§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
We ought to have an explanation of this Clause. It seems to me that we are creating a precedent here. I am not prepared to oppose it at the moment, but I want to know what the Financial Secretary has to say about it. He has picked out two companies, both of which are excellent in themselves, and no doubt fulfil a national purpose—certainly the second one does; he has picked out these two companies in order to give them special treatment, and to exempt them from payment of duties which every other company registered in this country has to pay. The second company undoubtedly fulfils a national purpose, and I should have thought that the first one did, namely, the Imperial and International Communications, Limited, but that is the very company which the Government are not supporting through the Post Office. The Treasury come here and propose 1272 exceptional treatment and national support—for it is nothing less if we are going to exempt them specially from Stamp Duty—and yet in another Department of the Government, instead of giving them national support, they are giving them what seems to be a jealous, sulky opposition. The Financial Secretary ought to explain upon what principle these exemptions are being made, and, when I have heard what he has to say, I will reserve my liberty to consider it further.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The exemption in the first Sub-section of the Clause relates to Imperial and International Communications, Limited. The Government have included that company because of a promise given to them by the late Government. We felt that promise ought to be implemented. The second company is one formed for the purpose of assisting unemployment, and it is for that reason that the Government thought it right to single it out for this exemption.
§ Sir K. WOOD
I think the general reply of the Financial Secretary will be regarded as satisfactory. As an undertaking was given to the first company I think all hon. Members will agree that the present Government should implement it. Of course it was open to the Government, if they disagreed with the promise which had been given, frankly to come to the House and say so, but I am very glad they have decided to keep it. With regard to the Bankers Industrial Development Company, Limited, I agree that it is a company which is deserving of the consideration of the Committee, but it is rather strange that the present Government should have taken this action in view of the fact that the object of the company is to further the interests of private enterprise and private capital. I notice that the hon. Member for the Dartford Division (Mr. Mills) assents to that view. I am sure he will agree with what the Government have done, because he is an ardent supporter of private enterprise so far as munitions are concerned; therefore, when the Government propose to support a company which is endeavouring to assist private enterprise, I know he will agree with them. I am glad to see, also, that the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) is in full agreement 1273 with the Government on this matter, especially after all he has been saying for the last 30 or 40 years. I appreciate these concessions, and I am sure they will receive the support of the Committee, and especially of hon. Members opposite, who are now taking a very different view of things from that which they expressed at the last Election.
§ Mr. MILLS
I am not rising on account of anything which the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said, but because I regard the action which is being taken here as furnishing a very dangerous precedent. Exemption may be a very admirable thing in the case of these two companies, but the giving of these exemptions will have the same effect as imposing tariffs; it will lead to a growing appetite for them. For that reason I wish to register my protest against the remission of Stamp Duty to these two companies.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) and I are in strong opposition politically, but we happen to be neighbours and we happen to be friends. [Interruption.] Why should it be strange? It is not at all strange. In the county of Kent we have the cricketing spirit, and we know how to play the game. [Interruption.] One interruption at a time.
§ The CHAIRMAN
We cannot have these answers to interruptions. We must confine ourselves to the Amendment.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
With respect to you, Sir, it was a very rude interruption, and I was trying to reply to it.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
Then I will only repeat that the hon. Member for Dartford and I, although we differ on political grounds, are good friends behind the scenes. I never thought we should ever agree across the Floor of the House, but I suppose great minds think alike and my hon. Friend has already thought of the argument which I was going to put. I am in sympathy with these two companies, and for the reasons stated they should have all the help we can possibly give them. At the same time it must 1274 be remembered that these companies, which are working in competition with others, are being given privileges which their competitors have not got. Therefore I agree with the hon. Member for Dartford that this is a dangerous precedent. There is one important question I wish to ask the Financial Secretary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer began the evening in great good humour and gave way to our request to postpone certain Clauses. When the Committee are in this kind of "let-the-thing-go-through-easily" mood they are apt to let a lot of things through without proper consideration, and I wish to know from the Financial Secretary what this concession will cost the revenue.
§ Sir HENRY CAUTLEY
I entirely agree with what the Financial Secretary said as regards the first company. I think that company was formed on a distinct promise in regard to this matter given by the last Government, and that promise must be implemented. At the time the promise was given I understood that this company was regarded as being of an international character, and I have been a little surprised since to find that it is not now regarded so favourably by this Government. I make no comment with regard to that company; but I do not at all understand the reason the Financial Secretary has given for the exemption of the second company. In so far as I understand the company it is nothing but a promoting company; there are dozens of them in the City of London. These bankers are not receiving financial assistance from the Government, they are not under Government control. This is not a Government business of any kind, this is nothing but a private arrangement among bankers to assist the amalgamation of companies. There are many concerns in London and in some provincial towns which carry through the very same business. Will the Financial Secretary explain to me why they should not receive the substantial advantage of being exempt from capital tax which is given to this Bankers Industrial Development Company? I do not think that these individuals and private companies are the kind of people whom the Government intended to relieve, and I hope the Financial Secretary will agree that this particular body should be struck out of the Bill.
§ Mr. J. JONES
I am rather surprised that those in the Labour movement should be called upon to give relief of this kind to financial concerns which we have been up against ever since we were boys. If these companies were bound by any kind of tie to work on behalf of the nation regardless of their own financial interests, then I could understand this proposal. Here we are proposing a remission of taxation on behalf of the certain companies which may or may not be working in the public interest. What guarantee have we, in the event of some future international trouble, that these very companies will not use their financial power to subsidise people who may be fighting against us? I suggest that taxation of companies ought not to be relieved in that way. It will be quite easy for companies to be formed to escape taxation, and I admit that there are clever people in both camps. I believe there are some financiers in the Labour party who might become shareholders in a financial international trust. Some of us do not understand the principle upon which this kind of remission is being established, and so far as I am concerned, my knowledge of finance is limited by the lack of it.
I want to say, frankly, that what is now being proposed seems to me to be a concession to concessionaires, and to people who exploit national interests for their own purposes. Who are the bankers? We know some of them by their nationality. Some of them are people who sing "God save the King" in broken English. They always try to escape national responsibilities, and they belong to every country, and they are only nationalists in their own country for the time being. I believe that the public should have control of all our national machinery, financial and otherwise, and, when a proposition is made to give concessions of this kind, we are not carrying out the programme for which Labour men stand. In this particular case, we are allowing great financiers to escape their legitimate share of taxation, and that is a bad Principle.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. MOND
I am always interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), but he does not seem to have a particular grasp of 1276 the matter we are discussing. The hon. Member opposes this Clause, and there I agree with him. I think we are establishing by this proposal quite an unnecessary precedent. A great many companies have had to pay Stamp Duties which are necessary for reorganisation and rationalisation schemes. They have had to pay very heavily, and they have not had any taxation remitted. It is now proposed that there should be a remission of Stamp Duty in respect of the share capital of the Imperial and International Communications, Limited, and the Bankers Industrial Development Company, Limited. I cannot see any particular reason why the latter company should escape the ordinary duties which are payable by companies.
It has been said that these companies have been brought into existence for the national interest, but I would like to point out that they are profit-making concerns. They are both in an admirable position to make profits, and I do not see why they should not share with the other financial institutions in the City the same burdens which we all have imposed upon us. There is no company in this country that is so well situated to manage its affairs profitably as the Bankers Industrial Development Company, which has the support of all the great financial institutions of the country behind it, and it is under the initiative of very distinguished and recognised authorities in financial matters. It is inconceivable to me that this particular body should ever make a loss, and I see no reason at all why it should be relieved of the ordinary taxation which every other financial institution in the City of London is bound to pay. The Imperial and International Communications, Limited, stands on a different footing, but there again I see no reason why they should not pay their share of taxation, as they can afford to do so a great deal better than many other large trading companies which have intense competion to meet. For these reasons, I hope that this Clause will be dropped by the Government.
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEY
We seem to have placed ourselves in a very embarrassing position, because we have made such rapid progress to-day. I think there is something to be said for exempting from Stamp Duty the Imperial and International 1277 Communications, Limited. Subsection (2) refers to the Bankers Industrial Development Company, Limited, which is a new concern, the shareholders of which are almost entirely financial magnates in the City of London. I understand that the reason given by the Government for putting forward this proposal is that this perfectly new company has some right to be exempted from Stamp Duty to which other companies in the Kingdom are subject because it is going to assist employment. I would like to know in what particular sense this collection of financial magnates can be said to have assisted the country in the relief of unemployment.
It seems to me an astonishing thing that a Socialist party should be supporting a collection of purely monetary and financial interests and exempting them from the ordinary process of law whereby commercial individuals are expected to contribute in the form of the Stamp Duty to the revenue of the country. I am referring entirely to the Bankers' Industrial Development Company. If it can be shown that this particular company has helped unemployment, I would willingly agree that we should give them some financial assistance in this sense. But, in fact, no argument can be put forward or any evidence given to suggest that they have helped in this problem, and when it is realised that the purpose of ordinary industrial activities is to help unemployment, and that this particular one is less likely to help in this matter than any other industrial activity, surely we can reasonably ask for the support not only of the members of the Liberal party who, I notice, are absent, but also the back benchers of the Labour party. It seems to me to be an iniquitous state of affairs that we should be asked, without proper and adequate explanation, to say that some particular and selected company consisting entirely of financial individuals should be exempted from the ordinary channels of taxation, and I ask that before we pass this Clause some further and more satisfactory explanation should be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. HARDIE
In connection with this question of the Imperial and International Communications Limited, considering the late Government's position in regard to the amalgamation—[An HON. MEMBER: 1278 "That is not the point."] The position is this: I do not agree for a moment that because they were able as a Government to take something from the Post Office, that should be a ground for receiving now from the Government any remission of Stamp Duty. They put on the pressure and they pinched from the Government that which they said was, and which they believed to be, something different, and out of which they were going to make a profit. If they had found that they were not as capable as the Post Office in running that business which they took from it, why should they receive any kind of relief? On the industrial view of the case, if you are going to give relief to one, you must give relief to all. If this had been something in which the Government themselves had been interested, it would have been different, but, knowing that the thing was stolen from the Government, I can see no reason why any consideration should be given. In fact, it would seem to me that the proper thing would be, that since they were successful as a Tory Government in taking this from the nation, then those who took it should have something more put upon them.
I do not know what may be meant by helping unemployment in regard to this, because if you take the question of numbers employed in that service before and after amalgamation, then when you come to Sub-section (2), if the Industrial Development Company had been something in which the nation had had some say, if it had been something workable for the nation, then there might have been something in it. But all this is individual, private enterprise. Why, then, should anyone with a sense of justice seek to give any form of relief? Unless there is some good reason, seeing that the Labour party is not responsible, and that something must be done following the decision of the previous Government, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that this Clause has got to be dropped.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDEN
I am in agreement with what my hon. Friend has said about the transaction that took place resulting in the formation of this Imperial Communications Company.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I say I agree; but that is not the question at all. A Clause which has already been passed exempts from payment of Capital Duty companies which reorganise or amalgamate. This is precisely a similar case. Companies amalgamated in the Imperial Communications group. They are in exactly the same position as those companies which amalgamate and which are free from Capital Duty. Therefore, if you were not to extend to the Imperial Communications Company that which all industrial concerns have, you would put them in a prejudiced position. Therefore, the question of what was done then does not arise now. Whatever criticism may be made of the scheme which amalgamated these cable companies, it does not alter the fact that they are an amalgamation of old companies which paid Stamp Duty originally, and therefore if they paid Stamp Duty now they would be paying it twice over. I have been trying in other connections this afternoon to avoid double taxation of any kind.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) asked if this company had been formed for the purpose of dealing with unemployment, to which I reply "Yes." The purpose of rationalisation is to improve the efficiency of industry, and it is to be assumed that when an organisation for production becomes more efficient as the result of rationalisation it will improve employment sooner or later. The hon. Member's description of it as a combination of financiers operating for profit was not correct. Perhaps some hon. Members would object if I were to describe it as a sort of public utility concern, but that is really in effect what it is. Those who have organised themselves have done so in order that they might be able to provide finances for companies that want money for the reorganisation, and are not themselves in a position to provide the necessary funds. The hon. Member for East Toxteth (Mr. Mond) assumes that they were going to be a profit-making concern or, at any rate, that they would not make losses. It is clearly understood that it is not a profit-making concern, and I cannot see how an organisation of this sort could be a profit-making concern. It is in its essential features and characteristics what I have just described as a public utility society, and I am sure that men who have interested themselves in the 1280 organisation are public-spirited men who are doing this simply and solely in the hope of being able to encourage reorganisation.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I ask the Financial Secretary what is the cost to the Exchequer of the relief given to these two companies? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me?
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
In the case of the Bankers Industrial Development Company it amounts to about £60,000, and in the case of the Communications Company to £216,000.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The Chancellor of the Exchequer commenced by endorsing the description of his hon. Friend behind him that Imperial and International Communications, Limited, had pinched—
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The right hon. Gentleman grossly misrepresents me. The extent to which I associated myself with my hon. Friend's remarks was that I criticised the action of the late Government in forming that amalgamation.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I am in the recollection of the Committee. I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. I was surprised that he did not repudiate the ground on which his hon. Friend was opposing the Clause. He opposed it on the ground that this company had pinched from the Post Office the subject matter of the company, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he endorsed what his hon. Friend had said, and that was all I was going to say. The OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, if it is not corrected, will show exactly what was said and whether I have misrepresented the position. On the merits, as we have, as the previous Government, given an undertaking to the Imperial and International Communications Company that they should be relieved of this duty, it is clear that, so far as my friends are concerned, they are going to support it and they are not going back on the undertaking given to that company.
When we come to the Bankers' Industrial Development Company, apparently some of my hon. Friends would like further to criticise that, but the Question that is going to be put is that the Clause stand part, and it is not open to us to deal with Section 2 apart from 1281 Section 1, and if the public faith has been pledged to carry out the undertaking given in the first Clause we have to accept both the first and the second or else run the risk of repudiating the pledge given in public faith. Personally, I have no difficulty, because I agree that the Bankers' Industrial Development Company is not an ordinary issuing house, is not an ordinary financial corporation or promoting house. The subscribers to it have come forward not with the idea of making a profit, and I very much doubt whether it ever will, but they came forward with public spirit and in the public interest to try to form an organisation which will look into the rationalisation schemes and really to help the Government of the day if any of those schemes require public assistance. So I hope the Clause will now be allowed to go through.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I should not like the party opposite to vote under a possible misapprehension. I am not quite sure at the moment whether a pledge was given by the previous Government.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
He possibly was not quite clearly informed. The matter was brought to my notice almost as soon as I came into office, and I am under the impression at the moment that it had been under negotiation at the time. I do not know that in any case I should be impressed by what had taken place previous to that being brought to my attention. I decided the matter upon the grounds I have already stated. This amalgamation, having been forced upon the company, and Stamp Duty having already been paid by the amalgamated companies, I think that it was only just that the relief should be extended to them.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEY
I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions. First, with regard to the Imperial and International Communications, Limited, why does not that company come under the old law? Why is this special provision necessary now? The second question relates to the Bankers' Industrial Development Company. Is this company formed under the ordinary law, is there any limitation of dividends, or is it formed under the Provident 1282 Societies Act, the same as public utility companies? I had an idea that it was formed under the ordinary company law, and that it is not limited as to dividends and as to capital. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us to understand that it was a public utility company.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEY
I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. He gave us to understand that it was in the nature of a public utility company. I have heard that it is not, in fact, a public utility company. How is it in the nature of one? Is it limited as to dividends or to not making profits? Is it not an ordinary profit-making company? If it is an ordinary profit-making company, why should it be treated differently from other companies which exist in such numbers all over the country? I should have been prepared to accept the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it had been according to the real facts, and there was no limitation of profits or anything which might show that it was not a profit-making company or not able to make profits. I am speaking here as a Conservative in favour of the making of profits and of private enterprise, and I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bringing this matter forward, unless he can substantiate what he has said that it is not a profit-making company.
§ Mr. MOND
I am glad that the discussion elicited from the right hon. Gentleman a warm tribute paid to the firms who have formed the Bankers' Industrial Development Company. He stated his fullest confidence in them as public-spirited individuals. But I cannot agree that it is a public utility company. It is a company which has no limit whatever on its profit-making capacity, and it is well situated to make profits. All that I wish to say on the matter further is that I hardly thought it was consistent with the dignity of that institution or with the size, power and scope which it commands to have a remission of taxation on such sums as £60,000, and to raise controversial points as to what other companies may at some time be considered to fall into the same scope of public utility companies. I should not think that those 1283 who promoted the company would desire to place this House in an invidious position or that the House should be asked to give such an important and influential concern so small a concession.
§ Mr. HAMMERSLEY
Before we pass this Clause it is necessary to say that those of us on this side of the House who strongly object to Sub-section (2) of the Clause do so not because we impugn in any way the motives of the Bankers' Industrial Development Company. We believe that they are actuated by the highest motives, but so are the ordinary industrial concerns. They each endeavour to provide employment for the people, and it seems to be a most extraordinary precedent that because a
§ certain selected number of people get together, they should be singled out in this way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been suggested that they are going to relieve unemployment and to help the various schemes of rationalisation. We have not had one word, one item, one single jot or tittle of evidence that would indicate to us how in any particular way the question of rationalisation has been helped by this particular company. By voting for this Clause the party opposite as well as others among ourselves are creating a precedent which is extremely undesirable.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 44.1285
|Division No. 390.]||AYES.||[10.26 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Dickson, T.||Jones, F. Liewellyn- (Flint)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Dukes, C.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Duncan, Charles||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Ede, James Chuter||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Edge, Sir William||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Edmunds, J. E.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Arnott, John||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Kelly, W. T.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Egan, W. H.||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Ayles, Walter||Elmley, Viscount||Kirkwood, D.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||England, Colonel A.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Lathan, G.|
|Barr, James||Fielden, E. B.||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Batey, Joseph||Forgan, Dr. Robert||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Freeman, Peter||Lawrence, Susan|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Lawson, John James|
|Benson, G.||Gibbins, Joseph||Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Leach, W.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Gill, T. H.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Gillett, George M.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret||Gossling, A. G.||Lees, J.|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gould, F.||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lindley, Fred W.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Llewellin, Major J. J.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Groves, Thomas E.||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Bromfield, William||Grundy, Thomas W.||Longdon, F.|
|Brooke, W.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lowth, Thomas|
|Brothers, M.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lunn, William|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Harbord, A.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Buchanan, G.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Burgess, F. G.||Haycock, A. W.||MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Hayday, Arthur||McEntee, V. L.|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Hayes, John Henry||McKinlay, A.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Cape, Thomas||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||McShane, John James|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Chater, Daniel||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Mansfield, W.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Herriotts, J.||March, S.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)||Marley, J.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Marshall, F.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hoffman, P. C.||Mathers, George|
|Compton, Joseph||Hollins, A.||Matters, L. W.|
|Cove, William G.||Hopkin, Daniel||Messer, Fred|
|Cowan, D. M.||Horrabin, I. F.||Middleton, G.|
|Daggar, George||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Millar, J. D.|
|Dallas, George||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Mills, J. E.|
|Dalton, Hugh||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Milner, Major J.|
|Day, Harry||Johnston, Thomas||Montague, Frederick|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Romeril, H, G.||Tillett, Ben|
|Morley, Ralph||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Rowson, Guy||Tout, W. J.|
|Mort, D. L.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Townend, A. E.|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Sanders, W. S.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Muff, G.||Sawyer, G. F.||Turner, B.|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Scrymgeour, E.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Murnin, Hugh||Sexton, James||Viant, S. P.|
|Naylor, T. E.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Walker, J.|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Sherwood, G. H.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Shield, George William||Watkins, F. C.|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Shiels, Dr. Drummond||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Palin, John Henry.||Shillaker, J. F.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Paling, Wilfrid||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Palmer, E. T.||Simmons, C. J.||Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)|
|Perry, S. F.||Sinkinson, George||Westwood, Joseph|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Phillips, Dr. Marion||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Pole, Major D. G.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Potts, John S.||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)||Wilson, C. H. (Shelfield, Attercliffe)|
|Quibell, D. J. K.||Snell, Harry||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Rathbone, Eleanor||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Raynes, W. R.||Sorensen, R.||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Richards, R.||Stamford, Thomas W.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Strauss, G. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Sullivan, J.||Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.|
|Ritson, J.||Sutton, J. E.||Charles Edwards.|
|Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Atkinson, C.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Balniel, Lord||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks Newb'y)||Hanbury, C.||Savery, S. S.|
|Butler, R. A.||Iveagh, Countess of||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Christie, J. A.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Train, J.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Womersley, W. J.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Rawson, Sir Cooper||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.||Mr. Hammersley and Captain|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)||Peake.|