(1) Where for any year of assessment rights to work minerals in the United Kingdom are let, the lessor shall be entitled on making a claim for the purpose to be repaid so much of the Income Tax paid by him by deduction or otherwise in respect of the rent or royalties for that year as is equal to the amount of the tax on any sums proved to the satisfaction of the Special Commissioners to have been wholly, exclusively, and necessarily disbursed by him as expenses of management or supervision of those minerals in that year:
Provided that no repayment of tax shall be made—
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House will remember that this matter was brought up on the Com- mittee stage by the hon. and gallant Member for the Faversham Division (Lieut.-Colonel Wheler) and in answer to questions from the opposite benches I promised that I would give certain information on the Report stage. This is a case in which, I suppose accidentally, there has been for a number of years a departure from the ordinary principle of income taxation, namely, that tax should be charged only on the income received. The cost of earning the income is not a part of the income, and must be deducted in order to get at the balance of the profits and gains on which tax is payable. That is the ordinary principle in Income Tax Acts. In regard to Income Tax and Super-tax, payable by recipients of mineral royalties, they have had to pay tax on the whole of the royalties without any deduction for the cost of collecting those royalties.
The Clause moved in Committee was intended to remove that obvious and grave injustice. On behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I intimated that the particular wording of the Clause then submitted would not, in our opinion, suit, but that we should bring up a Clause which, in our opinion, would have the desired effect, and no more than the desired effect, on the Report stage. The Clause which was submitted proposed a reduction of an arbitrary fraction of the gross rents received of one-eighth, which might, in some cases, be substantially more than the actual cost of collection. The Royal Commission on Income Tax reported, quite definitely, that it was right that the owner of minerals or mineral rights should be allowed the expenses of management, of supervision, and, following that recommendation, we have inserted in the Clause words which will limit the deductions closely and rigorously to the necessary cost of collection. The claimant for deduction has to prove to the satisfaction of Special Commissioners that the amount has been really, exclusively and necessarily disbursed by him in the expenses of management and supervision of those minerals in respect of which he receives the income in the year of assessment. Then there are provisos to prevent abnormalities arising, with which I need not trouble the House. The second Subsection simply provides that claims must be made within 12 months from the year of assessment in order that a claimant may get back any overpaid income Tax. That is necessary, because the tax is almost invariably collected by deduction at the source from the person who pays the royalty to the royalty owner. Therefore, in order to give the benefit of the amounts allowed it is essential to do it by way of repayment.
In Committee we were asked to say exactly what was the estimated cost of this alteration in the law, which, be it understood, is not a concession in relief from Income Tax in the ordinary sense, but simply a provision that Income Tax should be calculated in this particular case in the way in which Income Tax is always calculated, namely, upon the balance of profits and gains. In this year the cost will be £15,000, and next year it may amount to nearly £50,000. But this is not a question of whether the amount is an amount which the revenue can afford as a concession by way of relief. It is the rigorous application, and nothing more than the application, of the ordinary principle of Income Tax that a man shall be taxed on income which he has, and not on income which he has not, and that, in so far as in a business expenses are incurred for the purpose of earning profits on a business, those expenses are set against the gross receipts in order to arrive at the profits.
The action of the Government in this matter is extremely characteristic. Appeals have been made to them in all directions for concessions in the interests of the poorest sections of the community, and it has generally been deemed a sufficient answer to say that at this moment of financial stress it is not possible to make these concessions. I could give a number of cases where, at very small cost, relief could have been given to a very large number of people, War widows, and so on, but I will content myself with referring to the case of the workman whose income is diminished because of—
I have taken part in these Debates for many years, and it appears to me to be a new ruling if we are not entitled to compare the action of the Government in certain matters with their action in regard to other matters. I would like your ruling on this particular point.
My ruling is that it is open to the hon. Member to refer to other classes which have been refused relief by the Government, but it would not be in order to discuss those in any detail. It would be open to the hon. Member to mention that there were such cases, and then pass on to the subject: matter of this Amendment.
There is a great principle involved in this Clause. I would ask your ruling as to whether we are to be allowed to discuss the position of an ordinary working man who has to pay his train fare to earn his wages, as this, of course, is part of his expenses in exactly the same way as the cost of collection is part of the expenses of the royalty owners.
If the Solicitor-General argues that it is only the balance of a man's income that is taxed, and that that is the general rule in taxing incomes, and if we have cases in which we know that men are being taxed upon their gross income on the part which they do not receive, are we not in a position to argue their cases in dealing with a matter of this kind?
As to these cases, I can only repeat what I have said If they are mentioned purely as illustrations of the argument of an hon. Member. they will be in order. If the illustration itself were prolonged so as to be an argument in itself, it would not be in order.
I am much obliged. I expressly stated that I did not intend to go into the very large number of cases which could be quoted, but proposed to deal with this particular case, because it did appear to me to cut right across the argument of the Solicitor-General. He says that it is the ordinary law that a person pays on his net income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been asked to give effect to that in the case of the workmen of the country. A very large number of them require to live some distance from their work, and they incur considerable expense in travelling to and from their work. His answer was that that might be a very good case for relief but he could not afford it. That concession could not be afforded to the working men of the country, though a strong appeal was made by their representatives in this House. But all that is required for the landed interest is that the hon. and gallant Member for Faversham (Lieut.-Colonel Wheler) should make one speech with regard to the matter and the Government at once concede what is asked, as they always do. Therefore they are prepared to find in this year of stress £l5,000 as a donation to the distressed landowners and mineral owners, and they arc prepared to allow £50,000 of our revenue to be sacrificed year after year for a class which is certainly not the poorest in the community, and in their case certainly it cannot be argued that this is a concession which could be of the slightest benefit to trade or industry.
Might we ask what is the ordinary practice, not merely with regard to the incomes of working men, but with regard to rents? I am in the position, to some extent, the unfortunate position at the moment, of being the owner of a small amount of cottage property. I do not collect my own rents. My duties in this House preclude me having time for that purpose. Am I allowed to make a deduction for collection of my rents when I pay my Income Tax? All I can say is that if I am assured that I have that privilege I should be very grateful, but up to the present moment I never have made such deduction, and I was under the impression that I was not entitled to do so. Why should it be held that the owner of cottage property has to pay his Income Tax on a sum which includes the amount which he has to pay for the collection, but the owner of royalties, in whose case the cost of collection cannot be anything like the same proportion, is to be relieved?
I am aware that the learned Solicitor-General has been able to invoke to his assistance a recommendation of the Income Tax Commissioners. With great respect to them, I suggest that the words of this new Clause go very much further than the mere cost of collection. "Management or supervision" are clearly words which could be extended very far beyond the cost of collection. Assume that a mineral owner, thinking of the potentialities of his property, which is a developing property, says that for the purpose of managing that property properly he will employ a mining engineer and pay him. I can imagine that it might quite well be held that that was legitimate supervision of his mining property. I am aware that if such a case were brought before the Court the learned Solicitor-General would argue with great ability on the other side. None the less, it seems to me that these words might very well go beyond what has been recommended. Even in a limited sense this is a concession to the landlord interest, such as has been given to no other interest in the country. It is extremely characteristic of the Government. I have no doubt that the Government supporters will support them in the Lobby now. In any event, I hope that a Division will be taken on the Amendment.
We have had at least the advantage this afternoon, as it is early in the day's Proceedings, that some hon. Members opposite have graced the House with their presence, which is more than they did when the Amendment which gave rise to this new Clause was moved. When the Amendment was moved it was in the early hours of the morning, and, if there was another hon. Member behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer except the Mover of the Amendment, that was about all there was. As the previous speaker has said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted this proposal with scarcely any discussion of it and almost without any reason being given for it. The Government had promised that it would buy out the mineral royalty owners. As an instalment it makes to the royalty owners the concession now proposed. The excuse given is that the Government could not afford the money to buy the royalties. It seems to me that the Government is on very slippery ground in this particular case. I have seen these royalty accounts made out. I have seen the number of tons entered on various forms preparatory to their being sent to the royalty owners. That work is done by the employés of the colliery companies. I take it that it is part of the general arrangement. In future, if a charge is made for doing this kind of work, is exemption to be given to the royalty owner in respect of that charge?
It has been suggested that it is sometimes necessary to send in a surveyor to see exactly what is happening to the coal or other minerals. What happens is this: A gentleman has minerals under his land. The minerals are not being worked. The owner is not getting any income from the minerals. He is managing to "rub along" without any income from this source. Then comes the rumour that the minerals are being worked. That rumour may be denied. The owner sends someone to survey the land or to examine the mines, in order to ascertain whether the minerals are being worked or not. It is not an unknown thing for coal to be stolen in this way. The owner hears that his coal is being worked, and the surveyor reports, "Yes, the coal is being worked." The owner at once begins to receive an income from the coal. Is he to be excused the cost of the surveyor's visit— a visit which has resulted in his getting an income from a source where previously he received no income? That is a fair interpretation of the actual position. I am amazed that the royalty owners should give prominence to their present position by asking for a slight concession of this kind, which certainly will not be without its effect on the public mind.
I would draw attention to the very very plausible explanation of the learned Solicitor-General. I am very sorry to say that of the hon. Gentleman, because he has been very fair and lucid in most of his interpretations of Clauses and Amendments. In this particular case he has put this position to the House: Here is a man who does not get the gross income; he gets only a certain portion of it, and the law is that you tax him only upon the balance of his income. Is there anyone in this House who believes that that is the usual interpretation of Income Tax law? Certainly not. We have put exactly the same position to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of men and women who go backward and forward to their work and pay their expenses and railway fares all the time, and have to work for their living in order to keep body and soul together. They do not get any exemption. Yet here are people whose mineral rights are historically questionable, and against whom the public conscience of this country is very strong. They get exemption. A concession of this kind, following other concessions, is certainly not doing honour to the reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It provides proof that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving more credence to the claims of certain classes, without regard to justice, than has been given by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least during the time I have been in the House.
I heartily oppose any description of that sort as unjust and unfair. I pass to the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan). It seems absurd that the hon. Member, who said that he owned cottage property, does not realise that before taxation he has a deduction made of one-sixth, and, over and above that, if he can show any other expenses in connection with his property, he is entitled to put them into his claim for exemption.
The reason why I asked for this concession to the owner of royalties is that this was the only type of property left out. My request was simply a request that royalty owners should be put on the same level as other people in regard to Income Tax law. In a calmer atmosphere, where these matters were more judicially considered, the Income Tax Commissioners recommended this concession, and their Report was signed by several Labour Members. For hon. Members to come here and to excite party prejudice in a case like this, when on the broad principle there is nothing to be said against it, is unfair.
I intervene only because of what has been said by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Law-son). He has been down a pit and so have I. The real object of this Clause is to allow for the cost of ascertaining the rents payable. As he and most Members know, in order to ascertain what rents are payable it is necessary to measure up the coal got, every three months or six months as the case may be. It is that expenditure which in the main is involved in this concession. In reference to the statement about house property, there is a perfect analogy to this particular allowance in Rule 8 of the rules applicable to Schedule A. At the present time there is a limit to the class of property in regard to which the allowance is made, but under Clause 21 of the present Bill that limit is being altered because of the obvious justice—I repeat this, as the word "plausible" has been used by my hon. Friend opposite—of not taxing a man on the income which he does not get. That is the real point of this Amendment. I ask the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to accept the assurance that I really mean what I say.
The Solicitor-General's argument is that expenses necessarily incurred by royalty owners should be deducted from the amount which is subject to Income Tax. If he were a royalty owner during the last five or ten years would he not in fixing the amount of his royalties have taken into consideration the fact that to secure them, he would have to incur certain expenses? I think any reasonable man in determining the amount of royalties would take into account the expenses necessarily incurred in securing them. If my contention is sound—and I think the Chancellor will have difficulty in refuting it—
—then this Clause should not be proceeded with. Let me put this further case to the Chancellor. During the Committee stage Amendment after Amendment was refused on the ground that they would involve alterations in the Income Tax law. The Committee accepted the Chancellor's advice on that matter and these Amendments were negatived. This afternoon an Amendment is introduced by the Chancellor himself which is a, direct alteration of the Income Tax law. Why apply one principle on the Committee stage of the Bill and another on the Report stage? The Solicitor-General informed the House that this concession would cost the Exchequer £50,000.
In a full year it will be £50,000, and that at the 5s. rate of Income Tax implies that the owners of royalties are incurring expenses at the rate of £200,000 a year. Surely these royalty owners in determining the price they shall charge—holding, as they do, a monopoly—have taken the very last figure of expenses into consideration. In view of this very large amount, I suggest that every royalty owner in fixing the rate, whether it should be 5d., 7d., or 8d. a ton, would say to himself, "The main question in which I must interest myself is how much I am going to receive after I have paid all expenses." The Mineral Rights Duty to-day brings in about £400,000, and this concession is going to wipe out a considerable part of that.
I agree, but we are dealing with a matter affecting mineral rights. I was hoping we might have had present here the champion of the Mineral Rights Duty. I was not myself in the House of Commons when the present Prime Minister introduced these duties, but I now see them little by little being whittled away. This afternoon a further concession is being granted to the owners which is contrary to the Income Tax law. On these several grounds, and in view of the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Committee stage, that the Income Tax law should not be altered, I hope the House will reject the Clause.
I am tempted to ask, after some of the speeches we have heard, whether the policy of the Labour party, and of the other party which sits above the Gangway, is to assess Income Tax on gross receipts without deduction of expenses. If a man's gross profits come to £50, and if it costs £20 to get that sum, according to the Labour party, instead of being assessed on the £.30 difference which he actually receives, he will have to pay on the gross receipts of £50. It is a nice prospect for many people to think that if that party should come into power the first thing they might do would be to assess Income Tax on gross receipts without allowing any deductions for expenses. I am not speaking on this matter as one who is receiving mine royalties, but as one who has paid a considerable amount in mining royalties, and I am astounded at the ignorance of the subject displayed by some of the hon. Members who spoke on behalf of the Labour party. Those hon. Members who know the real facts of the case will support me in my view. We all know that in the calculations which are necessary in connection with royalties it is essential to have engineers of great experience. The person who works the coal has one engineer and the owner of the mining royalty has another. Engineers are required to go down into the pits for many days—not one chance day—and to make measurements not only of the area, but of the various thicknesses, in order to be able to make an accurate calculation. According to what we have heard to-day, the owner of the royalty is to put his hand into his own pocket for the payments so incurred, and is not to make a deduction from his receipts. The House will agree that that is an absurd proposition. I know mining royalty owners who spend from £1,000 to £2,000 a year on the survey of mines for the necessary calculations. Speaking as one who has paid mining royalties, I am only too glad that they should get what they are entitled to. When a man spends money in collecting sums which are really for the State he should be allowed his expenses and thus have assessed, honestly and properly, the Income Tax which he is entitled to pay.
The last speaker has asked if it was the policy of the Labour party to follow a certain line, and expressed the opinion that in the event of their following that line, it would not be best for the general public of this country that the Labour party should come into power. What the Labour party is attempting to do is to get the same fair play measured out to one section of the community as is being measured out to the other. During the Committee stage of this Bill we asked the Chancellor to excuse a certain number of men from Income Tax on the very same ground that the Solicitor-General has put forward for this concession today. We asked that these men should not be assessed on income which they did not get We asked that a workman who was required to pay away a certain amount of money in travel ling to and from his work, should have an allowance in that respect. The money paid in travelling made inroads upon his income. It was a part of his income which he did not get. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and others not that part of his income which he spent in travelling. When we asked that these men should be excused, we were told that it could not be done. Now we have the Government this afternoon, calmly suggesting that the same principle, the same concession which was refused to the workman, should be granted to the royalty owners of the country. In these circumstances the Chancellor cannot look for anything else being said to him from these benches, than that he is prepared to give concessions to the wealthy section of the community which he is not prepared to give to the poorer section of the community. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO parallel."] Hon. Members need not say there is no parallel. The two cases are on exactly the same footing. It is the case of the one man being assessed on income which he does not actually receive and the other being excused on the very ground that he does not receive a part of his income. It is meting out to the one section of the community treatment of an entirely different character from that which is meted out to the other. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) expressed surprise at the royalty owners asking for concessions of this kind, considering the fact that they are taking out of the maning industry of this country at least £8,000,000 a year in royalties. The vested interests in this House provide an object lesson to everyone of us on these benches. They never scruple in asking for concessions, whether those concessions amount to £15,000 or £50,000. Indeed, we look for them coming along and asking for such concessions, but what we object to is, that when they do come along, the Chancellor lends them a ready ear and grants their requests without much trouble at all. ["HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Well, the royalty-owners have got their concession on this occasion without very much trouble. The hon. Member for Faversham (Lieut.- Colonel Wheler) said this was the only type of property that had been called upon to bear the original impost and was, therefore, entitled to the concession. We have asked for concession after concession and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has excused himself, either on the ground that he could not afford the money, or that the Royal Commission on Income Tax had not recommended such a thing. In this case may I remind him that the Royal Commission on Income Tax has not said that this type of property was to be excused.
I did not hear all the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening speech. I have already pointed out two of the ways in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer excuses himself when these claims are made by us. His third excuse is that if he were to make the particular concession asked for, he would be rapidly taken out of his bearings and there would be no knowing where he would end with concessions. In granting concessions the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to deal impartially with all sections of the community. We claim that he is not doing that, and that in making concession of this kind he is giving to one section what he has already refused to another. When we discuss the matter further on I hope we will get the same generous consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this other section of the community has got. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we think that this is a section of the community that really docs not require the concession that has been given by the Chancellor. Already they are taking out of a heavily burdened industry what has been stated in this House. As my hon. Friend below the Gangway in an intervention a few minutes ago intimated, he is one of the parties who have had to contribute to the heavy burden that is imposed upon the mining industry by this other section of the community. Consider £8,000,000! So grievous a burden do the Government consider the mining royalties upon the mining industry that they have promised, as has been pointed out, that they were going to nationalise the royalties and so lift the burden from the shoulders of the industry. So we have this first step in that direction by the present of another £15,000 or thereabouts to the royalty owners! They are to be freed from the cost of collection on the ground that they arc not to be taxed on income they do not receive, while other sections of the community are being taxed on a similar amount and are refused a concession. We on these benches will not be consenting parties to treating in a partial way any section of the community. We shall oppose it even to the Division Lobby unless the Chancellor sees his way either to withdraw his proposed new Clause or to grant other sections of the community exactly the same concession.
The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has laid down principles which I would like to examine for a few moments, and see exactly what they mean. He has suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has departed from what the Labour party advocates, namely, the equal treatment of all classes. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by that? Does he mean that there is to be, for instance, no graduation in the Income Tax? Does he mean that precisely the same measure of taxation is to be given to the rich as well as the poor, or does he mean merely this, that when a concession is made to one section of the community that the same concession must be made to the other section? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the owners of mineral royalties as if they were a very favoured class of the community who receive and keep all that they ever get, and as if they were monopolists with whom nobody could interfere.
In the first place, the owners of mineral rights retain only a very small portion of what they receive. I happen to be trustee for the gentleman who, two or three years ago, at all events, received in royalties £9,800. I was lately examining the accounts, and I found that after the various deductions were made the owner retained for his own benefit just over £1,100, and that was not for his own benefit either, as in similar instances is often the case. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the class against whom he declaims are favoured, and are drawing large profits, but the right hon. Gentleman can himself invest some of the sums which he controls, perhaps as trustee for his trade union, in this form of investment. There is no monopoly in it. I do not doubt that there are owners of mineral rights who would be very glad to sell those rights for a few years' purchase if my right hon. Friend wishes to become a member of that privileged class. He suggests they are a privileged class. Let him enter that privileged class, and he will receive the same treatment as members of that class to-day are receiving.
The stock case, of course, put up against this proposal is the expenses of railway travelling in connection with the earning of wages. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that that was a concession which ought to be granted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in that way compensate for the concession that is here proposed to the owners of mineral rights. If that concession were made it would affect everybody equally. I should enjoy the concession. Hon. Members who travel from London to Edinburgh would enjoy it. Supposing one went to the North for a directors' meeting, he would enjoy the concession. My right hon. Friend and his Friends really are guilty of confusion of thought when they are considering these matters, and when they suggest that a concession is being refused to one class of the community. The concession is one which has to be dealt with on its merits. What it really comes to is this: My right hon. Friend and his allies are attempting to discredit this proposal, which I think will commend itself to most reasonable persons, by suggesting that it is treating one class of the community by putting them in a privileged position. My right hon. Friend perhaps would allow me to suggest that he should do a little thinking over this, and make up his own mind as to what he means when he says that the Labour party stand for equal treatment of all classes. If that means anything, it means that all classes are to be taxed on the same basis, and not proportionate to their receipts.
My right hon. Friend thinks they ought to be, but most of us have got beyond that stage. We recognise that larger incomes ought to pay a larger contribution. That, however, is a different proposition from the suggestion put forward here.
I only desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he comes to reply, to tell us what is the position under this new Clause of the owner of way-leaves. I believe that way-leaves and the mineral duties are lumped together, but what about the way-leaves? What is the owner entitled to under this new Clause? Is he entitled to take any allowance for the expenses of collecting the way-leaves? This Clause was rather sprung upon the Committee at an early hour in the morning. I believe the Chancellor gave some indication that it was likely to cost something like £25,000. Between the Committee and the Report stage the Chancellor entirely altered the form of the Clause, and it is now estimated that it will cost £50,000. The Solicitor-General has told us that this is not a concession to the royalty owners, but that argument will not, I think, hold water for one moment. This Mineral Rights Duty is a tax of very recent institution, and the amount was fixed on the assumption that Income Tax was to be paid on the gross receipts of the royalty without deduction of expenses at all. If, now, £50,000 is to be allowed to the owners of royalties than they are getting something to which they were not entitled before when the duty was fixed.
That is so. But when the Mineral Rights Duty was fixed it was fixed for a certain amount, with the knowledge that when Income Tax came to be paid on the proceeds of it, that Income Tax would be paid on the gross amount received from royalties. Therefore this is a concession to the owners of royalties. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has £50,000 to give away, although the owners of royalties may have a just claim, I think that there are other sections of the community which are harder pressed, and the right hon. Gentleman can find a more deserving home for the money.
The concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer-is making to the royalty owners justifies the attitude the Labour party have taken up from the outset of the Finance Bill in calling it a "Rich man's Budget." This latest concession is an added proof that we have been correct in calling it so. We have had excuses such as those we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), who twitted the Labour party, as he thought, with wanting this concession taken away from the royalty owners because it had not been conceded in regard to their travelling expenses to the wage earners. He pointed out that we wanted equal taxation laid upon all people. Let me suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that our proposal is to lay taxation upon the people who can best pay it. That can only be done by a graduated tax upon income. That is assessing all equally, because the higher pay or income received the proportionately greater advantage by those who receive it is derived from the community, and they should pay the community more for the greater advantage!; they receive. That surely is the essence of taxation The hon. Gentleman recommends the Labour party to try and cure themselves of confused thinking; but I would suggest to him to read again the four canons of taxation laid down by Adam Smith and then come to the next Budget with a fresh mind upon the subject.
We have been asking for concessions right from the commencement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us upon every occasion by saying that he has no money, and that the country requires everything he can raise. Yet concession after concession has been made to the wealthy classes of the community. The farmer, the landowner, have been relieved of the taxation put on during war time; they have gone back to their pre-War taxation. Here you are giving concessions to the royalty owner. Who are the royalty owners? They are the men who claim to own the minerals in the earth. They have no right to claim that these minerals are theirs. If the right to property is that a man can show that he has worked for it then the royalty owners cannot show that they have worked to put the minerals into the bowels of the earth! If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of giving a concession to these people, had come forward with a Bill to demand that they should produce their title deeds to the ownership of the minerals, it would have been something more in the way of justice to the community. Here is a class of people taking £8,000,000 from the community. The miner goes down the pit and works and he is starving to-day in the mining villages of Wales and Scotland. Yet these people are going off with £8,000,000 for which they have never worked. These are not the workers, but the shirkers and they live well on their shirking. They fully justify the Biblical adage, "To him that hath shall be given." The poor miner has very little and he is not given anything, although no less than £15,000 is to he given to the mineral right owners in the remaining period of the present financial year. We were told when we made a similar claim for the exemption of travelling expenses that it was not a parallel ease. We have been told about the director who travelled to Edinburgh and paid his own fare, but he enters that as expenses, and he does not pay any tax upon it.
Railway directors get free tickets. It is the same with companies who pay the travelling expenses of their directors, and they do not pay Income Tax upon that. Therefore the argument against the workman paying his fare and receiving exemption falls to the ground. The workmen are as much in the position of employing the engineer who drives the train when they are travelling as the mineral owner employs a surveyor to go down the coal mines. If you give this concession to the mineral owner, you are in duty bound to consider the arguments put forward by the Labour party, demanding that the cost of travelling borne by working men and women, going to and from their work, ought to be relieved from taxation. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while he has listened to everything that has come from the Benches below the Gangway and behind him regarding concessions, while he has yielded to the clamour of the rich men in this House and sealed up his ears against the claims of the poor, will realise that on account of this concession, added to those already given, despite the fact that you have had to bring forward an Unemployment Bill to give a four weeks' dole where they are supposed to give five weeks', you will have the country burning against the Government on the ground that this is a rich man's Government, merely representing rich men and passing legislation in their favour, and it is only when they are forced by the extreme urgency of the situation that they concede anything to the workers.
The reasons which have been given by the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for granting this concession do not appeal to me, because this proposal puts mineowners and the owners of mineral rights in a favoured position in comparison with the position held by houseowners. Yon are going to allow the owner of mineral rights to deduct a certain amount for expenses from his gross receipts when he pays Income Tax. I have in mind a case of a provincial shop let at £250. Assume that I am the trustee, and that I cannot look after the property myself. I employ a man to collect the rents of that property, for which he charges me £10 a year, and consequently I receive £240. I have tried to get an assessment for Income Tax at £240, but it has not been allowed. If you arc going to give this concession in relation to the cost of measuring up coal to the owner of mineral rights, I think you should allow a man who own6 a house let for £250 a year, who has to pay £10 for someone to collect the rent and look after the property's condition, to be assessed on £240. In the case I have alluded to the lease will fall in, and I shall have to say to an auctioneer or an estate agent, "Go to this property, value it, tell me what is required to be done by way of restoration, and how much the tenant ought to pay in rent for a new lease." That valuer may charge me £20 or £25, and I shall not be allowed to deduct that amount in relation to Income Tax. I think this concession is an act of favouritism, and you can put yourselves into a consistent position only by giving a similar allowance to those who own house property.
One of my colleagues has described accurately what is really taking place with regard to the work underground and the amount got, and I want to point out that there is no question with regard to the days spent underground in measuring the thickness of the seams and the amount of the ground. I have had some experience as a checkweighman, and I know that these facts are taken from the colliery weigh books and the check weighman gives the weight every week fortnight, month, or quarter. The only thing that takes place is that the surveyor or engineer sometimes goes down once a quarter or every six months. The danger that will arise with regard to this concession will be that the general supervision mentioned in this Clause as to collection and everything else will be used by the mineral right owners in the payment of the expenses of their general office and looking after their general estate, and not with regard to mining royalties. I want to point out that there was a concession made with regard to the-rental of houses where a deduction of one-sixth was allowed but that was for repairs, and when that Income Tax was laid upon the owners in 1910 or 1911 all things were taken into consideration at that time.
All that has to be done as far as rents of houses are concerned. When this imposition was made by Parliament some years ago, everything was taken into consideration, and if hon. Members will consider the report of the Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold Company they will find there that they state that they have been mining coal and have made only a profit of 6d. per ton for the last 20 years, while the royalty owners have taken 1s. 8d. per ton during the whole of that 20 years. That is a burden placed upon the industry. In that way some £8,000,000 are taken annually from the industry, and it should not be forgotten that mineral light owners pay no rates at all to the local authorities. A great deal of discontent has been caused owing to the greatly increased amount paid in this way during the period of high prices, when all this money was taken by the owners without a single penny being contributed by them to assist the rates.
It has been suggested in this Debate that no concessions have been made to the wage earners. May I be allowed to quote what the Royal Commission says on this point?
During the course of our inquiry we received many complaints that certain items should be allowed for Income Tax purposes which are not allowed at the present time.
They give a certain number of them, and then they proceed in their Report:
The wage earner gets a flat rate allowance for tools, clothing and other expenses under an arrangement made with the Board of Inland Revenue, and we think this arrangement with weekly wage earners should he continued.
They proceed to deal with other items, and in dealing with minerals or mineral rights they say that the owner should be allowed the expenses of management or supervision. That is what this Clause does, The Royal Commission also considered the suggestion which has been put forward by Members of the Labour party, and they say in their Report:
Allowances for travelling expenses incurred by a taxpayer in going from his place of residence to his business should not, in our view be allowed. The question of travelling expenses re-acts upon other expenses which are necessarily incurred in order to earn the income. We all know that the general allowance for travelling expenses would result in very grave inequality.
That Report is signed by C. W. Bower-man William Brace and William Graham. Let me add one word in conclusion. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) suggests that this is an unfair concession. Surely he is the last Member of the House who should complain of the concession. He is closely connected with, and has represented for many years, a certain section of the community to which this House has given special privileges in the way of exemption from Income Tax. He should be the last to object to this proposal when we know that the co-operative
society with which he is connected is exempt from both Income Tax and Corporation Profits Tax.
That is the sort of argument one is always hearing from the other side of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who used it does not appear to understand that by the exemption of the Co-operative movement from Income Tax the whole community is benefited, because cheaper food thereby becomes available. But this remission of taxation to the mining industry does not benefit any class of the community. Coal will not be one farthing cheaper. People interested in the coal trade and in the use of coal will not benefit in any way. The only people who will benefit will be the individuals who now happen to be sucking the life blood out of the coal industry. These people in the days when the coal trade is suffering worse than any other industry in the community are going to get more relief.
I have only risen for the purpose of trying to remove a misapprehension which the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew (Sir J. Greig) appears to have fallen into. When he quoted from the Report of the Income Tax Commission he evidently was trying to bring a certain amount of prejudice against workmen on account of concessions made to them. The reasons why those concessions were granted were that the workmen because of the industry in which they were employed had their clothing destroyed by the work they were performing. For instance, men working in chemical works find their boots and shirts destroyed and eaten away by the chemicals. The same thing applies to glass furnace workers and also to gas workers. The men employed have to don a different garb to the one in which they travel to and from their home. The reason why these concessions were made to particular classes of workmen was to help them meet the extraordinary expenditure which they had to incur for clothing.
When this tax was introduced 10 or 12 years ago there was nothing more popular in the country. Nothing was ever better accepted. The only objection raised to it was that it was too small. I would have liked to have seen the Prime Minister here to-day, as he was such an urgent advocate of the tax which is now to be whittled away. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Law Officers of the Crown what is the pecuniary status of the people to whom this concession is made. The hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew (Sir J. Greig) tried to draw a comparison between these people and the case of the Co-operative movement. But there is no analogy possible between the two. These people have done nothing for the public good. There has been no enterprise on their part. Their gains are due entirely to the enterprise of industrial workers. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would refer to the Report of the Coal Commission which sat in 1919. He will find there that the people who are going to have this concession are in a very good financial position; some even are in receipt of £13 per hour for 24 hours of the day, seven days to the week, and 52 weeks to the year. Others are getting £9 per hour throughout the year. An hon. Member who spoke just now said he was glad, as a coalowner, that this burden of royalties had been put on the industry. I think he is the first coalowner who has ever expressed such a view.
The data on which the royalty owner is enabled to base his claim are supplied by the coalowners themselves, and to-day they are groaning under the burden which is laid on them, with the result that many mines are being closed down. The royalties are in fact handicapping the mining industry, and when we suggested proposals last week to secure some amenities for the people who labour in the mines under terrible conditions— men who to-day are getting a bare living wage—the concession was refused, whereas these people who, by mere good fortune, are able to draw from £6,000,000 to £8,000,000 a year of unearned income are now to be granted a further concession for which, I submit, there is no justification. These people have already had Is. taken off their Income Tax, and the public will say, in consequence, and will have a right to say, that this Budget has been considered, not from the standpoint of the nation's needs, but according to the pleasure of the rich people in this country and in response to the coercion which they have brought to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both inside and outside this House, pressure which has enabled them to secure concessions they can well afford to do without. Bear in mind the burdens which are placed on local authorities to the alleviation of which these people contribute nothing. They arc themselves responsible for an enormous amount of the unemployment which exists at the present time in the County of Durham. Mines arc being closed down owing to the extortionate charges they are insisting upon, and that in itself is adding enormously to the burden of the local ratepayers.
Why, then, should they get this benefit? In the first three months of this year they have drawn out of the County of Durham alone £234,776. and they have not contributed one farthing towards the cost of producing it. Surely they ought to be taxed to assist unemployment. We understand that a Measure is to be passed to assist those now unemployed by reducing the interval during which the unemployment benefit cannot be drawn from five weeks to one week hut the people responsible for that unemployment are to have a reduction of the burden which they are called upon to pay I hope this matter will be further considered by the Government. We should have preferred to see the tax extended instead of being whittled away. These people are put to no expense in gathering their royalties. I have had 15 years' experience as a check weighman, and I know how the returns are made, both to the owners and to the nation. The Secretary for Mines gets all the returns sent to him, and the same sources of information are equally open to the royalty owners. If this concession goes through, it will simply assist men who really ought not to be relieved of any further financial obligations.
My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Greig) admitted in his opening remark that he was not a defender of mineral rights. Evidently, judging by his speech, he does not know exactly where he stands, but, at any rate, we can claim for him that he is a loyal defender of the Government, as, when the crack of the whip is heard and the pistol is discharged, the hon. and gallant Gentleman places himself at their disposal every time. I am exceedingly sorry the Prime Minister is not in his place to-day. I think that, in view of the importance of this concession, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well have requested his presence this afternoon, so that he might listen to some of the remarks that have been made by past supporters of his in regard to these particular taxes. I am reminded of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister a considerable time back—
I am sorry the procedure of the House does not permit me to read this quotation from the Prime Minister's speech, because it would have conveyed to the House and the public at large very definite expressions of opinion showing how people argue according to the company they keep. I have, however, no desire to depart from the ruling of the Chair, although I hope the time will come when I shall be able to give the House the benefit of the quotation. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir J. Greig) referred to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean.) I am not here to defend the hon. Member for Govan. He is well able to do that himself, but I want to disclaim at once the suggestion that he speaks as the official representative of the movement to which the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew has referred. I wart to say very definitely, and I hope my statement will be accepted. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman read another portion of the report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax?
I am much obliged, Sir. What I wanted to refer to was the fact that the statement of the Royal Commission on Income Tax puts a different complexion on the situation from that given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I only regret that he should have used that opportunity to endeavour to delude the House as to the real issue. The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) spoke of the difficulties and the terrible troubles with which these owners of mineral rights are now being confronted, but would he suggest that they should relieve themselves of the burden by the Government accepting the principles incorporated in the Report of the Sankey Commission, which suggested that these mineral rights should be nationalised? If these people are so exceedingly poor under the present conditions, there is ample opportunity for them to come within the purview of the decision of that Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is usually very loyal to the decisions of Commissions. During the whole of the Budget Debate he was telling us of his loyalty to the Royal Commission on Income Tax. Is he now loyal to the Sankey Commission? It is exceedingly apparent that he has departed from that principle. I venture to submit to the House that, if it is fair to stand loyally by the decisions of one Royal Commission, it is equally fair to stand loyally by the decisions which have been arrived at by other Royal Commissions. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) dealt with the fact that many vital principles are being gradually but effectively whittled away. May I remind the House that it was only last year that the Land Values Duty went? The Land Values Duty was established as the result of a great land campaign in this country, the head of which was the Prime Minister. That was repealed last year—
I think you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty in which a Member is sometimes placed in endeavouring to reply to many of the speeches that have been made without some reiteration of what has gone before, and who, at any rate, endeavours to do his best under somewhat difficult circumstances. I want to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is going to carry out this Clause and give this concession to the owners of mineral rights, to insist also on subjecting these people to local rates. Why should they be liberated from those rates? Why should they be able to stand on one side and refuse to pay their quota towards the local expenses that are incurred? I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will review the situation with a view, at any rate, to giving greater justice to all in the community who are concerned.
I understood that the Solicitor-General, speaking a few minutes ago on behalf of the Government, gave his assent to a very simple and very definite principle of taxation, namely, that, so far as the Income Tax is concerned, the subject should not be taxed upon income which he does not get—and by that, I presume, the hon. and learned Gentleman means income which the subject does not enjoy. That is a principle to which I, for one, am quite ready to give general assent, and my object in rising is to ask the Solicitor-General if the Government intend to give general application to that simple principle. Upon the answer to that question will depend the vote which I, for one, shall give in this particular Division. Already in the course of the Debate two cases have been mentioned where that principle is not in operation at the moment, and I understand that with regard to one of them an Amendment will be brought before the House later, namely, the Amendment dealing with the question of allowances in respect of railway fares to workmen. I should like to ask the Solicitor-General if, before we go to a Division, he would tell us what is to be the attitude of the Government upon that matter, because, if he is going to give general application to his principle, then, I, for one, should be quite disposed to support this new Clause; but if we have to make a choice between the concession in this new Clause on the one hand and the concession in respect of railway travelling to workers on the other. I should certainly support the concession with respect to railway travelling rather than this concession.
I confess to considerable embarrassment in dealing with this Clause, owing to your inclination, Mr. Speaker, to dissociate and distinctly separate it from any reference tee to land. I have the utmost respect for your rulings, which are always right, and I am the more prepared to accept them because they are given in so courteous and firm a manner that no Member of the House would dare to refuse to do so. I only want to say that I urn pleased to be in a very different atmosphere from that in which I have been during the past week. My difficulty here is that we are dealing with minerals, with the very bowels of the earth itself, and how to dissect the bowels of the earth without dealing with the earth is my difficulty. However, I do not propose to go into the intricacies of the case, and I am not going to labour the question very long. I am afraid I should be transgressing if I went as far as my inclination would lead me. I could go much farther back then the Prime Minister. I could go back to Genesis if I liked.
I see that the hon. Member's trouble is that, having been otherwise engaged, he has not heard the Debate, and, therefore, does not, perhaps. quite appreciate the relevance of the matter. I think he had better wait for another opportunity.
|Division No. 217.]||AYES.||[7.5 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)||Pratt, John William|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.|
|Archer-Shce, Lieut.-Colonel Martin||Harris, Sir Henry Percy||Purchase, H. G.|
|Armitage, Robert||Haslam, Lewis||Rae, Sir Henry N.|
|Armstrong, Henry Bruce||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Ramsden, G. T.|
|Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Randies, Sir John Scurrah|
|Asthury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.||Hinds, John||Rankin, Captain James Stuart|
|Atkey, A. R.||Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.||Ratcliffe, Henry Butler|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton,||Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Hope, J. D, (Berwick & Haddington)||Remer, J. R.|
|Ballour, George (Hampstead)||Hopkins, John W. W.||Remnant, Sir James|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Renwick, Sir George|
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-||Houfton, John Plowright||Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Houston, Sir Robert Patterson||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)|
|Barrand, A, R,||Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert||Hurd. Percy A.||Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.||? Rodger, A. K.|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Birchall, J. Dearman||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Roundel!, Colonel R. F.|
|Bird. Sir William B. M. (Chichester)||Johnson, Sir Stanley||Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund|
|Blair, Sir Reginald||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George||Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Kidd, James||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Brown, Major D. C.||Larmor, Sir Joseph||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)|
|Bruton, Sir James||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ.,Wales)||Seager, Sir William|
|Burdon, Colonel Rowland||Lindsay, William Arthur||Seddon, J. A.|
|Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes||Lister, Sir R. Ashton||Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Lloyd, George Butler||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Lorden, John William||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)|
|Casey, T. W.||Lort-Williams, J.||Simm, M. T.|
|Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Chamberlain. N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)|
|Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H, H. spenoer||Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)||Stanton, Charles Butt|
|Clough, Sir Robert||McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)||Starkey, Captain John Ralph|
|Cobb Sir Cyril||McMicking, Major Gilbert||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Conway, Sir w. Martin||Magnus, Sir Philip||Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.|
|Cope, Major William||Maitland, sir Arthur D. Steel-||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)||Mallalieu, Frederick William||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henie)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Malone, Major P, B. (Tottenham, S.)||Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)|
|Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Daizlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)||Marriott, John Arthur Ransome||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Martin, A. E,||Tickler, Thomas George|
|Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)||Matthews, David||Townley, Maximilian G.|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Middlebrook, Sir William||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)||Mitchell, Sir William Lane||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Morrison, Hugh||Waddington, R.|
|Dockreil, Sir Maurice||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor|
|Evans, Ernest||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Walton, J, (York, W. R., Don Valley)|
|Eyres Monsell, Com. Bolton M.||Murchison, C. K.||Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)|
|Falle. Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)||Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)|
|Fell, Sir Arthur||Murray, John (Leeds, West)||Weston, Colonel John Wakefield|
|Fildes. Henry||Neal, Arthur||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.|
|FitzRoy, Captain Hon, Edward A.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||White, Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Flannory, Sir James Fortescue||Newson, Sir Percy Wilson||Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V|
|Ford, Patrick Johnston||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Williams, C. (Tavistock)|
|Forrest, Walter||Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)||Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)|
|Frece, Sir Walter de !||Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Gee, Captain Robert||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Wilson. Capt. A. S. (Holderness)|
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Nield, Sir Herbert||Windsor, Viscount|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Winterton, Earl|
|Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.||Wise, Frederick|
|Glyn, Major Ralph||Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John||Wood, Hon. Edward F. L, (Ripon)|
|Goff, Sir R. Park||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, Watt)|
|Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Pain, Brig,-Gen. Sir W. Hacket||Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)|
|Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)||Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.||Woolcock, William James U.|
|Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Parker, James||Yes. sir Alfred William|
|Greig, Colonel Sir James William||Pearce, Sir William||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike||Younger, Sir George|
|Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)|
|Gauthrle, Thomas Maule||Perkins, Walter Frank||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Perring, William George !||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.|
|Hamilton, Sir George C.||Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray||McCurdy.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.||Gregory, Holman||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Adamson, Fit. Hon. William||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Poison, Sir Thomas A.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Amnion, Charles George||Grundy, T. W.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Banton, George||Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Royce, William Stapleton.|
|Barnes, Major H (Newcastle, E-)||Hallas, Eldred||Sexton, James|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Halls, Walter||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Hayday, Arthur||Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hayward, Evan||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Spoor, B. G.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Hills, Major John Waller||Sutton, John Edward|
|Briant, Frank||Hirst, G, H.||Swan, J. E.|
|Bromfield, William||Hogge, James Myles||Taylor, J.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Holmes, J. Stanley||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Cairns, John||Irving, Dan||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cape, Thomas||Jephcott, A. R.||Tillett, Benjamin|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Johnstone, Joseph||Waterson, A. E.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Watts-Morgan, Lieut-Col. D.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kennedy, Thomas||Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander J. M.||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Kenyon, Barnet||Wignall, James|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Lunn, William||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Wilson, James (Dudley)|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)||Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)|
|Foot, Isaac||Mosley, Oswald||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Gillis, William||Myers, Thomas||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Newbould, Alfred Ernest|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Raffan and Mr. Lawson.|
|Division No. 218.]||AYES.||[7.19 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sr. James Tynte||: Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.||Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)||Houfton, John Plowright|
|Armstrong, Henry Bruce||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Houston, Sir Robert Patterson|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.||Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Atkey, A. R.||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)||Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.|
|Balrd, Sir John Lawrence||Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.|
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-||Dawson, Sir Philip||Jodrell, Neville Paul|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Dockrell, Sir Maurice||Johnson, Sir Stanley|
|Barrand, A. R,||Evans, Ernest||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)||Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.||Kidd, James|
|Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Fell, Sir Arthur||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase||Fildes, Henry||Larmor, Sir Joseph|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||FltzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Flannery, Sir James Fortescue||Lewis, Rt. Hon J. H (Univ., Wales)'|
|Birchall, J. Dearman||Forrest, Walter||Lindsay, William Arthur|
|Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)||Frece, Sir Walter de||Lister, Sir R. Ashton|
|Blair, Sir Reginald||Gee, Captain Robert||Lloyd, George Butler|
|Berwick, Major G. O.||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Lorden, John William|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Gilbert, James Daniel||Lort-Williams, J.|
|Briggs, Harold||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John||Loseby, Captain C. E.|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Glyn, Major Ralph||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)|
|Brown, Major D. C.||Goff, Sir R. Park||Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachle)|
|Bruton, Sir James||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack-y, N.)||McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)|
|Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||McMicking, Major Gilbert|
|Burdon, Colonel Rowland||Grelg, Colonel Sir James William||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.||Macpherson Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Maitland. Sir Arthur D. Steel-|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Guthrie, Thomas Maule||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)|
|Casey, T. W.||Hamilton, Sir George C.||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Marriott, John Arthur Ransome|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)||Martin, A. E.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Harris, Sir Henry Percy||Matthews. David|
|Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender||Haslam, Lewis||Middlebrook, Sir William|
|Clough, Sir Robert||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Mitchell, Sir William Lane|
|Cobb. Sir Cyril||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Morden, Col. W, Grant|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hinds, John||Morrison, Hugh|
|Calvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)||Murchison, C. K.|
|Cope, Major William||Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)||Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)|
|Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)||Hopkins, John W. W.||Murray, John (Leeds, West)|
|Neal, Arthur||Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Newman, Sir S. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)||Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)|
|Newson, Sir Percy Wilson||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)|
|Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)||Tickler, Thomas George|
|Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)||Rodger, A. K.||Townley, Maximilian G.|
|Nield, Sir Herbert||Rothschild, Lionel de||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Waddington, R.|
|Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund||Walters, Rt. Hon, Sir John Tudor|
|Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket||Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)||Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)|
|Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)|
|Parker, James||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur||Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)|
|Pearce, Sir William||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Weston, Colonel John Wakefield|
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.|
|Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)||Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)||White, Col. G. D (Southport)|
|Perkins, Walter Frank||Seager, Sir William||Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.|
|Perring, William George||Seddon, J. A.||Williams, C. (Tavistock)|
|Pickering, Colonel Emil W.||Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John||Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)|
|Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray||Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)||Windsor, Viscount.|
|Pratt, John William||Simm, M. T.||Winterton, Earl|
|Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)||Wise, Frederick|
|Purchase, H. G.||Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)||Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Rae, Sir Henry N.||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Ramsden, G. T.||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)||Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)|
|Randies, Sir John Scurrah||Stanton, Charles Butt||Woolcock, William James U.|
|Rankin, Captain James Stuart||Starkey, Captain John Ralph||Yeo, Sir Alfred William|
|Ratcliffe, Henry Butler||Steel, Major S. Strang||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick feel||Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.||Younger, Sir George|
|Remer, J. R.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Remnant, Sir James||Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Renwick, Sir George||Sutherland, Sir William||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. MeCurdy.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis O.||Gregory, Holman||Newbould, Alfred Ernest|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Grundy, T. W.||Poison, Sir Thomas A.|
|Banton, George||Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Hallas, Eldred||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)||Halls. Walter||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Hayday, Arthur||Sexton, James|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hayward, Evan||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Widnes)||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Hills, Major John Waller||Spoor, B. G.|
|Briant, Frank||Hirst, G. H.||Sutton, John Edward|
|Bromfield, William||Hogge, James Myles||Swan, J. E.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Holmes, J. Stanley||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Cairns, John||Irving, Dan||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cape, Thomas||Johnstone, Joseph||Wallace, J.|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham. Mansfield)||Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)||Waterson, A. E.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)||Kennedy, Thomas||Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.|
|dynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.||Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Kenyon, Barnet||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Ciltheroe)||Kiley, James Daniel||Wignall, James|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)||Lunn, William||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Wilson, James (Dudley)|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)||Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge).|
|Foot, Isaac||Macquisten, F. A.||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Mosley, Oswald||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Gillis, William||Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Myers, Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. Raffan and Mr. Lawson.|
Question put, and agreed to.
I suggest that it would be very much to the convenience of the House if you, Mr. Speaker, would very kindly give an intimation now as to which of the new Clauses you propose to take, or, at any rate, the next three or four of them. If I might, with great respect, put that suggestion to you, I think it would be to the general convenience.
We still have the Government Clauses to dispose of. Then, coming to the other Clauses on the Paper, I propose to take, first, the new Clause (Deduction in respect of daughter acting as housekeeper to widower)standing in the name of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes). Next, I shall call upon the Hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) to move his Clause (Repayment of duty improperly collected under 11 and 12 Geo. V., c.47). Following that, I proposed to call on the Clause (Reciprocal exemption of foreign shipping) standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. A. Shaw).