§ Easter offerings voluntarily paid to ministers of religion shall be exempt from Income Tax.—[Mr. Rawlinson.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to exempt from Income Tax, the Easter offerings which are voluntarily paid to a minister of religion. It is a matter which does not involve the Exchequer to any very large extent otherwise I should not have proposed it. This particular tax involves a great injustice. Originally there were a large number of ecclesiastical offerings, such as Easter, Whitsuntide, Christmas and so forth, but the only customary one which remains is the Easter offering. It is absolutely a voluntary payment to the vicar or rector of the parish and is made without any compulsion by the congregation. Again, in the case of Nonconformist, bodies, there are certain offerings made to the pastor as pastor. When the Income Tax Act was passed in 1842, I do not suppose that anybody, either lawyers or anybody else, thought that gifts of that kind would be subject to Income Tax, but in 1907 some enterprising Surveyor of Taxes, I think 278 in Sussex, took the point, in a particular case where Easter offerings had been given in a particular diocese, that they were assessable to Income Tax. The Commissioners found against the Crown, and so did the late Mr. Justice Bray, who held that they were not liable to Income Tax, and I think one may take it that that was the general view at that time and that it had been the view ever since 1842. Mr. Justice Bray's decision was overruled by the Court of Appeal, and also by the House of Lords, and from that time it has been held that these offerings are liable to Income Tax. One of the Judges in the Court of Appeal particularly regretted having to come to that conclusion and pointed out in his judgment that the clergy paid a greater proportion of their receipts in rates and taxes than any other members of the community, and a similar expression of regret was made in the House of Lords.
May I put a second point, possibly from a rather more business point of view? Lord Loreburn, in giving judgment in that case, pointed out quite clearly that this was a voluntary payment for services. If it was a voluntary payment for services, it was liable to Income Tax, but, if it was a mere present, then it was not liable to Income Tax. Consider the evasion that is invited by such a state of affairs. Take the pastor of a Nonconformist congregation in whose behalf an offertory or collection is made. How far is it made to him qua pastor of the congregation, or how far is it made to him as a personal present to himself? The whole test is whether it is a voluntary payment in respect of services and not a mere present. Supposing a person in the Church of England is anxious to give money in the ordinary way, he probably knows that he is going to make the vicar liable to Income Tax, and he will be inclined to find some way round in order to make it a personal present to the vicar, either by giving it in kind or giving it to his son or daughter, so as to get away from the difficulty of the vicar having to return it as income. Further, it makes an excuse for those people who claim that they are not giving Easter offerings because they propose to make it up in some other way. Those good resolutions sometimes do not come off. I therefore press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is a concession which might be 279 made by him. It is a tax that is very difficult to collect and one that is very easy to evade, and I submit that it is a very great injustice to a class of people, both in the Church of England and in other Churches, who never were intended to be taxed in this particular way, and who for some 40 years never were so taxed, when, by a particular construction of the Act of Parliament, they were made liable to the tax in 1907.
§ Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY
I should like to support this Clause, for this reason, that it is very easy to evade this tax. I understand that if a member of a congregation desires to give a present to a vicar in the Church of England, lie has only to put the amount in the bank for the vicar, and it escapes Income Tax assessment. It would be quite easy for a number of members of a congregation to join together and give a joint gift, which would not be put in the bag or appear in the offertory at all, and would be in the nature of a gratuity and not for his services as clergyman, Therefore, it seems to me that there is a considerable opening here for evasion. I think the clergy ought not to be put in the position of having difficulties with their conscience in this way, and I think it would be far better to legalise this practice, in view of the fact that the tax can so easily be evaded.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
This proposal, like Easter offerings, is an annual institution. It has been, I believe, repeatedly before the House of Commons, and the House has never accepted it. I should be very sorry to think that the evasion of liability to Income Tax was carried on inside the churches to the extent that would appear to be the case from the statements of those who have spoken in support of this Clause. I wonder if the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) really sees how far this Clause would go, if carried. I suppose that he himself would not limit Easter offerings to voluntary collections taken on Easter Day?
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Or any other day. Therefore, what he is proposing is that all voluntary collections taken in Christian churches for the maintenance of a 280 pastor should be exempt from Income Tax. In that case every Nonconformist minister in the country would be exempt from Income Tax. His salary is raised by that means, and by that means alone, and I think that it is not necessary to say more in order to show the impossibility of accepting this Clause.
§ Mr. D. HERBERT
Are not Nonconformist ministers' salaries recoverable by law, whereas these offerings are not? Surely that is the difference.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) is a lawyer, and I hesitate to express a legal opinion but I should very much doubt if the salary of a. Nonconformist minister is recoverable by law. I never heard of the deacons being sued in the County Court for a salary.
§ Mr. D. HERBERT
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite followed what is meant by this Clause, nor has he quite understood the way in which my hon. Friends have mentioned that the tax is avoided. There is a definite difference between the remuneration for which a clergyman or anyone else agrees to do his duty and a gift which is made to him by somebody who appreciates the services that he has rendered. Here comes the difficulty. Somebody would, in the ordinary course, wish to give a big donation to the offertory collected in a church on Easter clay, because it is to go for the material benefit of the incumbent of the parish, but, knowing what has been taking place, he says: "No, I shall only put the conventional half-crown"—or what ever it may be—" in collection bag." He goes to the parson later in the year and says: "I am very fond of you, and I very much appreciate the work that you are doing. I want to make you a present, and I hope you will accept it." The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, admits that that would not be taxable, and there is the whole point of this Clause. By making Easter offerings taxable, you are making them a part of the legal remuneration of the minister and surely that is contrary to the intention of those who give these Easter offerings, and surely it is quite properly avoided if people choose to say, "I shall only give at that offertory my usual coin, and at some other time of the year, when- 281 ever it pleases me, or when my bank balance is high, I shall give a present to this man, whom I consider to be underpaid."
The whole point is whether this is a definite part of the remuneration for which the clergyman agrees to do his work. Perhaps I was a little wrong in intimating the possibility of a clergyman of any denomination suing for his remuneration. I am not a member of a Nonconformist church myself, but I believe that in most cases there is a definite agreement, however much money is subscribed by the congregation, that he should receive not less than a certain amount. It is all very well to say you cannot contemplate that man suing for it. That may be so, but it does not alter the fact that that is the remuneration for which he has agreed to do his work, and if those who benefit by his services wish to recognise that benefit, surely they are entitled to give him something extra. Supposing he is a rich man, instead of giving him money they give him a service of plate. You are not going to tax him on that, surely, and I submit that these Easter offerings are nothing more than voluntary presents, which should not be taxable because they are given in money instead of in kind.
§ Mr. BLACK
I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to give way on this matter. The point has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) that Nonconformist ministers have a fixed salary, and in some cases I believe they do, but there are many cases in which a minister is just as dependent on the offerings brought by the congregation, and has no definite understanding as to what the precise amount of the salary shall be. It appears to me that when you have a case of an Established Church clergyman receiving year by year a contribution, it is taken into consideration by the reverend gentleman when he is making the arrangement with the Church to which he goes. In the first instance, there is some kind of idea given to him as to what the average amount of the annual offering amount to. It appears to me that under these circumstances it is almost a condition of his engagement, and I do not see the point of coming to the House and asking that Income Tax should not be paid upon the amount. For these 282 reasons, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist the proposed new Clause.
§ Sir ROBERT KAY
I take a different line in this matter from the hon. Member (Mr. Black) who has just sat down, and I very much hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to yield to hon. Friends on the opposite side of the House. It may be true that there are some churches where a minister receives all his allowance from voluntary funds, but that is not the method ruling in the church to which I belong, the Wesleyan Church. Our ministers get a fixed allowance for their services, but they also get certain amounts over and above for house-rent, children, and other allowances, the particulars of which they consider, and properly consider, should be given in their Income Tax returns. But apart from this, from time to time a minister of the Wesleyan Church may probably have a period of severe personal or family sickness, or other special claims upon him that, for the time being, place him in some difficulty. The laymen of our churches constantly, in a case like that, and in a quiet way, go around and collect £10, £20 or £30, as the case may be, and, without the minister knowing anything about it till then, take it to him as a proof of kindly goodwill. In a case like this it is the last thing in our minds that such an amount should be treated as income or render our ministers liable to pay Income Tax on the amount, and that, as regards our ministers, although desirous to fill up honourably and accurately their Income Tax return, I question whether the minister himself ever imagines that a gift like this is one which he should enter upon his Income Tax paper. In like manner, I believe these gifts at Easter time, winch are made only once a year, are freewill voluntary gifts on the part of the people who desire to show their goodwill to their pastor. These gifts are not in any sense income which is looked upon as part of the salary. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will yield to the solicitations made to him and accept the proposed new Clause.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I should just like to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Black). I venture to suggest that he misunderstands the position. I do not know whether he goes to chapel at Market Harborough, but, if 283 he does, I think he will find there that there are Ministers who come under an arrangement of this sort year by year. The question is one that worries some men as to whether these amounts should or should not be returned for Income Tax. A number of my clients ask my advice upon this matter, and the whole position really makes me annoyed.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Does the hon. Member mean to say that the Minister of Market Harborough does not get a present once a year?
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Then the hon. Member has never been in a chapel at Market Harborough? We have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what the cost would be to the Treasury. If it were to be a large sum, I should be the first person to ask to withdraw the Clause, because the right hon. Gentleman knows that in these matters I really do my best to defend the Treasury on every occasion. I do not think that same of his observations were very generous. Everyone knows that evasion is not accounted a moral obliquity. The right hon. Gentleman has not told me what the cost is likely to be. He said the matter has been brought up time after time, and if that be so, he must have some figures, and he could tell us. For my part, I think it would he a very small matter, indeed. People who have recognised salaries will have to pay as before, whether Nonconformist or Church of England: but a special voluntary offering, such as these Easter offerings are, I submit should he exempt. I do appeal most strongly to the right hon. Gentleman to make this small concession. Certainly, if he does not, I shall divide.
§ Sir J. MARRIOTT
I want to say one word in appreciation, of very grateful appreciation, of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman for the Elland Division (Sir R. Kay). I think that speech has been heard, and will be read to-morrow, 284 by all fair-minded people in this House and outside as an honourable and generous speech. I should like at this last moment to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the sense of my hon. Friend opposite. I believe this concession, from a fiscal point of view, will be entirely negligible. Before we go to a Division—and we shall go to a Division unless we get a satisfactory answer—I think the House is entitled to hear either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what the concession would cost. If they convince us that this is a concession which, fiscally, ought not to be made, I will go into the Lobby with them. If, on the other hand, they tell us, as I believe they will have to do, that it is a negligible sum, then I do venture to appeal to the Chancellor. This is not a question of the Minister's salary. It is no more than the salary received by Nonconformist ministers, which is apparently a voluntary gift. It is true that this is generally made, not by any means invariably, at a particular occasion, at Easter time, but that is accidental. It might be made at any other time by means which would not be within the mesh of Income Tax law.
§ 7.0 P.M.
It seems to me deplorable that this House should be engaged in talking such trivialities as these. [HON. MEMBEES: "No!"] I say it is deplorable that this House should be engaged in talking such trivialities as these which appear to be put forward in favour of this Clause. I had come in here quite unprepared to speak, but, hearing the arguments put up in a case like this, I cannot forbear saying that it, seems to me that, this Clause will open the door to gross abuse and gross evasion of proper and legitimate taxation. No one knows better than I do the circumstances of, and no one has more sympathy with, the poor underpaid parson, but this is not the way to remedy his case. Most self-respecting parsons would not prefer to have their remuneration handed out to them in the shape of an Easter dole. If these men are worthy of payment for the services they render—and I know that they are—they would prefer to have it in an honest, straightforward manner, by way of salary, and that salary ought to be adequate to meet the needs of the minister. I appeal to the 285 Chancellor not in any way to give a passing thought to such a Clause, which can have no other effect but to open the door to evasion of the legitimate payment of Income Tax.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been asked a very specific question in respect to this new Clause. If I understood him, he objects to it purely on fiscal grounds; then he has been asked what it will cost. I think the House is entitled to an answer to that question, for this new Clause of my hon. Friend has been on the Paper for several days, and surely the right hon. Gentleman must have known of it.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
If I knew what the proposed new Clause meant, I could give an answer to the question as to the cost. It would not be very difficult to estimate the cost if the question were more specific. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson) if he meant voluntary collections, which were made on Easier Day, and he replied, "Yes, on Easter Day, or any other day." It has been pointed out by hon. Members who know more about the practices of Nonconformists than hon. Members on the other side of the House that the salaries of Nonconformist ministers are subscribed by the voluntary offerings of their congregation. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are paid by voluntary offerings, but they are paid a fixed amount also."] That does not affect my point in the least. It is quite an unnecessary interruption for the point has already been discussed. They are paid by voluntary offerings; therefore, they come under the Clause which is under discussion. If this were to be confined to the voluntary offerings made on Easter Day in the Church of England then it would not be difficult to give an estimate. It would not be very much; indeed, I may satisfy the right hon. Gentleman by saying it would be almost negligible. But if, as seems likely from the phrasing of this Clause, we are to exempt from Income Tax the salaries of Nonconformist ministers then, of course, it would be very considerable. I am not opposing this new Clause on the ground of cost. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member who is so vocal in his interruptions, and so silent in contributions to the Debate, must just have come into the 286 House or he would have heard the admission. It meant much more than Easter offerings. There is a great principle involved, and it is because of that I stand firm and ask the House to reject it.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
At this moment it would be perfectly open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the Clause were agreed to, to make the language more definite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it is a question of principle. There is a distinction between what ought to be taxed in respect of income and what ought not. What ought to be taxed is in the nature of property—that is to say, what a man can rely upon as his ordinary legal right. An hon. Member has pointed out that most ministers of the Church of England or other bodies would rather have their salaries taxed. I suggest that when he said that he was not aware that he was arguing in favour of the Clause. It is because these voluntary offerings do not go to the person as regular and settled income that the concession is being asked for. These offerings rests purely on the goodwill and the charity of those who give them. They do not differ in principle from any other present. These gifts which we are anxious to exempt are voluntary gifts given by charitable persons who wish to give a charitable donation to their minister, and I rejoice the more that a large number of Free Church ministers, as well as ministers of the Established Church, are recipients of such gifts. Wherever you have the clement of gift you ought to exempt from taxation. That is surely a sound principle. According to the present, law, as interpreted, an Easter offering is subject to Income Tax and a Christmas present is not. It would seem possible to give the same amount at Christmas and give it as an Easter present, and it would not be liable to Income Tax. It is sought to propound a distinction in law which cannot be defended. That is the true distinction this claim aims at, and, if the language be not sufficient, let the Clause be read a Second time and the Treasury amend it.
§ Mr. ALDEN
I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be aware of what is a growing practice in many churches of to-day. I believe it comes originally from America. The idea is to 287 circulate among members of the church that there is to be a collection on behalf of the minister of the church on a certain day. I have known £1,000 to be given in one collection in one clay. I think you do lay yourselves open to very grave misapprehension if you allow this Clause to be carried as it stands, because it would be quite possible on Easter day to get a very large collection at some churches towards the stipend of the vicar or minister. If the Easter offering could be a personal gift not made in the form of
§ a collection in the church it would be free from the objections that have been raised against it. I do assure the House that there is a real danger, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, the matter ought to be more carefully considered. I hope the House will not divide on a point on which we are all in sympathy.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 256.291
|Division No. 153.]||AYES.||[7.10 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Ferguson, H.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Austin, Sir Herbert||Forestler-Walker, L.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Gates, Percy||Pease, William Edwin|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Beamish, T. P. H.||Gould, James C. (Cardiff, Central)||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Perring, William George|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Plelou, D. P.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Gretton, Colonel John||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Raine, W.|
|Berry, Sir George||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Rawson, Alfred Cooper|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Harbord, Arthur||Remer, J. R.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Harland, A.||Remnant, Sir James|
|Bourne, Robert Croft||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Hartington, Marquess of||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Henn, Sir Sydney H,||Ropner, Major L.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Roundell. Colonel R. F.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hobhouse, A. L.||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Burman, J. B.||Hogbin, Henry Cairns||Savery, S. S.|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hood, Sir Joseph||Shepperson. E. W.|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Spears, Brig. Gen. E. L.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth.S.)||Hughes, Collingwood||Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Stanley. Lord|
|Cecil, nt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Starmer, Sir Charles|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H,||Steel, Samuel Strang|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Clayton, G. C.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Jephcott, A. R.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Kay, Sir R. Newbald||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Kenyon, Barnet||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Cope, Major William||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Waddington, R.|
|Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lamb, J. Q.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lane-Fox, George R.||Wells, S. R.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Weston, John Wakefield|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Linfield, F. C.||Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Lord, Walter Greaves||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Lorimer, H. D.||Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Lumley, L. R.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Deans, Richard Storry||MacDonald, R.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Dodds, S. R.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Dunnico, H.||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Wragg. Herbert|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Meller, R. J.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Elliot, Walter E.||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)|
|Elveden, Viscount||Morrison-Bell,Major Sir A. C.(Honiton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)||Mr. Rawlinson and Sir Philip Pilditch.|
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Ackroyd, T. R.||Harris, Percy A.||Phillipps, Vivian|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Hastings, Sir Patrick||Potts, John S.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hastings, Somerville (Reading)||Pringle, W. M. R.|
|Alden, Percy||Haycock, A. W.||Raffety, F. W.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayday, Arthur||Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford|
|Alstead, R.||Hayes, John Henry||Rathbone, Hugh H.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hemmerde, E. G.||Raynes, W. R.|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Rea, W. Russell|
|Attlee, Major Clement R.||Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)||Rees. Sir Beddoe|
|Baker, Walter||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Rendall, A.|
|Barclay, R. Noton||Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex,Enfld.)||Richards, R.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hillary, A. E.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Barnes, A.||Hindle, F.||Ritson, J.|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, G. H.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hodge. Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Birkett, W. N.||Hodges, Frank||Robertson, T. A.|
|Black, J. W.||Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)||Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hudson, J. H.||Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)|
|Bonwick, A.||Isaacs, G. A.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)||Rose, Frank H.|
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Royle, C.|
|Briant, Frank||Jewson, Dorothea||Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.|
|Broad, F. A.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Bromfield, William||Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)||Scurr, John|
|Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)||Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool,W.Derby)||Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Sexton, James|
|Brunner, Sir J.||Jones, Rt, Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Shaw. Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Buckle, J.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Sherwood, George Henry|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)||Shinwell, Emanuel|
|Cape, Thomas||Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Chapple, Dr. William A.||Kedward, R. M.||Simon, E. D. (Manchester,Withingtn.)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Keens, T.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Church, Major A. G.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Smillie, Robert|
|Clarke, A.||Kirkwood, D.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Climie, R.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Smith, T. (Pontefract)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Lansbury, George||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Compton, Joseph||Laverack, F. J.||Snell, Harry|
|Cove, W. G.||Law, A.||Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)||Spence, R.|
|Crittall, V. G.||Lawson, John James||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Leach, W.||Spencer, H. H. (Bradford. S.)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery)||Lee, F.||Spero, Dr. G. E.|
|Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)||Livingstone, A. M.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lowth, T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Lunn, William||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Dickson, T.||McCrae, Sir George||Stranger, Innes Harold|
|Dudgeon, Mayor C. R.||McEntee, V. L.||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Dukes. C.||Mackinder, W.||Sullivan, J.|
|Duncan, C.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Sunlight, J.|
|Dunn, J. Freeman||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Maden, H.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)||Mansel, Sir Courtenay||Tattersall, J. L.|
|Egan, W. H.||March, S.||Terrington, Lady|
|Emlyn-Jones. J. E. (Dorset, N.)||Marley, James||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|England, Colonel A.||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kincardine, E.)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)|
|Falconer, J.||Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)|
|Foot, Isaac||Maxton, James||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Franklin, L. B.||Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.||Thornton, Maxwell R.|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Middleton, G.||Thurtle, E.|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)||Millar, J. D.||Tillett, Benjamin|
|Gavan-Duffy, Thomas||Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross,Perth)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)||Montague, Frederick||Tout, W. J.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Morel, E. D.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Turner, Ben|
|Gillett, George M.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Gosling, Harry||Morse, W. E.||Viant, S. P.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Moulton, Major Fletcher||Vivian, H.|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Muir, John W.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Greenall, T.||Murray, Robert||Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Naylor, T. E.||Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Nichol, Robert||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Nixon, H.||Watts-Morgan, Lt-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Groves, T.||O'Grady, Captain James||Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Oliver, George Harold||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)||Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)||Owen, Major G.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Paling, W.||Westwood, J.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Palmer, E. T.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)||Whiteley, W.|
|Hardie, George D.||Perry, S. F.||Wignall, James|
|Harris, John (Hackney, North)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)|
|Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Williams, Lt-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)||Windsor, Walter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)||Wintringham, Margaret||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.|
|Willison, H.||Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.|
|Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)||Wright, W.|
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The next new Clause (Amendment of 10 and 11 Geo. V, cap. 18), in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Wolverhampton, Bilston (Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury), and other hon. Members is not in order here.