Orders of the Day — Fourth Schedule. — (Amendment of enactments relating to reliefs from Income Tax.)

– in the House of Commons on 1st October 1931.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Sir George Benson Sir George Benson , Chesterfield

I beg to move, in page 18, to leave out lines 5 to 21.

It will probably be for the convenience of the Committee if the various Amendments on this Schedule are discussed together. The attack that we have made upon the proposed alteration of the various allowances has not been answered. Little or no attempt has been made, either by the Financial Secretary or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to answer the charges that we have brought against the changes or the arguments that we have adduced. When the Financial Secretary came to reply in the Debate on the Budget Resolution, he gave an exhibition of dodging and sidestepping which would have done credit to a professional boxer. It was the finest exhibition of shadow boxing that I have seen in the House. When I moved the rejection of the Budget Resolution and the rejection of Clause 8, the one thing tried to make clear was that I was not proposing to attack the graduation upon a basis of percentages. If you deal with Income Tax reductions on a basis of percentages you can prove anything. On each occasion I very carefully avoided a single percentage. I compared like with like, whether it was a case of similar burdens or similar ranges of income. The Financial Secretary sheered off on to the subject of percentages and ridiculed the idea that, because a man at one range of income had a 300 per cent. increase and another a 10 per cent. increase, there was a grievance. No one claims that a large percentage on one range is a grievance as compared with a similar percentage on another range. Our case is that the actual burdens are utterly different, and it does not rest on a fantastic comparison of percentages. I took a case of equal burden. I took a married man with three children at £800 a year. His burden has been increased by £36. I compared that, not with a man with £20,000 or £30,000 but with a single man who had an increase of burden of £36, and that was a man with £1,600 a year, exactly double the income but bearing a similar burden.

The charge against this alteration of allowances is that quite unjustifiably and unwarrantably it increases the burden on the married man, not relatively but actually, more than it increases the burden on the single man. A married, man with three children starts paying tax at the rate of £400 a year. He pays £5. A single man with a. similar income pays £33. There is there a difference of £28 in the tax payment, but I claim that the mere difference of £28 in the tax payment between a single man and a married man with three children is nothing like sufficient differentiation. If we take the largest differentiation under the old Schedule, it was £56, no matter what the range of income. The largest differentiation in the May Budget between a single man and a married man with three children was £56. That maximum differentiation has now been reduced to £45. The married man with three children has been penalised to the extent of £11 as compared with a single man with the same income. That is not a question of percentages. It is not a question of comparing a man with £200 or £300 a. year and the burden he bears with that of a man with £15,000 or £20,000. It is a similar range of income. It is not a percentage burden. but a definite actual burden on the married man with three children of £11 more than in the case of a single man, and that is utterly and completely unjustifiable. Last night, in reply to the Debate on the Clause, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: The sole reason why there is a plausible case for alleging that there is unfair discrimination against the married man as compared with the single man is because the married man hitherto has been most generously treated in comparison with the single man."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1931; col. 464, Vol. 257.] That is not true. Throughout the scale the married man with a family has not been generously treated as compared with the single man. I pointed out that the single man with no burdens, with a far smaller establishment to maintain, with far fewer responsibilities, is at a disadvantage upon the old scale of £56 and on the present scale of £45. Does the Financial Secretary suggest that a reduction in tax of £45 is equivalent compensation for the cost of maintaining a wife and three children and all that that entails? The attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night suggested that we were trying to rob him of some revenue. On the contrary, we were not complaining, and as far as I know no one on this side of the Committee has complained about the lowering of the level at which Income Tax is to be paid. We are complaining of the unfair graduations. We maintain that the single man, particularly in the middle and higher ranges of income, can in this present crisis contribute more to the State than he is doing or is being asked to contribute. He should be asked to shoulder a burden which bears more relationship in sacrifice to the burden which a married man with a family is bearing.

It is more revenue out of the Income Tax we want and not less. The revenue received from the single man who can well afford to pay more than he is being asked to pay at the moment could be used to modify other parts of the Income Tax, or to get rid of indirect taxation, such as has been placed upon tobacco and entertainments, or, better still, could be used to balance the Budget without the necessity of cutting down the unemployed man by 10 per cent. We want a reasonable adjustment of burdens to the backs that bear them. If a married man, at any range of income you like, having to maintain a wife and three children, can pay £x, a single man with a similar income can pay far more than £x plus £45 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking him to bear. That is our case against the Schedule, and it has not been met. There has been no attempt to meet it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, and particularly the Financial Secretary, have slid off by ridiculing supposed percentages. They have not attempted to answer the definite charge that in the present Finance Bill and under this particular Schedule a single man is not asked to bear anything like the burden he could bear, and that if he did bear it various other things which the Government propose would not be done.

Photo of Mr John Arnott Mr John Arnott , Kingston upon Hull South West

I regret very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in his place, because, although he did not attempt to reply to a single argument advanced either by me or by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), he thought it worth while to attack us about our ignorance. I will quote the exact words he used. I interjected that in regard to allowances he gave the biggest benefit to the highest incomes, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: We give the benefit just where it is needed, and, if the hon. Member, who has shown his ignorance of this question on many occasions in the course of this Debate, will acquaint himself with the facts he will find that when we get to a certain point in incomes— I want hon. Members to mark this— the effect of all allowances disappears."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th September, 1931; col. 466, Vol. 257.] I do not pretend to have any great knowledge of the intricacies of finance and of Budgets, but I can do simple addition and subtraction, and I can read the figures which the officials of the Treasury supply. I am always willing to learn, but it is as well to be quite certain that the people who give you information give you accurate information. The Chancellor said last night that on higher incomes the difference between earned income and unearned income disappears, and he also told us that the difference between the position of a married man with a family and a single man disappeared. Neither of these statements is true, as his own White Paper will show. Surely, an income of £100,000 is a large income. The man with an income of £100,000 which is claimed to be earned pays £75 a year less because of the fact that his income is earned. These figures are in the White Paper issued by the Treasury. A married man with three children, with an income of £100,000, receives £45 in allowances, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a statement without a word of truth and without a shred of foundation that these allowances disappear in regard to the higher incomes, he must have thought we were more ignorant than we really are.

The facts are that a man with an income of £100,000 gets £75 allowance, and a man with £25,000 gets £75 allowance, right down to £2,000—I believe right down even to £1,500. There is the same allowance on all the higher incomes from Super-tax level upwards. Not only so, but the allowances which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said did not exist have actually been increased by him in this Budget. In the last Budget the allowance made to a man with an income of £100,000 if it was earned—I do not know whether anyone can earn that sum or not; it is another question upon which I am ignorant—was £56, and it has been increased. On the other hand, the allowances paid to these wealthy people in respect of families has been diminished. To-day he allows them £45 as against £58 in April, which means that they are, roughly speaking, about £10 worse off. I think I have demonstrated beyond peradventure that the men of high income do receive allowances. The document presented to the House by the Financial Secretary, although misleading in seine respects, is accurate in its figures. I cannot say the same of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this regard. A married man with £100,000 receives in his allowance in respect to earned income and in his allowance in respect to his wife and children a total sum of £120. That is much more than a man with an income of £400 gets.

I will take the case of a single man. To the single man with an income of £150, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in April, allowed £25 in respect of earned income and a personal allowance of £135, making a total allowance of £165. Therefore, he was free of tax. Under the present proposals, one-fifth is deducted for earned income, amounting to £30, and £100 is granted as personal allowance, making a total of £130. Previously that man was entirely clear of Income Tax, but now he has to pay on £20. The man with an income of £300 had. an allowance in respect of earned income of £50 and a personal allowance of £135, amounting to £185, which left him with a taxable income of £115. Under the present proposals, that man gets an allowance of £60 in respect of earned income and a personal allowance of £100, making £160, or a reduction of £25 in allowance. Therefore, he has to pay tax upon an additional £25. The single man with an income of £150 now pays tax on £20 more than before, the man with an. income of £200 pays on £29 more than before, the man with £300 pays on £25 more, and the man with £1,500 pays on £15 less.

The man with an income of £1,500 could deduct from his earned income, last April, £250, and he had a personal allowance of £135, making a total allowance of £385, which left him with £1,115 of taxable income. To-day, in order to share the sacrifice imposed upon other people, he gets an allowance of £300 in respect of earned income, and a personal allowance of £100, making a total of £1,100 taxable income, or £15 less of taxable income than before. Therefore, the single man with £1,500 income pays tax on £15 less, while the man with £200 income pays on £29 more than he did before. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary will not talk about percentages when dealing with the £1,500 a year man. Our criticism has never been met and cannot be met, because the facts are against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you have a percentage reduction upon incomes up to £1,500 with a maximum allowance of £300 for earned income, it follows that £300 is one-fifth of £1,500. It does not require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make that calculation. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we do not consider the allowances he cannot have listened to a single word which we have uttered. It is the allowance on the higher earned incomes combined with a flat rate on the lower personal and dependants' incomes which is responsible for all the anomalies to which we have called attention. I think I have proved my case, and that it does not always do to accept the arithmetic of the Front Bench.

Photo of Mr Walter Elliot Mr Walter Elliot , Glasgow Kelvingrove

It seems to me to be necessary to say the same things again and again, therefore, I shall have to say it again. I do not wish to say anything harsh in regard to what the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Arnott) has said and, therefore, I will not use the winged and barbed words which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used. I will call his attention to the figures and leave it at that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that when we got to a certain point in incomes the effect of all allowances disappears.

Photo of Mr John Arnott Mr John Arnott , Kingston upon Hull South West

They do not disappear. The £75 does not disappear.

Photo of Mr Walter Elliot Mr Walter Elliot , Glasgow Kelvingrove

The hon. Member went into the grave question of the allowances of the man with £100,000 a year. It seems to bear very keenly upon him. He pointed out that a married man with £100,000 a year gets an allowance of £120. Evidently he thought that this vitiated the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not arguing with the hon. Member for South-West Hull, he was telling him that at these ranges the effect of the allowances disappeared. A married man with £100,000 a year pays £61,490 in taxation; therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in saying that on a tax amounting to £61,490 the effect of an allowance of £120 disappears, was surely stating what is simple and obvious to everyone.

Photo of Mr Walter Elliot Mr Walter Elliot , Glasgow Kelvingrove

I do not want to stress the point with the hon. Member.

Photo of Mr John Arnott Mr John Arnott , Kingston upon Hull South West

If the Financial Secretary will admit that £75 is less than £15 there may he some point in his argument.

Photo of Mr Walter Elliot Mr Walter Elliot , Glasgow Kelvingrove

I am perfectly willing to admit that £75 is more than £15 if the hon. Member will also admit that the effect of £120 on a sum of £61,490 is negligible. If the hon. Member is willing to give me £61,490 I will not quarrel with him if it is £120 short. Let me come to the case advanced by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). He said that we should not go into a discussion of percentages but compare the actual weight of the taxation which is being called for from people of various ranges of income. Let me compare one or two cases. Take the case of a married man who the hon. Member says is being asked to carry a disproportionate amount of taxation as compared with a single man. He said: "Let us compare like with like." I will take like with like and compare the case of a single person with that of a married man with three children both enjoying exactly similar incomes.

A married man with three children and an income of £135 pays nothing; a single man pays £1. It is clear that a married man with that income is not being asked to contribute anything at all. Take the next range of income, that of £200 a year. There again, the married man with three children is not asked to contribute anything, while the single man is asked to pay £7 10s. Surely that shows that quite a reasonable burden is being laid upon the single man. Take the next range of income, £300 a year. There again, the married man with three children is not asked to pay anything, while the single man is asked to pay £17 10s. These are not percentages, but gross sums which the taxgatherer takes from his income. So far, the married man with three children escapes without one penny of taxation whatever. Take the next range of income, £400 per year. The married man with three children pays £5, but the single man pays £33 2s. 6d., or six times as much. I think these figures will go far to disprove the contentions of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). We come to the income of £500 a year, on which the married man with three children pays £15 and the single man pays £53 2s. 6d. All these figures destroy the case which is being advanced by the hon. Member for Chesterfield.

Photo of Sir George Benson Sir George Benson , Chesterfield

In a nutshell my case is whether, on the maximum differentiation, there is a difference of £45 payable by the single man more than is paid by the married man with three children. That differentiation is not anything like enough. The single man who pays only £45 more tax than the married man with three children, could pay vastly more.

Photo of Mr Walter Elliot Mr Walter Elliot , Glasgow Kelvingrove

In the £400 range, which I have quoted, the single man is paying £33 2s. 6d. and the married man is paying £5. For the hon. Member for Chesterfield to say that that is not a steep enough gradation, and that that should be enormously increased, shows a class or trade union prejudice by the married man of family against the single class. I do not wish to take it any further. If he contends as a married man that £5 is an unreasonably large sum to pay, he will have a great deal of difficulty in convincing a single man, and still more a single woman, that a tax of £33 2s. 6d. for the same income is not a considerable addition, despite the fact that the married man has a great deal more responsibility than the single person. I do not wish to go further into the matter. These figures have been examined and re-examined, and canvassed and re-canvassed.

Photo of Mr John Bowen Mr John Bowen , Crewe

Not by married people.

Photo of Mr Walter Elliot Mr Walter Elliot , Glasgow Kelvingrove

These are the figures which have been drawn up and supplied to married people as well as to single people, and they show that, compared with the single person, the married person in the low range of income is let off with only a fraction of the tax of the single man, that, as compared with previous Budgets, or say with the Budget of the 1924 Administration, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was supported in the House by his then party, no increase of burden in many cases has been laid upon the married person. They cannot escape from the logic of the facts. There is no doubt that they can show, by per-

centage of increase and by re-arrangements of the figures, that the burden is heavier and that the increase is steeper in this last year on the married person, than it is on the others. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has truly said that the married man had previously very wide and increased allowances given him. These burdens are heavier than many of us would like to see, and will be felt heavily by people in all ranges. Yet they are not an unreasonable demand to make from the citizens. Many countries would be glad to escape from the crises that confront them at the cost of such sacrifices as we are asking from the citizens of this country.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 137.

Division No, 514.]AYES.[10.31 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-ColonelCockerill, Brig.-General Sir GeorgeGower, Sir Robert
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. CharlesCohen, Major J. BruneiGraham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Albery, Irving JamesColfox, Major William PhilipGranville, E.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)Collins, sir Godfrey (Greenock)Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)Colman, N. C. D.Greene, W. P. Crawford
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)Colville, Major D. J.Granted, Edward C. (City of London)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Cooper, A. DuffGriffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Aske, Sir RobertCourthope, Colonel Sir G. L.Gritten, W, G. Howard
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)Cranborne, ViscountGunston, Captain D. W.
Atholl, Duchess ofCrichton Stuart, Lord C.Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Atkinson, C.Croft, Brigadier-General Sir HHamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)Crookshank, Capt. H. C.Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)Hanbury, C.
Balniel, LordCunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir PhilipHannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Beamish, Bear-Admiral T. P. H.Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir GodfreyHarris, Percy A.
Beaumont, M. W.Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)Hartington, Marquess of
Bellairs, Commander CartyonDavies, Dr. VernonHarvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Berry, Sir GeorgeDavies, E. C. (Montgomery)Haslam, Henry C.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Birchall, Major Sir John DearmanDawson, Sir PhilipHeneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Blindell, JamesDenman, Hon. R. D.Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Boothby, R. J. G.Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Bowater, Col. Sir T. VansittartDixey, A. C.Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. HerbertHudson, capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Boyce, LeslieDuckworth, G. A. V.Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Bracken, B.Dudgeon, Major C. R.Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Briscoe, Richard GeorgeDugdale, Capt. T. L.Hurd, Percy A.
Broadbent, Colonel J.Eden, Captain AnthonyHurst, Sir Gerald B.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)Edmondson, Major A. J.Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Buchan, JohnElliot, Major Walter E.Inskip, Sir Thomas
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.Elmley, ViscountIveagh, Countess of
Bullock, Captain MalcolmErskine, Lord (Somerset, Wetton-s-M.)Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.Everard, W. LindsayJones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Burton, Colonel H. W.Falle, Sir Bertram G.Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Cadogan, Major Hon. EdwardFerguson, Sir JohnJones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Caine, Hall-, DerwentFielden, E. B.Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Campbell, E. T.Foot, IsaacKedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Carver, Major W. H.Ford, Sir P. J.Kindersley, Major G. M.
Castle Stewart, Earl ofForestier-Walker, Sir L.Knox, Sir Alfred
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)Galbraith, J. F. W.Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.Ganzoni, Sir JohnLatham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. HamiltonLaw, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert BurtonGeorge, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, N. (Edgbaston)Gillett, George M.Lleweilln, Major J. J.
Christie. J. A.Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir JohnLocker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Clydesdale, Marquess ofGlassey, A. E.Locker-Lampson, Com, O.(Handsw'th)
Cobb, Sir CyrilGlyn, Major R. G, C.Longs, Major Hon. Eric
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.Power, Sir John CecilSomerset, Thomas
Lymington, ViscountPybus, Percy JohnSomerville, A. A. (Windsor)
McConnell, Sir JosephRamsay, T. B. WilsonSouthby, Commander A. R. J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)Ramsbotham, H.Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)Rawson, Sir CooperStanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)Reid, David D. (County Down)Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.Homer, John R.Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Macquisten, F. A.Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Margesson, Captain H. D.Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)Thomson, Sir F.
Marjoribanks, EdwardRodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James RennellThomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Markham, S. F.Rosbotham, D. S. T.Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.Ross, Ronald D.Todd, Capt. A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. BoydRuggles-Brise, Colonel E.Train, J.
Millar, J. D.Salmon, Major I.Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir S.Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Morrison, W. S. (Gios., Cirencester)Sandeman, Sir N. StewartWaterhouse, Captain Charles
Muirhead, A. J.Savery, S. S.Wells, Sydney R.
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.Scott, JamesWhite, H. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)Shepperson, Sir Ernest WhittomeWindsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)Simms, Major-General J.Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
O'Connor, T. J.Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)Womersley, W. J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Oman, Sir Charles William C.Skelton, A. N.Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. WilliamSmith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Penny, Sir GeorgeSmith-Carington, Neville W.
Peters, Dr. Sidney JohnSmithers, WaldronTELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)Snowden, Rt. Hon. PhilipCaptain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)Hardie, David (Rutherglen)Palin, John Henry
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)Palmer, E. T.
Alpass, J. H.Haycock, A. W.Pethick-Lawrence, P. W.
Ammon, Charles GeorgeHenderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Arnott, JohnHenderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)Potts, John S.
Attlee, Clement RichardHerriotts, J.Price, M. P.
Ayles, WalterHirst, W. (Bradford, South)Quibell, D. J. K.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)Hoffman, P. C.Rathbone, Eleanor
Barr, JamesHopkin, DanielRichardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Batey, JosephHorrabin, J. F.Ritson, J.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)Romeril, H. G.
Benson, G.Isaacs, GeorgeSalter, Dr. Alfred
Bowen, J. W.Jenkins, Sir WilliamSamuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)Sanders, W. S.
Broad, Francis AlfredKelly, W. T.Sandham, E.
Brockway, A. FennerKennedy, Rt. Hon. ThomasSawyer, G. F.
Bromley, J.Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.Scurr, John
Brooke, W.Kinley, J.Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)Kirkwood, D.Shield, George William
Brown, Rt. Hen. J. (South Ayrshire)Lawrence, SusanShiels, Dr. Drummond
Buchanan, G.Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)Shillaker, J. F.
Burgess, F. G.Lawson, John JamesSimmons, C. J.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)Leach, W.Sitch, Charles H.
Cape, ThomasLee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Clarke, J. S.Longden, F.Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Cluse, W. S.McElwee, A.Stamford, Thomas W.
Cocks, Frederick SeymourMcEntee, V. L.Stephen, Campbell
Cripps, Sir StaffordMaclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Daggar, GeorgeMcShane, John JamesStrauss, G. R.
Dalton, HughMalone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)Sullivan, J.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)Mansfield, W.Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Marcus, M.Vaughan, David
Day, HarryMarley, J.Viant, S. P.
Dukes, C.Mathers, GeorgeWatkins, F. C.
Duncan, CharlesMaxton, JamesWatts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dunnico, H.Messer, FredWellock, Wilfred
Ede, James ChuterMiddleton, G.Welsh, James (Paisley)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)Milner, Major J.Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Egan, W. H.Montague, FrederickWhiteley, William (Blaydon)
Freeman, PeterMorley, RalphWilkinson, Ellen C.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gossling, A. G.Mort, D. L.Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)
Gould, F.Muggeridge, H. T.Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)Naylor, T. E.Winterton. G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)Noel Baker, P. J.Young, sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)
Srenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Groves, Thomas E.Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)Owen, H. F. (Hereford)Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

It being after Half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd September, successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.

Question put, "That this Schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 136.

Division No. 515.]AYES.[10.41 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut-ColonelEden, Captain AnthonyMacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ainsworth, Lieut-Col. CharlesEdmondson, Maj or A. J.Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Albery, Irving JamesElliot, Major Walter E.Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l., W.)Elmley, ViscountMacpherson, Rt Hon. James I.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)Macquisten, F. A.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Everard, W. LindsayMaitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Aske, Sir RobertFalle, Sir Bertram G.Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)Ferguson, Sir JohnMargesson, Captain H. D.
Atholl, Duches ofFielden, E. B.Markham, S. F.
Atkinson, C.Foot, IsaacMason, Colonel Glyn K.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)Ford, Sir P. J.Merriman, Sir F, Boyd
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I.of Thanet)Forestier-Walker, Sir L.Millar, J. D.
Balniel, LordFremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.Milne, Wardlaw, J. S.
Beaumont, M. W.Galbraith, J. F. W.Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Bellairs, Commander CariyonGanzoni, Sir JohnMoore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Betterton, sir Henry B.Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. HamiltonMorrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Birchall, Major Sir John DearmanGeorge, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)Muirhead, A. J.
Blindell, JamesGeorge, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Boothby, R. J. G.Gillett, George M,Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. VansittartGilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir JohnNewton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.Glassey, A. E,Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Boyce, LeslieGlyn, Major R. G. C.O'Connor, T. J.
Bracken, B.Gower, Sir RobertOliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Briscoe, Richard GeorgeGraham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Broadbent, Colonel J.Granville, E.Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon William
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.Owen, Major G, (Carnarvon)
Buchan, JohnGreene, W, P. CrawfordPenny, Sir George
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Bullock, Captain MalcolmGriffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.Gritten, W. G. HowardPower, Sir John Cecil
Burton, Colonel H. W.Gunston, Captain D. W.Pybus, Percy John
Cadogan, Major Hon. EdwardHacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Caine, Hall, DerwentHamilton, Sir George (Ilford)Ramsbotham, H.
Campbell, E. T.Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)Rawson, Sir Cooper
Carver, Major W. H.Hanbury, C.Reid, David D. (County Down)
Cattle Stewart, Earl ofHannon, Patrick Joseph HenryRemer, John R.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)Harris, Percy A.Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.Haslam, Henry C.Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'tt'y)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd,Henley)Roberts, sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert BurtonHeneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W.)Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John WallerRoss, Ronald D.
Christie, J. A.Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Clydesdale, Marquess ofHudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)Salmon, Major I.
Cobb, Sir CyrilHunter, Dr. JosephSamuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)
Cockerill, Brig. General Sir GeorgeHunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir AylmerSamuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Cohen, Major J. BruneiHurd, Percy A.Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Colfox, Major William PhilipHurst, Sir Gerald B.Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.Savery, S. S.
Colman, N. C. D.Inskip, Sir ThomasScott, James
Colville, Major D. J.Iveagh, Countess ofShakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Cooper, A. DuffJones, Llewellyn, F.Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Cranborne, ViscountJones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Caithness)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)Skelton, A. N.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Culverwell, C. T, (Bristol, West)Kindersley, Major G. M.Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir PhilipKnox, Sir AlfredSmith-Carington, Neville W.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir GodfreyLamb, Sir J. Q.Smithers, Waldron
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Davies, Or. VernonLatham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)Somerset, Thomas
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)Leighton, Major B. E. P.Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Dawson, Sir PhilipLewis, Oswald (Colchester)Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Denman, Hon. R. D.Llewellin, Major J. J.Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. GodfreyStewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Dixey, A. C.Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. HerbertLong, Major Hon. EricSueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Duckworth, G. A. V.Lovat-Fraser, J. A.Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.Lymington, ViscountThomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.McConnell, Sir JosephThomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess ofWaterhouse, Captain CharlesWood, Major McKenzie (Banff)
Todd, Capt. A. J.Wells, Sydney R.Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)
Train, J.White, H. G.Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George ClementWilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir KenyonWindsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel GeorgeTELLERS FOR THE AYES
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)Winterton, Rt. Hon. EarlSir Frederick Thomson and Sir
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. TudorWomersley, W. J.Victor Warrender.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. LambertWood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)Groves, Thomas E.Noel Baker, P. J.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)Half, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Alpass, J. H.Hardie, David (Rutherglen)Palin, John Henry.
Ammon, Charles GeorgeHardie, G. D. (Springburn)Palmer, E. T.
Arnott, JohnHaycock, A. W.Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Attlee, Clement RichardHenderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Ayles, WalterHenderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)Potts, John S.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)Herriotts, J.Price. M. P.
Barr, JamesHirst, W. (Bradford, South)Quibell, D. J. K.
Batey, JosephHoffman, P. C.Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)Hopkin, DanielRitson, J
Benson, G.Horrabin, J. F.Romeril, H. G.
Bowen, J. W.Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)Salter, Dr. Alfred
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles w.Isaacs, GeorgeSamuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Broad, Francis AlfredJenkins, Sir WilliamSanders, W. S.
Brockway, A. FennerJones, Morgan (Caerphilly)Sawyer, G. F.
Bromley, J.Kelly, W. T.Scurr, John
Brooke, W.Kennedy, Rt. Hon. ThomasShepherd, Arthur Lewis
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.Shield, George William
Brown, Rt. Han. J. (South Ayrshire)Kinley, J.Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Buchanan, G.Kirkwood, D.Shillaker, J. F.
Burgess, F. G.Lawrence, SusanSimmons, C. J.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)Sitch, Charles H.
Cape, ThomasLawson, John JamesSmith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Clarke, J. S.Leach, W.Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Cluse, W. S.Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)Stamford, Thomas W.
Cocks, Frederick SeymourLongden, F.Stephen, Campbell
Cripps, Sir StaffordMcElwee, A.Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Daggar, GeorgeMcEntee, V. L.Strauss, G. R.
Dalton, HughMaclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)Sullivan, J.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)McShane, John JamesThurtle, Ernest
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)Vaughan, David
Day, HarryMansfield, W.Viant, S. P.
Dukes, C.Marcus, M.Watkins, F. C.
Duncan, CharlesMarley, J,Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dunnico, H.Mathers, GeorgeWellock, Wilfred
Ede, James ChuterMaxton, JamesWelsh, James (Paisley)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)Messer, FredWhiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Egan, W. H.Middleton, G.Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Freeman, PeterMilner, Major J.Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)Montague, FrederickWilliams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Gossling, A. G.Morley, RalphWilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gould, F.Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)Winterton,G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)Mort, D. L.Young, Sir R. (Lancaster, Newton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)Muggeridge, H. T.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)Naylor, T. E.TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

First Resolution read a Second time.

Fifth Schedule (Enactments repealed), agreed to.

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd September.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.