bearing the higher tax was very small. My submission is that we cannot, in tact, do in the wider field what we have already done in the narrower field with regard to electrical and gas appliances. Therefore, I feel that I cannot accept either the new Clause as it stands, or the idea behind it, because they would, in fact, cause a considerable leakage of revenue, while not being, I think, quite effective even for the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
§ Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not said his last word on this matter, because I am quite certain that his ingenious mind, and the minds of his advisers, will be able to find a solution to this problem when the day comes on which it has to be faced. The Chancellor has been speaking as though the sellers' market is going on for ever. It will not go on for ever. I believe the day will come when we shall have to sell our goods in order to keep the people in work. We shall have to face a totally different set of conditions when that time comes. The Chancellor's remarks have referred almost entirely to what are known as rapidly moving consumer goods. What about the semi-durable consumer goods which last a long time and which are very heavily taxed? The Chancellor has recently increased the tax on motor cars from 33⅓ per cent. to 66⅔ per cent., and the tax runs into many hundreds of pounds. Supposing the day comes when we shall be trying to sell our goods. Let the Chancellor remember that circumstances change very rapidly. I can remember the 1919 motor car show when we could not get a motor car for love or money, and the 1920 motor car show when we could not give motor cars away. The circumstances changed in a year. The only way in which the industry got moving was when Lord Nuffield took his cars up to the Edinburgh show, took some hundreds of pounds off the price and found a market that would buy them.
What will happen when that day arrives and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is forced to remove the Purchase Tax in order to keep the people at work? I am certain he will have to do it. He will not like to see notices in the factories 458 saying. We can and work for you it the Purchase Tax is removed. What chance will there be for people to stock up goods when hundreds of pounds have to go in Purchase Tax? Some scheme must be worked out. We may be a long way from the day when that will happen, but I am certain it will come. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor and his advisers will not say, "We have finished with the job; file the document and put it away," because in due course the problem will be an urgent and a real one. The Chancellor and those clever people who advise him, should get on with the job and prepare for that day. We have had enough shocks and we do not want any more.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
As I understood the Chancellor's argument, it dealt with two points; first, the difficulty of ascertaining stocks, and, second, the difficulty of ensuring that the stocks would be marked down and the benefit passed on to the public. If I may take the second argument first, it seemed to me to be.a contradiction, because half way through his speech he made much of the point that although the trader paid Purchase Tax, he need not bring his prices down, despite the fact that he may be subject to regulation under the Board of tirade. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) has said, with competition one would be bound to bring the prices down.
§ Mr. Dalton
It is part of the traders case that they want at once to reduce the prices, and it is in order to bring about a scheme of this sort that we have had these discussions. I have said that legally they were not compelled to reduce the prices, but in fact, the whole of hese discussions proceeded with the object of reducing the prices as soon as possible, whatever the legal position with regard to prices may be.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That seems to me to emphasise the point I was trying to make. The Chancellor said that he could not ignore the fact that stocks would be marked down. I think he said that prices would be bound to be marked down. Not only because of competition, but also because the sellers' market will be finished, no trader will be able to sell the goods unless he sells them at a competitive price. Therefore, I think that part 459 of his argument is open to a good deal of criticism.
As to the other part of the Chancellor's argument, with regard to the difficulty of ascertaining stocks, as far as I can make out, his point was that he did not want traders to send in affidavits or declarations. I cannot see the reason for that. The average trader is continually sending in declarations to many departments, particularly the Board of Trade. In this case, why should he not be permitted to send in one further declaration which would be helpful? It would be open to the Government to provide penalties when any declarations were broken, and I am certain that the Board of Trade and the Treasury between them would soon discover when a trader had done so. In this type of case, particularly in the case of traders selling many small lines, these variations in Purchase Tax are a great hardship. A trader may be selling a small item at 2d. or 3d. each, and if they are suddenly subject to 66⅔ per cent. Purchase Tax the whole of the line becomes unsaleable. That is a great financial burden on the small shopkeeper. Therefore, the Chancellor's arguments do not carry much weight when they are investigated. In the first place, it is essential for the trader to mark down his prices, and in the second place, I can see no reason why the trader should not be enabled to set off his loss.
§ Mr. Stanley
I should explain why we shall find it necessary to divide on this Motion. We recognise not only that the Chancellor has today given us a courteous and a not unsympathetic answer, but that, no doubt, his officials in the Treasury worked sincerely for a considerable length of time to find a satisfactory answer to an admittedly difficult problem. We were extremely disappointed not only to hear that their efforts had failed, but also to gather the impression that the attempt had now been abandoned and
§ that we were to settle down complacently to bear this admitted grievance, solely on the grounds that we are not able to find a remedy for it.
§ The Chancellor may be right when he says that in the existing circumstances, where a lowering of the Purchase Tax would be small in comparison with its total volume, this grievance is not, in total quantity, a very heavy one. But has been pointed out, the position may change very quickly. It may become desirable, and it may even become essential, to make large reductions in the Purchase Tax, with little notice. If that time comes, before a solution has been found to this problem, very grave hardship will then be inflicted on a large body of traders just at the time when it may well be that economic circumstances are combining to make their business difficult. In those circumstances we do not feel that this problem, however difficult it may be, should be left where it is.
§ We shall, therefore, take this matter to a Division to emphasise our view that further negotiations should take place and that the Chancellor should deliver in this case the same ultimatum which he told us with pride he delivered in the far more difficult case, where there was much more danger of gaps in the Revenue, concerning the old age pensioners and the new Tobacco Duty. If between now and the next Budget he is prepared to show that same adamant and courageous determination, which he informed us with no little pride he had shown on the other occasion, I feel he will be in a position to give us a Clause which will meet us and, at the same time, will provide at least as much security to the Revenue as he has provided in relation to the exemption from the Tobacco Duty.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 263.463
|Division No. 311;]||AYES||[6.30 p.m|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Foster, J. G. (Northwich)|
|Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J (Scot. Univ.)||Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C.||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.||Gage, C.|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Digby, S. W.||Gammans, L. D|
|Bower, N.||Dodds-Parker, A. D||Glyn, Sir R.|
|Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan||Drayson, G. B.||Gridley, Sir A.|
|Buehan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Drewe, C.||Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V|
|Challen, C.||Eden, Rt. Hon A.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount|
|Clarke, Col R S.||Elliot Rt. Hon Walter||Hollis, M C|
|Conant, Maj. R. J E||Fletcher. W (Bury)||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S (Southport)|
|Hurd, A||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Shepherd, W S (Bucklow)|
|Hutchison, Col J R. (Glasgow. C.)||Marshall, S H. (Sutton)||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Jarvis, Sir J||Mellor, Sir J||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O|
|Jennings, R||Molson, A. H. E||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Morrison, Rt Hon. W S. (Cirencester)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Lancaster, Col C G||Noble, Comdr. A. H P||Thorp, Lt.-Col R A F|
|Langford-Holt, J||Nutting, Anthony||Touche, G. C.|
|Law, Rt. Hon. R. K||O'Neill, Rt Hon Sir H||Turton, R. H.|
|Lipson, D. L||Orr-Ewing, I, L||Vane, W. M F|
|Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Osborne, C.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Low, Brig. A. R W||Peake, Rt. Hon O||Ward, Hon. G. R|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir H||Peto, Brig C. H. M||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|
|Lyttelton, Rt Hon. O.||Pitman, I J.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Macdonald. Sir P. (I. of Wight)||Ponsonby, Col. C. E||Winterton. Rt Hon. Earl|
|Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.||York, C.|
|McKie, J. H (Galloway)||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|MacLeod, J||Roberts, H. (Handsworth)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland||Mr. Studholme and|
|Macpherson. N (Dumfries)||Ropner Col L||Major Ramsay.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Dobbie, W||Lavers, S.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Dodds, N. N||Lawson, Rt Hon. J J.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Donovan, T.||Lee, F. (Hulme)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Driberg, T E. N.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Dumpleton, C. W.||Leonard, W.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C (Bedwellty)||Leslie, J. R|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Lever, N. H|
|Awbery, S. S||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Levy, B. W.|
|Ayles, W. H||Ewart, R.||Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs b||Fairhurst, F||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Balfour A.||Farthing, W. J||Lipton, Lt -Col M|
|Barstow, P G||Fernyhough, E||Logan, D G|
|Barton, C.||Follick, M||Longden, F|
|Battley, J. R||Foot, M. M.||Lyne, A. W.|
|Bechervaise, A E||Forman, J. C.||McAdam, W|
|Benson, G.||Foster, W. (Wigan)||McEntee, V La T|
|Bing, G. H C||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||MoGhee, H. G.|
|Binns, J.||GaMacher, W.||Mack, J. D.|
|Blenkinsop, A||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)|
|Blyton, W R||George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)||Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N. W)|
|Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)||Gibbins, J||McKinlay, A S|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M ([...] pi, Exch'ge)||Gibson, G W.||Maclean, N. (Govan)|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Glanvilte, J E. (Consett)||McLeavy, F|
|Bramall, E. A.||Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Mainwaring, W. H|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Greenwood, Rt Hon. A (Wakefield)||Mallalieu, J. P. W|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)||Mann, Mrs. J.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Grenfell, D R||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Grey, C. F.||Marshall, F. (Brightside)|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W T||Grierson, E.||Medland, H. M|
|Buchanan, G.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Middleton, Mrs. L|
|Burden, T. W||Griffiths, Rt, Hon J. (Llanelly)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Burke, W. A.||Griffiths, W D (Moss Side)||Millington, Wing-Comdr E R|
|Butler, H. W, (Hackney, S)||Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Mitchison, G. R|
|Byers, Frank||Gunter, R. J||Monslow, W|
|Callaghan, James||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Moody, A. S.|
|Carmichael, James||Halt, Leslie||Morley, R.|
|Castle, Mrs. B, A.||Hall, W. G.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)|
|Chamberlain, R A||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)|
|Champion, A J||Harrison, J.||Mort, D L|
|Chafer, D.||Hastings, Dr Somerville||Moyle, A.|
|Chetwynd, G. R||Haworth, J||Nally, W.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Henderson, A (Kingswinford)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Cobb, F. A||Herbison, Miss M||Neal, H. (Claycross)|
|Cooks, F. S.||Hicks, G||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)|
|Collick, P,||Hobson, C R.||Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)|
|Colman, Miss G. M||Holman, P||Noel-Baker, Capt F E. (Brentford)|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)||O'Brien, T|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G,||House, G||Oldfield, W H|
|Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camo'wall. N W)||Hoy, J.||Oliver, G H|
|Corvedale, Viscount||Hudson, J H (Ealing, W.)||Orbach, M,|
|Cove, W. G||Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)||Palmer, A. M F|
|Grossman, R, H S||Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)||Pargiter, G A|
|Daggar, G||Irving, W J||Parker, J.|
|Daines, P.||Jay, D P. T||Parkin, B. T.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H||Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Paton, J. (Norwich)|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Jeger, Dr S. W (St. Pancras, SE.)||Pearson, A.|
|Davies, Clement (Montgomery)||John, W||Peart, T. F|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Piratin, P,|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)|
|Davies, Hadyn (St Panoras, S.W.)||Keenan, W||Popplewell, E,|
|Deer, G.||Kenyon, C.||Porter E. (Warrington)|
|Delargy, H J||Kirby, B. V||Portar, G (Leeds)|
|Diamond, J||Kirkwood, D||Price, M. Philips|
|Proctor, W. T||Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)||Turner-Samuels, M|
|Pryde, D J.||Smith, S H (Hull, S.W)||Viant, S. P.|
|Randall, H E||Snow, Capt J W.||Wadsworth, G|
|Ranger, J||Sorensen, R. W.||Walker, G. H|
|Rankin, J||Soskice, Maj Sir F||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Rees-Williams, D H||Sparks, J. A||Watkins, T. E.|
|Reeves, J.||Stamford, W||Watson, W. M|
|Reid, T. (Swindon)||Steele, T.||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Richards, R.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Strauss, G R (Lambeth, N>||West, D. G.|
|Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||Stross, Dr. B.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J|
|Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Stubbs, A. E||Wilkes, L.|
|Rogers, G H. R,||Swingler, S.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Sylvester, G. O||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Royle, C.||Symonds, A. L.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Sargood, R||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Scollan, T||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)||Williams, W. R (Heston)|
|Shackleton, E A. A.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)||Willis, E|
|Sharp, Granville||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)||Wills, Mrs. E A|
|Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||Woods, G. S|
|Silverman, J (Erdington)||Thurtle, Ernest||Wyatt, W.|
|Silverman, S S. (Nelson)||Tiffany, S.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Simmons, C. J.||Timmons, J||Zilliacus, K.|
|Skeffington-Lodge, T. C||Titterington. M. F.|
|Skinnard, F W.||Tolley, L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Smith, C (Colchester)||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G||Mr. Joseph Henderson and|