Section sixteen of the Finance Act, 1919 (which exempts from Income Tax wounds and disability pensions) shall be extended to apply to pensions granted to widows whose husbands were killed as a result of naval, military, or air force service.—[Mr. Lawson.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. LAWSON
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In the last Finance Bill the pensions of soldiers and disabled men were exempted from the Income Tax. In that case the House decided that soldiers' pensions were of an exceptional character. Now we are asking that the same principle should apply to widows' pensions granted as the result of losing their husbands, and that they also should be exempted from Income Tax. I do not think it is necessary to give reasons why this exemption should apply to widows' pensions. I have often thought that the burden is rather laid upon the Treasury Bench to give a reason why the tax on widows' pensions should be retained. The Financial Secretary gave a guarantee during the Committee stage that this matter would receive the careful consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am hopeful that the Financial Secretary is going to take the step we are asking him to take by relieving widows' pensions from taxation altogether.
The husbands of these women laid down their lives for the British Empire. They lost their lives not only in maintaining but in building up the British Empire, and if we can agree to do away with the tax in the case of an exhibition calling itself the British Empire Exhibition, then I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to agree to the abolition of the tax on widows pensions. The right hon. Gentleman has given some relief to the Income Tax payer and to shipping, and he has given relief to entertainments, and in various other ways, and that relief amounts to many millions. What we are 121 asking for now is to relieve a section of the community to an extent which would only cost the Exchequer about £100,000. I want the Financial Secretary to take this matter into his serious consideration, and I would like to put a question to him. When I moved an Amendment in regard to this matter in Committee I made it quite clear that it would not affect only the working classes and we did not move it as a class Amendment. We considered it a communal matter which we wanted to deal with in a communal sense. Since then I have had a letter on this subject, and I will refer to it because I want to have the facts accurate.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question. When a woman is to be married the Pensions Minister can commute her pension, and give her the amount of the pension for 12 months, amounting to about £52. I have received a letter saying that a working woman received this £52 commutation money, and having spent all her savings before and part of whose furniture had gone, she is now to be married, and as the result of that she received this £52. I understand that it is the practice of the Exchequer to charge unearned Income Tax on that money, and I would like to know whether that is the case or not. I should be very pleased to hear that it is not the case, and I was astonished when I heard that statement. I am told that £13 has been deducted from that £52 because it has been charged as unearned income. I sincerely hope that that is not the practice of the Exchequer—and if it is, I hope it will soon be done away with—to treat the commutation pension as unearned income, because if ever income was earned it is certainly earned in that case. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this new Clause.
§ Mr. F. ROBERTS
I beg to second the Motion.
When this matter was discussed during the Committee stage it received a measure of sympathetic attention from all parts of the House. Just now the right hon. Gentleman has been yielding to appeals on the ground that there was a general feeling in favour of them, but I am sure there is no proposal which will receive more sympathetic support from all sides of this chamber, and on the grounds 122 of elementary justice to a most deserving section of the community I want the Financial Secretary to give this matter that full and sympathetic consideration which we were led to believe during the Committee stage would be exercised in regard to this question. I believe when soldiers' pensions were exempted from this tax in 1919 it was generally understood that the tax on widows' pensions was to be included. Until the Act actually came into operation no one conceived that the widows' pensions had been included. By accepting this proposal the right hon. Gentleman will be doing something which I am sure will receive the heartiest possible support from all Members of this Chamber. The facts are so well understood that I feel it is not desirable that any further facts need be given, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give that sympathetic consideration which he has promised, and I hope he will accept this Clause.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
I want to support this Clause, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure to carry out that sympathy which he expressed a short time ago in favour of the British Empire Exhibition into the region of practical assistance for the women who have been mentioned in this Amendment. I understand that the inclusion of this Clause in this Bill would mean a loss to the Revenue of about £100,000. The Financial Secretary has just been suggesting to the House a proposal that would cost the Treasury a great deal more than £100,000. My hon. Friend below the Gangway said it was probable that about 40,000,000 would visit the Empire Exhibition, and if you calculate that number at 3d. per head under the Entertainments Duty it means about £500,000. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was asking us to make a gift of £500,000 to the British Empire Exhibition, and here we are simply asking for a small measure of justice to the recipients of these pensions who have suffered so much. We are asking the right hon. Gentleman now to make this small gift to them for five years at least. We ask him to give away, in accordance with the generosity expressed by him a few moments ago, so much taxation as will at any rate relieve these pensions for five years. I hope he will accept this proposal.
§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I hope I may add my word to the appeals which have been made on behalf of this Amendment. I remember with gratitude the very kindly and sympathetic reply which the Financial Secretary made when this request was put to him, and I doubt whether it is at all necessary now to press it upon him. These poor women during the War had their hearts torn with anxiety; they have lost their husbands; they have lost not only the breadwinner but the loved one, and surely it ought not to be necessary to argue this case. I have, of course, no right to interpret the wishes of the House on this question, but I am sure we should all feel glad if the Treasury could find itself able to make this concession.
§ Mr. FOOT
I remember the Debate which took place last year on this proposal. There was a rather long discussion upon it, and those of us who were present will remember how moved the House was while the discussion was going on. A very noticeable point is that amongst those who supported the Amendment on the last occasion were some Members of the House who were supporters but were not then Members of the Government. To-day they occupy that position, and I think it will be found that some of those now on the Front Treasury Bench were last year so strongly convinced of the fairness of this proposal that they voted against the Government of that day. If they felt the matter so keenly at that time as to feel justified in voting against the Government of which they were followers, I hope that now they occupy positions of greater responsibility they may be able to bring influence to bear on their colleagues in the Government in order to get this concession granted. There is no argument at all for including widows' pensions for tax purposes. If we exempt disablement pensions, if we agree that payments made in respect of disablement should be eliminated from the tax calculations, surely we must admit it is equally proper that widows' pensions shall be put on the same footing. The right hon. Gentleman, in making an appeal for the exemption of the British Empire Exhibition, said that what was needed was a generous gesture. It is hardly necessary now to remind him of that phrase. Here we could make a generous gesture towards those whose services to the country can never be adequately 124 acknowledged. Seeing that the amount involved is so trifling, having regard to our income and expenditure, I suggest that here a generous gesture can be made without cutting into the vital principle of our financial organism.
I know it can be said that in making this concession we are not meeting the needs simply of the poor widow. My reply to that is whatever may be the position of a woman who is receiving some monetary consideration because of the loss of her husband, whatever may be her social position, the least the State can do is to refrain from imposing taxation upon the sum, small as it is, paid in acknowledgment of the services rendered by those who gave their lives in the War. It is merely a generous gesture that we now need, and I think that throughout the country there will be found no section of our people who will not welcome the making of this concession in respect of pensions and acknowledgement of the service of those who gave all they had to give.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I regret that, after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am unable to make this concession. The hon. Member who last spoke appealed on the ground that the pension was too small. But that is not the question before us. That is a question which should have been dealt with by the House when the pensions were fixed.
§ Mr. FOOT
I know it is irksome to be interrupted, but when I said that the pensions were too little I used the words in the sense that any monetary allowance must of necessity be too little to express the gratitude of the nation to those who gave up their lives. It was in that sense that I used the expression.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I accept the explanation of the hon. Member. At all events, the whole ground is that there would be a sum of money given to the widow if this tax were not insisted upon. Of course, the proper way is to increase the pension rather than to cut into the whole system of Income Tax administration. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said, quite frankly, he was not dealing with the case of poor widows. Of course, this does not affect the poor widow whose income is less than £3 per week; she would not get any 125 benefit from this Clause because she is already exempt from the tax. But take, for instance, the case of two widows, both with an income £500 a year. The income of one arises from investments; of the income of the other, £400 is from investments and £100 from the pension. Both are equally deserving, both have the same number of children to educate. Yet the one whose income is partly made up of the pension would, if this proposal were carried, be allowed an exemption which would not be afforded to the other. Then, again, take the case of a widow whose husband has been killed and who has received a payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act. If the compensation thus received has been invested and brings in an income above the limit of exemption, she will have to pay the Income Tax. All these exemptions would whittle away our system of Income Tax, and I appeal to hon. Members to realise the danger of that.
Before I was a Member of the Government we dealt with the case of disablement pension, but that was at a time when it was felt that nothing too great could be done in the interests of the men who were suffering. We always like to make any concessions we can to the widows of soldiers, but, having discussed this question with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we feel that not only is a sum of £100,000 involved, but it would mean one more inroad into our Income Tax system. I entirely protest against the speech made by the right hon. Member for North Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara). It was a heart-moving speech, but may I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government up till 1922, and that this concession was refused by the House of Commons on the advice of the Government of which he was a Member. He was the Minister of Pensions and very closely in touch with pension questions. I did not hear him speak in favour of this concession; I do not know whether he voted for it, but at any rate he remained a Member of the Government which had refused the concession, and, having omitted to use his great influence as a Cabinet Minister, which he could have done by resigning if he did not agree with the decision of his colleagues, I say it does not now lie in his hands—
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I was not then a Member of the Government. The position is quite different. There are many cases where I have expressed approval of proposals in years past, but, when one realises the position from the point of view of the Minister responsible for the finances of the country, one has to give more consideration than a mere desire to express one's sympathy, as I did on that occasion.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I am a Minister now; I am not at liberty to express my sympathy, and I am going to appeal to the House with a greater knowledge of the basis of the finances of the country, and a greater knowledge of the system of our Income Tax law. However great the desire may be to help the widows of our soldiers, I am going to remind Members that the real remedy is to increase the pension.
§ Mr. LAWSON
Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down will he deal with the particular case I mentioned?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
Yes. I repeat that if in the opinion of the House these widows' pensions are not sufficient, then they should be increased, but we ought not to make inroads on our system of Income Tax, because it would only pave the way for demands for still further inroads. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, I have been making some inquiries. The Minister of Pensions is not here at the moment, and therefore I cannot give a full answer to-day. But I will say this, that these pensions are always treated as earned income for Income Tax purposes, and not as unearned income. The hon. Member mentioned the case of a war widow who, on remarriage, was given a final bonus to clear up her 127 pension and was charged tax on it as unearned income. I will make the fullest inquiry, and if it be possible by administrative action to remedy the grievance to which he refers, I will do my level best to see that it is done.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HASTINGS
I do not propose to say anything on what I may call the sentimental point of view, because I do not think it quite fair, as hon. Members on every side of the House have precisely the same feelings in this matter. Neither do I propose to discuss the changed position of Members who have become Ministers and are unable to give effect to the views they expressed before they accepted office. But I do want to suggest that the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.
The real and the sole objection to this—it cannot be a question merely of £100,000—is that it is an inroad on the question of taxation of pensions, and places these particular people in an invidious position in regard to other widows and persons similarly affected. With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He should remember that the ordinary young couple who marry never could marry and incur the responsibility of marriage if they thought that the income of the husband was going to remain what it was when they married. People in middle-class life marry because they think their income will increase as the years go by. When a woman marries a subaltern she cannot think that he is always going to remain in that position. She hopes that he will rise in his profession, and that their income will become greater. The people we are really considering here are in much the largest percentage of cases young women whose husbands were killed when they were quite young, and whose pension is assessed upon an income on which she never hoped to live afterwards with her child. The real reason for the great hardship is that her pension is based on a starvation income. There is no analogy between the widow of a subaltern who is left to live on that and the widow of a workman who has lived for 30 or 40 years with her and has got to the highest point that they could reasonably expect.
There is no analog between the widow of a young officer or soldier killed in the 128 War and any other widow at all. I am not suggesting that it is a question of philanthropy or one for relief on any pathetic grounds. It is a matter of hard fact. In reply to all the sympathetic arguments the right hon. Gentleman has put forward an argument of fact, but there is no class of persons in the community similarly placed to these women. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider that, and to remember that if not all, 90 per cent. of these widows, if they had thought that their life was to be based on their husband's income at the time they were married, would never have married, and now that their husbands are killed they are placed in the position of being unable to provide properly for themselves and their children.
§ Major ATTLEE
I do not propose to join in the controversy of "the Devil was sick; the Devil a monk would be," or to judge nicely between the repentant sinner on my left and the one who is going on in sin on the bench opposite. I do think, however, that from that discussion we can, perhaps, sum up clearly what is meant by imperial and patriotic sentiment. Apparently, it means giving to Imperial exihibitions but not doing anything for widows. I do not want to go strongly on the pathetic line, but I do want to point out the right hon. Gentleman's inconsistency. He does not argue it on the ground of expense, but solely on his financial consistency and his desire to keep intact the Income Tax Acts. And this comes from the right hon. Gentleman who has proposed an exception to the Income Tax Act for one particular thing!
§ Major ATTLEE
When you have a particular class that makes a strong pathetic appeal to Members of this House the right hon. Gentleman takes refuge behind his financial consistency. I think it is clear that you have had a definite breach made in the Income Tax Acts by the wounds and disability pensions. He said that we did that in the War, and that we had to do it for the soldier, but some years afterwards they are not so important. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the experience of ex-service men all over the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] And you can see it written 129 on boards in words in which, they express what they mean when they say that the country needed them in 1914 but that in 1923 they can go hang. It sums up their view, and we shall see on this Vote exactly how much worth have the professions of patriotism and Imperialism that we get so very freely from the Front Bench below the Gangway. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. It is a question of £100,000, but we know that the Budget has not been drawn so closely as not to have something to play with. He had something to play with on the Entertainments Duty, and here is something with which at the eleventh hour he can avoid being placed in the position of the right hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) of being pointed at and told, "When you were in power you did not do it." I think the right hon. Gentleman is in a much better strategic position in this matter than the right hon. Member for Camberwell, and I hope he will use his advantage and give his true and sympathetic support to this new Clause.
§ Lieut.-Colonel PAGE CROFT
I want to correct what may be a misapprehension. The hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Bench, who represents the Labour party (Mr. Hastings), was stating the case of the widow of a subaltern and her pension. I may be wrong, but I should imagine that that case would not be affected under this Bill unless her total income was £150 a year or more. I do not think she would be affected.
§ Captain W. BENN
I wish to ask whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cannot do one thing. I think he will recognise that there is a very general feeling in all parts of the House that this exemption should be extended from wounds and disability pensions to widows' pensions. He admitted that when he voted for the proposal himself. It is really an extension that can be justified. If we can justify an exemption for wounds and disability pensions, surely we can justify it for a widow's pension. Section 16 of the Act of 1919 is well known, and, that being the case, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to take off the Government Whips at this Division? We had a Motion the other night in which certain private 130 Members on the other side of the House pointed out that some of the land taxes caused some trouble and expense to individuals, and the Financial Secretary was able to say that, rather than force his Friends into a position they did not want to occupy, he would take off the Whips. Why not let the House express a free opinion now? That is the least he can do in a matter that, last year, had his support in the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. LINFIELD
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accede to the request which has just been made to him to take off the Whips. I am certain that hon. Members opposite have just as much sympathy with these widows as we have. I have seen the list of Members who voted on this matter in the last Parliament, and I have no doubt that there are quite a number on the opposite side of the House who would like to vote for this new Clause.
§ Mr. LINFIELD
We will see what you will do when you get your chance. On the question of principle, it has already been admitted that no new principle is introduced, because the principle is admitted on the question of disablement. With regard to funds, the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we have just saved half-a-million of money, so there will be no dislocation of the Budget on this proposal. I am giving the figures estimated by someone else, but there will certainly be sufficient to make good this small concession for which we are asking now. I hope he will see his way to do this, so that his supporters will vote according to their consciences, the way in which they voted in the last Parliament, and in which he voted when in a position of less responsibility. By taking off the Whips he will get to know exactly the feeling of the House. No harm will be done, and no great loss will ensue even if this suggestion be carried into effect.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I should like to say that there is no such sum as has been mentioned in this year's Budget. Anything to do with the Empire Exhibition would be in next year's Budget.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 227.133
|Division No. 258.]||AYES.||[7.13 p.m.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)||Potts, John S.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)||Pringle, W. M. R.|
|Attlee, C. R.||Hemmerde, E. G.||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)||Riley, Ben|
|Batey, Joseph||Herriotts, J.||Roberts, C. H. (Derby)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hill, A.||Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)||Hillary, A. E.||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Hinds, John||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Bonwick, A.||Hirst, G. H.||Saklatvala, S.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Salter, Dr. A.|
|Brotherton, J.||Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)||Irving, Dan||Sexton, James|
|Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)|
|Buxton, Charles (Accrington)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)||Shinwell, Emanuel|
|Chapple, W. A.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Clarke,. Sir E. C.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Sinclair, Sir A.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)||Snell, Harry|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Snowden, Philip|
|Collins, Pat (Walsall)||Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Kenyon, Barnet||Stephenson, Lieut-Colonel H. K.|
|Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lansbury, George||Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Lawson, John James||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Leach, W.||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Duffy, T. Gavan||Lee, F.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Duncan, C.||Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)||Thornton, M.|
|Dunnico, H.||Linfield, F. C.||Trevelyan, C. P.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lowth, T.||Turner, Ben|
|Edge, Captain Sir William||MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Edmonds, G.||Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||M'Entee, V. L.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||McLaren, Andrew||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Falconer, J.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Webb, Sidney|
|Foot, Isaac||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.|
|Gardiner, James||March, S.||Weir, L. M.|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Marshall, Sir Arthur H.||Whiteley, W.|
|Gosling, Harry||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Middleton, G.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Greenall, T.||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Morel, E. D.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Winfrey, Sir Richard|
|Groves, T.||Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)||Wintrinqham, Margaret|
|Grundy, T. W.||Murray, John (Leeds, West)||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||O'Grady, Captain James||Wright, W.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Oliver, George Harold||Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Hardie, George D.||Paling, W.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Harney, E. A.||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Harris, Percy A.||Phillipps, Vivian||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hastings, Patrick||Ponsonby, Arthur||Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Lunn.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Buckingham, Sir H.||Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)||Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Crook, C. W. (East Ham. North)|
|Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)||Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew||Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin||Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)||Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.||Butcher, Sir John George||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Butt, Sir Alfred||Dawson, Sir Philip|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Cadogan, Major Edward||Du Pre, Colonel William Baring|
|Banks, Mitchell||Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Edmondson, Major A. J.|
|Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague||Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Ednam, Viscount|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Ellis, R. G.|
|Bell, Lieut. Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)||Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)|
|Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.|
|Berry, Sir George||Churchman, Sir Arthur||Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Clarry, Reginald George||Falcon, Captain Michael|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Clayton, G. C.||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray|
|Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Fawkes, Major F. H.|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Flanagan, W. H.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Ford, Patrick Johnston|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale||Foreman, Sir Henry|
|Brass, Captain W.||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Forestier, Walker, L.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Cope, Major William||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Craiq, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Furness, G. J.|
|Bruton, Sir James||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Galbraith, J. F. W.|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Lorden, John William||Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Garland, C. S.||Lorimer, H. D.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Gates, Percy||Lort-Williams, J.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney]|
|Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)||Sanderson, Sir Frank B.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Lumley, L. R.||Sandon, Lord|
|Gould, James C.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Gretton, Colonel John||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Shipwright, Captain D.|
|Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Gwynne, Rupert S.||Margesson, H. D. R.||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)||Mercer, Colonel H.||Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.|
|Halstead, Major D.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Stanley, Lord|
|Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Harvey, Major S. E.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)||Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.|
|Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)||Murchison, C. K.||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Nesbitt, Robert C.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.|
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Hewett, Sir J. P.||Newson, Sir Percy Wilson||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley]|
|Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Hiley, Sir Ernest||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Nield, Sir Herbert||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Hood, Sir Joseph||Paget, T. G.||Tubbs, S. W.|
|Hopkins, John W. W.||Parker, Owen (Kettering)||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Pease, William Edwin||Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)|
|Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)|
|Hudson, Capt. A.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Wells, S. R.|
|Hughes, Collingwood||Perring, William George||Weston, Colonel John Wakefield|
|Hume, G. H.||Pilditch, Sir Philip||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.|
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray||White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Whitla, Sir William|
|Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)||Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.||Winterton, Earl|
|Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Privett, F. J.||Wise, Frederick|
|Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Raine, W.||Wolmer, viscount|
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel||Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Jephcott, A. R.||Remer, J. R.||Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)||Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Joynson-Hicks, Sir William||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Yerburgh, R. D. T.|
|King, Captain Henry Douglas||Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Rothschild, Lionel de||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Lamb, J. Q.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel|
|Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.||Ruggles-Brise, Major E.||Gibbs.|
|Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.||Russell, William (Bolton)|