Skip to main content

New Clause—(Charities)

Volume 65: debated on Tuesday 21 July 1914

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

The exemption from Income Tax granted by the Income Tax Acts to rents and profits of lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritages belonging to any hospital, public school, or almshouse, or vested in trustees for charitable purposes, so far as the same are applied to charitable purposes, shall be extended to apply to any lands or property in the occupation of any charity.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

I beg to move the Second Reading of the first New Clause which stands in my name. I hope it will meet with sympathy, not only from the Government but from hon. Members in all parts of the House. The Clause is meant to cover charities that have been set up for the relief of poverty and have been established for other purposes of public good and public benefit. Under the Income Tax Act of 1842 certain exemptions of taxation are allowed in respect of rent and profits of land applied to charitable purposes. But the Section of the Act of 1842 dealing with this has been construed to mean that while property owned by a charity and let to a tenant, the rent being used for charitable purposes, is exempt from the tax, property in the occupation of the charity is not so exempt, unless those charities happen to be colleges, halls in universities, almshouses, literary institutions, and hospitals. Therefore in the case of a charity owning two properties, one in their occupation and the other let to a tenant, the one let to a tenant is exempt from the tax while the property in the actual occupation of the charity is not exempt. I do not see any sense in the distinction made between the two. If charities ought to be exempt in respect of property let, surely they ought equally to be exempt in respect of property which they actually own and occupy, and more so. I have got here, for instance, particulars of a hall in London carried on under a trust deed for the purposes of the very poor. It is admitted to be a charity under the Act. The hall in which entertainments are held is, of course, in the occupation of the charity—that is to say, of the trustees, and no revenue is derived from it. Next door to it is a coffee tavern owned by the same charity and let to a firm of public caterers whose customers belong to a very poor class of people. The rent received is devoted to charitable purposes. The tax on the hall is £8 10s. The tax on the coffee tavern is a little over £19, but because the coffee tavern happens to be let by the charity the tax is recovered, whereas the hall, being in the occupation of the trustees, the tax cannot be recovered at all.

I have one more case: it is a case of a denominational school and a denominational college, held by trustees under separate charitable trustees. Both are admitted by the Board of Inland Revenue to be charitable objects. The tax paid on the school is a little over £29; the tax paid on the college is a little over £19, together an amount exceeding £48 a year. But as the properties are in the occupation of trustees and do not happen to be let, the taxes cannot be recovered at all. On the other hand, both these trusts have incomes accruing from invested funds, from which the tax is deducted. Because it happens to be income from invested funds and not property in the occupation of the charity, the tax is repaid by the Board of Inland Revenue. It really seems to me—and I hope and believe hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree—that it is really a ridiculous position to make this distinction, and, in addition, there s no justification for making a distinction in the case of literary institutions, colleges, halls in universities, almshouses, and hospitals, and not applying the same principle to every charitable object which may do just as large an amount of public good. Take, for instance, the case of a charity the object of which is to befriend young men of the poorer class to look after them, to hold classes for their general advancement and to try and get them good situations. If a charity of this kind owns its own premises, it is taxed on the annual value of the property owned and occupied. But, on the other hand, take the case of a home founded for the relief of ladies in reduced circumstances, whose income is not more than a certain amount per year. If this charity owned the property as dwelling-houses, it would be exempted, on the ground that they happened to be almshouses, under Section 61 of the Act of 1842. Again, take the case of a certain school founded with the object of benefiting certain poor classes, the fees being made up out of voluntary contributions. That, being a charitable school, would not be exempt under the 1842 Act, as would a charity which owned property which does happen to be a public school. In the case of a public school, under the Act of 1842, if it owns and occupies the property, it is exempt from the tax. I might go through other instances, but the same principle holds good all through. I may mention that among other institutions the Courts have held that the following are charitable purposes, namely, a society for the protection of children from cruelty, a fund to establish lectures against cruelty to animals, and an institution for saving the lives of shipwrecked mariners. In each of these cases, under the existing law, although the objects are charitable, they would not be exempt from the tax, and they would have to pay it supposing they occupied the property in the shape of offices or for any other purpose. Finally, it seems to me that the position of these charities is all the more anomalous when one looks at the way charities are treated under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own Finance Act, 1909–10, in respect of Land Value Duties. Perhaps the House will allow me to quote four or five lines of that Act to show the way in which charities are treated in respect of the Land Value Duties. Section 37 provides that—

"No Reversion Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty. … shall be charged in respect of land, or any interest in land, held by or on behalf of any governing body constituted for charitable purposes while the land is occupied and used by such a body for the purposes of that body."

The Section goes on to define the term "governing body":—

"The expression governing body constituted for charitable purposes' includes any person or body of persons who have the right of holding, or any power of government of, or management over, any property appropriated for charitable purposes."

The Section goes on further to define "governing bodies." In view of that the House will see that this exemption applies to land in the case of the Land Duties whether it is occupied or whether it is let by the charity, and the exemption not only applies to literary institutions, universities and almshouses, but to any person or body of persons who have any government of any property appropriated for charitable objects. As this was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own provision in the Finance Act, 1909–10, it is quite clear that he agrees with the principle with regard to property occupied for charitable purposes. The new Clause merely asks that the treatment meted out to charities in respect of the Land Value Duties under the Finance Act, 1909–10, should also be meted out in equal measure to charities in respect of the Income Tax. I have given various instances to make the position clear as possible. The new Clause does not extend the term "charity" in any sort of way, but merely brings all objects of a charitable nature into the same line.

I desire to second the new Clause, not only because I agree with the arguments of my hon. Friend on general grounds, but because I particularly wish to bring before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Law Officers of the Crown the case of residential halls and hostels belonging to our modern universities. My hon. Friend in moving the Clause has pointed out that there are special exemptions with regard to colleges and universities, but he has left me to point out that the exemption, so far as resident halls and hostels are concerned, is limited to the public buildings and offices belonging to the colleges and halls not occupied by any individual member thereof or by any person paying rent for the same. What is the result of that exemption? That while the universities and colleges are, so far as their endowments are concerned, exempt from Income Tax they are liable to the tax under Schedule A on the halls and hostels occupied by them. The Solicitor-General, no doubt, knows that in the case of Bangor University and Essex Hall that was the result of the judgment of the Court. They were held to come within the definition of charities under this exemption which my hon. Friend proposes to extend, but they are only exempt so far as concerns the rents and profits of their lands and hereditaments which are not occupied by them. That is an absolutely illogical position.

4.0 P.M.

I should like to put before the House a case which will make it quite clear, which arises in the case of the University of Reading, of which I have an intimate knowledge. It is the case of Wantage Hall. That hall was built by the munificent generosity of Lady Wantage, and she also set aside a sum of money for its endowment. Out of the money it was proposed to spend upon building the hall there was a slight balance over, which she added to the purposes of the endowment. What is the result of the state of the law? The endowment fund of Wantage Hall is exempt from Income Tax, but Wantage Hall is assessed for its full value under Schedule A because it is occupied by the trustees of the charity, the Council of Reading University College. Supposing the Council of the College were to let the Hall and farm it out to any individual—a thing which to my mind would be disastrous to the discipline of the students there—no Income Tax would be paid upon it, because it would not be occupied by them themselves; yet because they are occupying it, and doing so in order that the best results may be obtained, Wantage Hall is at present liable to Income Tax. I only give the case of Wantage Hall as an example. It is symptomatic of others. In Reading University College we have three other halls. We are assessed for over £2,000 a year for all our halls. Anyone who knows anything about university management will understand that we have great difficulty in making two ends meet in regard to these halls. Taking them altogether, we run them at a loss, while we are liable to Income Tax upon all these halls. I only mention Reading, because it is a place I know personally, but there are other great universities which suffer in the same way—London, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield, and the University of Wales at Aberystwyth. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his place, so that I might appeal to him on the ground of the University of Wales. It is rather a curious position with regard to the University of Wales. They have two residential halls, one to hold 180 and the other to hold 30. They were assessed at £500 and £70 a year, and they have had to raise, in order to pay for these two halls, a loan of £20,000, and the interest on that is £800, and therefore that is set against the amount of £500 on which they are assessed. But supposing the time comes, as no doubt it may soon, when some generous donor in Wales gives a large sum towards paying off this debt on the University of Wales to enable this hall to be free, the result will be that as soon as that debt is paid off that hall would at once become liable to Income Tax under Schedule A, and that again shows how illogical the present position is.

It is not difficult to guess what is the reason how this position has grown up. It has grown up because in 1842 when the Income Tax Act was passed and when these exemptions were made there were only practically two Universities—Oxford and Cambridge, and it was then thought, possibly rightly, that it would be right to exempt only those public buildings which were not occupied by residents or by any of the members of the university. The others were, I suppose, to some extent a source of income. But that is all altered now these modern universities have grown up. You have them growing up in many of these towns, and during the last few years the residential system of these universities has been very largely developed, and though I should be out of order if I were to say anything to show how valuable that residential system is, I think I am entitled to recall to the mind of the House that that residential system has always met with approval from everyone who has considered at all the question of the true results which ought to be obtained from education at these universities. It is most essential that if students in these universities which are growing up all over the place now are to get good from the time they spend there, this residential system ought to be encouraged, and it is unfair that there should be any handicap whatever placed upon the setting up of these residential halls and hostels. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make the excuse or give the reason which he is often able to give when appeals are made to him to accept new Clauses, that this new Clause at any rate is going to cost him a good deal of money. There are not a very large number of universities at present. They are growing in number, but there are not in them a large number of halls and hostels, though they are perhaps growing in number, too, but if they grow considerably more in number than they are at present I do not think there is any likelihood of their imposing a heavy charge upon the finances of this country or making a great claim upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is because I think that this Clause, if it is added to the Bill, will relieve the difficulty under which universities are suffering that I beg to second it.

Everyone who has heard the speeches of the Mover and Seconder will agree that they have displayed great knowledge of this difficult subject, and have called attention to some undoubted anomalies in the present position of the law. I do not dispute that at all. The Income Tax law, as it exists at present, neither wholly exempts nor wholly taxes charities, and it is quite true that the line that is drawn is a line which is open to the criticism that it is not drawn in any very logical, or it may even be said in any very intelligible way. The matter stands, as it appears to me, very much as they have put it in the more general part of their speeches. There is no general exemption from the Income Tax law which attaches to properties belonging to charities, but there are certain cases where the exemption does operate. There may be said to be three classes of cases where the exemption occurs. There is the case where you are dealing with income from property that is held on trust for charitable purposes, so far as that income is used for charitable purposes, and that is the case which the hon. Member (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) dealt with. There is, secondly, the case of certain specific kinds of charity—hospitals, public schools, almshouses, and so on—so far as the public buildings belonging to them are concerned, under certain conditions. There is a third case which is always, in practice, recognised, though I am not aware that you can find it very clearly laid down in the Income Tax law, and that is the case of property which is used wholly or mainly for religious purposes, of course religious purposes being a good deal narrower in what it covers than charitable purposes.

Then, say these hon. Members, if you go as far as that why do you not go further, and the more so, if you have to admit, as I do admit, that the present position involves anomalies. I have to say that I am not at all certain that the exemptions which the present law gives, in the case of what are broadly called charities, may not be quite wide enough, and conceivably even too wide. I am not at all certain that if this general subject came under review it would be thought necessarily right to say, Here are certain exemptions existing under the present law. If we are going to be consistent and logical, we must carry these exemptions out the whole way, and exempt all charities of every sort and kind. It is a very attractive thing to say so, and those who have these good causes particularly at heart are naturally anxious to urge it. But, after all, you have to face the fact that the more you create exceptions and exemptions for a particular class of case the more heavily has this tax got to fall upon the rest of the community, and the word "charity," though it is a word, I hope, which not only covers a multitude of sins, but easily inflames humane feeling in the heart of everyone, is an exceedingly wide word, and includes a number of things which certainly a considerable portion of the community does not necessarily approve of at all. It really is a large question whether, on the whole, it would be right to apply the doctrine of charity, as it is understood in the Chancery Court, and say that any undertaking or any fund which can bring itself within that conception is to find itself exempted from the Income Tax law. I am not prepared to say so, and therefore, while the two hon. Members who have spoken have undoubtedly made a very good case when they urge that there are anomalies, some of them rather remarkable, as between the case that is taken and the case that is left, I am not at all convinced that the proper way in which to deal with that would be, by one fell swoop, to include every single charity of every sort or kind within the four corners of the exemption.

Under the Act of 1910, dealing with the Land Duties, the Commissioners said what is a charity and what is not.

I am sure the hon. Member does not really mean that he proposes to confer upon the Executive in this country the power at their free-will and pleasure to pick and choose as to what institution is to be favoured with exemption and which is not.

Does the hon. Member really suggest that that should be done here? I have often heard of attacks delivered from the other side of the House, and have always felt some sympathy with them so long as they had some foundation, against the danger of a Department or the Executive letting one man off and hitting another. But here the hon. Member now explains that after all this exemption will not be very serious because it will always be open to the Commissioners to say, "We have had enough of this and this particular charity we do not propose to exempt." If that is the proposal I am more opposed to it than ever. I thought the proposal, at any rate, had this advantage, that it was logical, that it proceeded on principle, and that the principle was that wherever I find an institution which the law regards as a charity—it may be educational, or religious, or humane—the Income Tax ought not to touch that institution at all. If the hon. Member says that, he has the full advantage of a man who has put forward a consistent proposal and he has this further advantage, chat the present law is not very consistent and contains undoubted anomalies; but I have to answer him by saying that we are not convinced that if the thing came to be investigated, as it would have to be, in a great deal of detail and from many points of view, all good judges will agree that charities should be universally exempt, and in these circumstances I feel that I have the more reason to resist the Amendment. The hon. Member (Mr. Mount) hoped he was not going to be told that this was going to cost a lot of money. If this was not going to cost money to someone, would anyone agitate for a new Clause to be passed? It is just because it is going to relieve someone from payment, and consequently to throw that burden on someone else, that it is worth while moving such a Clause. I do not know how much it would involve in loss of revenue, and am quite willing to believe that the amount is not anything like as large as the sort of figure which has been mentioned in connection with some other proposals for exemption.

It is perfectly obvious that no one would propose the Clause if it was not, because there were certain persons who wish to escape a tax which at present they have to pay, and just in proportion as they escape such a tax there is either a loss to the revenue or an increased burden thrown on other members of the community. I do not want, in dealing with a whole series of Clauses, to say every time that that would be a very proper matter to be discussed before the inquiry as to the Income Tax law which the Prime Minister has referred to. I quite understand that hon. Members who move new Clauses are not likely to be content with that answer, especially if it is repeated again and again. But if there ever was an example of a department of Income Tax law which would have to be examined in that sort of way in order that we may really see what cases would be covered by the change and how the change ought to be framed, surely it is a proposal of this sort, which turns on the whole law of Income Tax in relation to charities. Therefore, I am sorry that we cannot accept this proposal. I desire, as far as I may, to keep my mind open to the merits of the proposal that there should be an extension. I do not say there should not be, but I am quite satisfied that any change which takes place cannot take place simply as the result of moving that what now applies to some charities shall apply to all without knowing what it means, but will have to be dealt with as the result of a far more detailed investigation than that, and I should have thought it was a very suitable subject for the investigation into the Income Tax law which we are promised. For these reasons, though we all very greatly admire the skill and knowledge which the hon. Member has shown, I do not find it possible to agree to accept the Clause.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the extraordinary skill he has shown in avoiding the point of the Amendment. He has the reputation of being a very clever advocate, and I suppose he finds it successful to glide over the real difficulty and to make a very admirable general statement upon a principle on which I think people on both sides of the House will agree, but which is not the proposal of the Amendment. All that this Amendment proposes is to do as to Income Tax exactly what the Government themselves carried out as to other taxes under the Act of 1910. My hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, understated his case. All that the Amendment does is to say that property which belongs to a charity, and which is let, shall be exempt from Income Tax, and that the same exemption shall apply in the case of property which the charity itself occupies. The Attorney-General treats the proposal as though it were a wide general exemption of all charities in every case.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an example of a charity which, under this Clause, will not be exempted?

If that is so, and if this covers all the ground, then I think the Attorney-General is ever so much more wrong than I thought he was in dealing with the question as one of great magnitude. The Attorney-General treats it as a question of great magnitude, but it is simply a question of extending to property occupied by a charity the same law which applies to property owned and let by a charity. That is the whole point, and I think the Attorney-General is not justified in dealing with it on general grounds. He never referred once to the point which was raised except by paying a eulogy to the general line of the argument of my hon. Friends and praising the style of their speeches. He dealt in general terms with large exemptions which would have to be given to other forms of charity. I should have thought more of his speech if the same point had not been dealt with in relation to the Land Duties which were imposed under the Budget of 1909. What was the course taken by the Government? It was the exact opposite to what is taken under the Income Tax Acts I do not know whether the Attorney-General has Clause 37 of the Act of 1910 in his mind, but if not, and if he looks at the Clause, he will see that it exempts from the Land Value Duties—Reversion Duty and Undeveloped Land Duty—all property owned by charities, and which is occupied by them, but it does not exempt property which is let. Evidently the principle in their minds is that property which is owned and occupied by a charity is more deserving of relief than property which is owned and let. All that my hon. Friend asks is that property which is occupied shall not be given differential treatment as compared with property which is let, but that it shall have exactly the same exemption. The Attorney-General has not dealt with that point at all. He has passed the whole thing over on general grounds and given a general answer. We can only come to one conclusion. We think we have grave cause of complaint that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has restricted the time available for discussion.

We are not responsible for the Finance Bill. If the Attorney-General cannot answer the arguments of one man, what is the use of more Members being here? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not only responsible for the Finance Bill, but he is responsible for the Closure under which we are discussing it. He has restricted the time available for debate to a very few hours, and in these few hours we should have some opportunity of making a case for changes in the law. He alone has the power to hear the arguments and to give a reply. The Attorney-General has no authority—

To concede any of these Amendments? It is a large order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pass his authority over to another Member of the Government to concede Amendments on finance of the highest importance before he has even heard the arguments upon them. The way this House is treated, and the way one Minister shuffles responsibility from one to another has become very extraordinary. We do not know where we are. One thing we know is that we can never pin the Government to anything. We might as well be dealing with eels of a very slippery kind. I think it would be more proper and respectful to the House if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present, and I see no reason why he should not be here. Even with all our respect for the Attorney-General, who is very competent to deal with public business, I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no right to transfer such a grave responsibility in regard to Amendments on the Finance Bill, to absent himself from the House, and to leave the right hon. and learned Gentleman to exercise his discretion. If it were not that we are working under the gag Closure, which makes it ever so much worse, we should be entitled under the ordinary rules to move the adjournment of the Debate in order that the Chancellor of the. Exchequer might be present, and I should certainly take that course if it were possible to do so. We are prevented from doing that by this Closure, and therefore that imposes, to my mind, the duty upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer of being here. The House is unable to defend itself in the ordinary way owing to the manner in which the Government are tampering with the procedure of this House for their own benefit. They are taking advantage of that tampering with the rules of the House in order, for their own present convenience, to absent themselves from the Debate. It is a perfect scandal. It is perfectly useless to attempt to debate this question. First of all, time is taken from us, and then in the little time that is given to us the whole thing is treated with contempt, and the Government think that it is not worth while for them to answer arguments advanced on this side of the House on these financial matters. It is a perfect farce that we should be here wasting our time discussing these matters, and I hardly know what course to advise my hon. Friend to take.

I think Members of the Government are not present on the Front Bench so often as they ought to be, and yesterday I gave expression to my views on that subject. To-day I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Prety-man) has no case whatever. His first complaint was that the Attorney-General is too clever, and that his arguments are so piercing and powerful as to convince the House. A few minutes later he complains that the arguments advanced on the other side are treated with contempt.

Both statements cannot be correct. I, myself, would like to see a, better attendance on both Front Benches. I submit in all seriousness that the Attorney-General, who is a Cabinet Minister, is of sufficient rank to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself on any question. Those complaints are very much resented on this side of the House. [Laughter.] Certainly, hon. Members opposite think they may indulge in gibes as to the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well that at the present time there are matters of vital concern engaging the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. What is the complaint in regard to this Amendment? He complains that it is treated with contempt. Nothing of the kind! If there had not been a serious answer given by the Attorney-General, there would have been no need for a speaker on the Front Bench to reply. It is because the Attorney-General answered the arguments advanced by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose. The Mover admitted in the course of his speech that there was a power vested in certain Commissioners to exempt certain charities from taxation. The point was a very proper one to take, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman met that argument. If you are going to exempt these charities simply out of sympathy with the objects of the charities, are you going to exempt a Mormon charity—a charity in favour of the Latter Day Saints? If you pick and choose, we shall be in confusion about all kinds of religious charities. Suppose the case of a charity which is left for illegitimate children of a certain type—

I do not want any corrections until a little later on. I am in the middle of my point and I wish to be allowed to state it.

You are going to extend the exemption to any charity now exempted only in respect of the property it occupies.

I am dealing, not with what is intended, but with what the Clause will do. Hon. Members opposite are appealing to the House for sympathy for charities. I want the House to see that there are many things called charities in the legal sense which may be something very different. There was a charity left for the benefit of illegitimate children; that is a very good object, but it did not occur to the founder of the charity that it might lead to many couples hesitating about getting married, so that the children born might get the advantage of the charity. As the result of their experience, the trustees of the charity had to come to Parliament to get an alteration made. I remember that Booth the elder and Booth the younger left property for charitable purposes, having in mind a small area in the borough of Salford. That property became very valuable, and the consequence was that large funds were available for the poor within the area. The poor of Salford drifted into that particular area, and instead of blessing the area in which they were born, those who were born there cursed it. The representatives of that charity had to come here in order to get power to divert the charity to another purpose. The hon. Gentleman opposite proposes to introduce a dangerous doctrine, namely, that State officials should be able to pick and choose the charities which are and the charities which are not to be exempt. I am not in favour of giving these increased powers to State officials. I am grieved to see a Conservative Member getting up and proposing that. What would be the result of a large increase of their powers to exempt people from taxation? I do not say that is the dominating point of the Amendment, but a principle in the new Clause is that State officials should be able to pick and choose the charities they would exempt. Some officials may have leanings one way and others may have leanings in other directions, and I think a sufficient case has been made out for rejecting the Clause.

The hon. Member seems to think that it is a sufficient argument against the proposal in the new Clause to assert that there may be charities which are not worth considering, and that the ultimate effect of the proposal might not be altogether of advantage, and that for that reason the whole exemption of charities should be struck out. If that was not his argument, I do not know what it was. He cited a certain case in which the charity was given to nourish illegitimate children, in which it was found that the effect was to some extent not what was desired. But would he have allowed these children meanwhile to starve? Does he think that the charity was altogether "wrong in procuring for these poor creatures the advantages of education, and so on? The Attorney-General's speech had all the appearance of presenting a skilful argument, which he, as a lawyer, knows very well how to do, but he really brought forward not one single valid argument in the course of his speech. He first said, "We cannot do this, because if you exempt charities you must put this upon somebody else." If that be so, then we must not discuss any change in the incidence of taxation at all. Was there ever a more misleading and unsubstantial argument against an Amendment proposed with such solid reasons? Another argument which he used is, "Charity is not well defined. We, as lawyers, have attempted to do the best we can, but it is not properly defined, and therefore we cannot give this exemption." He forgets that the same argument applied to his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose full power of discretion he tells us he now wields. It applies to Section 37 of the Finance Act of 1910, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted himself. If there was no possibility of defining what charity was, why did he put in Section 37? And why did he give expression to the definition of charity if it is so vague and so impossible of definition that, as we are told by his leading lawyer, it would be useless to try to define it? My hon. Friend suggested means by which charity might be defined, and pointed out that the local Income Tax Commissioners had that power given to them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is a very dangerous thing to suggest. But they have it now. When that was pointed out he simply evaded the point, but he did not give an answer.

The fact is that you cannot take these quibbles as to the difficulty of defining charity, or the still vaguer argument that if you take taxation off charity you must put it on the shoulders of somebody else. You must look on this on broad public grounds, and this is what the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend does. If you take away what a man gives for public purposes, you are simply discouraging the extension of these charities. Can there be anything more absurd than to say that when a man leaves his money for the public benefaction of a locality, then because he saves the State a certain amount by means of his charity, either in the form of poor rate or otherwise, therefore: you are to take vengeance on him and punish him by taking some of that which he has left for charitable purposes? Already the general principle is conceded that charities should be exempt. We are now making only this very clear, and I would have thought self-evident demand, that if you exempt that income which a charity draws from lands or tenements which it does not occupy itself, it should still more be exempt if it is under the necessity of using these tenements for the immediate purposes of the charity. I have known many cases in my own experience where this differentiation does exist, and where, if you are obliged to occupy certain premises instead of using the income for the purposes of the charity, you immediately find yourself under a heavy burden of taxation. I may take the case of Westminster School, of the governing body of which I am a member. We hold a number of houses round about the neighbourhood. So long as we have these houses we can draw the income, and they are exempt, though they are part of the endowment. But if we are obliged to use one of these houses for the immediate purposes of the school, we are then brought under heavy taxation, and obliged to diminish the value of the charity. That is a sound argument, and requires some answer more than the mere statement by the right hon. Gentleman that other people will suffer if you take this off, and that charity is very difficult to define, and that if we open the door too widely we do not know where it will end. That is an argument which would make any rectification of injustice in the incidence of taxation absolutely hopeless. We put forward what we say as a sound argument in the public interest, and we ask the right hon. Gentleman, or some of his colleagues at least, to give us an answer to those arguments before setting aside our demand.

I should like to have heard some financial argument, which the House has not heard, upon this Amendment of my hon. Friend. Suppose that the arguments of my hon. Friends are right, and that the Clause is passed, what effect would that have upon the revenue? That is very important, because I believe that we are supposed to be discussing finance, and the representatives of finance on the Government Bench are two extremely able lawyers. When we want a legal question decided, they are always away in other places, and when we want a financial authority we cannot get him. I now see the Secretary to the Treasury, but he was absent when I began speaking.

I do think, at any rate, especially when we are debating under a Guillotine Resolution, that we should have the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is all very well to say that he is engaged in other things. My hon. Friend is engaged in other things, but he is able to be present, and I do not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be here too. There is no obligation to put this business down for this particular day. We cannot get more than two days, and it might easily be put down for a day on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can attend. If we were not working under the guillotine I should certainly move the adjournment of the Debate. The hon. Member opposite for the last two or three days has taken a very sound view of these questions. I do not know whether the sound view which he took yesterday led him into collision with a certain officer in the Lobby. But it is merely sound common sense to say that when we have a financial question like this to deal with we should be able to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not be put into the hands of two lawyers.

There seems to have been a great deal of laborious trifling over this subject. The Amendment is a very reasonable one from the point of view which has been explained in the reference which was made to Westminster School. But the whole case is very clearly put that certain charities are not exempt because they are occupied for the purposes of the charity. Some Gentlemen who support that view have done so simply by abusing the absent Chancellor of the Exchequer for not being here. That is hardly relevant. I listened with a great deal of interest to what the Attorney-General had to say, but he did not seem to come to grips with it, and the reason seems to me to be because he is bound to continue the exemption of charities from Income Tax. That is part of the scheme of our finance, and he is obliged to find some other reason for this than the real reason. A very admirable summary of all the discussions which took place on this subject were contained in a letter written to the "Times" about twenty years ago, in which were pointed out the efforts which the late Mr. Gladstone made in this House to get this exemption of charities from Income Tax repealed. In Mr. Gladstone's time it was a very small matter. The income of the charities was not very large. But now they have grown so greatly that the question has come to be a very important one. The only effect of this particular Amendment would be to extend the mischief which already exists. In Mr. Gladstone's time the income of the charities amounted to £2,000,000 per year. Now the income amounts to £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 per year, which is exempt altogether from Income Tax.

It is a most unreasonable distribution of the national burden that all that public property should not pay Income Tax in the ordinary course. There is no kind of argument in it, except that sentimentalism which says that the income of these charities should be allowed to do some good to the community at the expense of the national revenue. The largest charities would be the most benefited by the exemption. Take the case of the Westminster School. Why should it be exempt from Income Tax on its foundation income? It should not be exempt. The property itself should pay. And the same principle should apply to the whole £11,000,000 income of charity property. I could give a vast number of instances to show that these exemptions from Income Tax are pure folly and have no financial reason in them whatever. In regard to the Income Tax, every parcel of income in the country ought to pay its regular share towards the general expenses of the State. If you want to benefit these charities in any way, it would be for Parliament to do something in their behalf, though I should say that it is an unwarrantable proposition for this House to make any Grants. Another reason why exemption should be done away with is that the State has to pay the expenses of the Charity Commissioners for keeping these properties in order. We spend £40,000 a year, or more, for looking after those charities, which are exempt from Income Tax.

I have already stated my reasons for opposing this Amendment, and I shall not pursue the subject further.

My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down have both addressed their remarks—or, at any rate, some of their remarks—rather pointedly to me. I wish to be absolved from the obligation of advising what course should be taken as regards this Bill; I am not in charge of the Bill; I am not responsible for the finance of the country, and it does not fall to me to take note of the observations and suggestions which hon. Members offer—nor, indeed, unless I should feel inclined to make observations on their points of view, is it part of my duty to give guidance to the Committee. I do venture to join in the protest which has already been made by hon. Friends of mine against the growing practice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to absent himself from the House during discussions on the Budget. Putting myself out of the question, I venture to say that of all the predecessors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whom I have known, none spent so small a proportion as he of the time occupied by the Budget on that Bench listening to the discussion. The House will recall the fact that in speaking of the growing impotence of this House, of its lessened power to exert authority, or to make its will effective, my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) adduced, as one of the reasons, the practice of Ministers—I am now speaking of Ministers specially responsible for Bills—not themselves to be present during the discussion. I do not wish to say anything discourteous of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite or of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I held the latter position myself under Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. I know what I did. I sat beside Sir Michael Hicks-Beach during the whole discussion except at such times as he had to withdraw to receive deputations, or confer with his officers, or during the short interval in which he was necessarily absent for his dinner. Except for those brief intervals, it was the uniform practice of previous Chancellors always to be present to listen to the Debate, and always to be ready to give the House the benefit of their counsel and knowledge. The question which is raised by this particular Amendment is one of great complexity and great difficulty. I do not think it can be laid down off-hand, as the last speaker attempted to do, that all charity funds should be brought within the ambit of the Income Tax. I, for my part, should not like to commit myself finally and definitely to the extension of the exemptions, or to financial results I do not foresee. I confess that this is one of the points on which the Income Tax law is in an unsatisfactory position—whatever the solution of the difficulty ought to be—because it is illogical in itself. I do not think it is possible to defend at one and the same time the exemptions which are now accorded or the refusal of exemptions which is now made. There is no common principle underlying these two things. I am not quite certain that the House knows, or that even the learned Attorney-General or anyone knows, exactly what the law is on this subject. Reference has been made by my hon. Friend to the case of Westminster School. I also am interested as governor in another great public school, and we have had the case of the Westminster School brought to our attention, and, unless I am under a misapprehension, the authorities of Westminster School are appealing against the assessment of particular properties with which they are concerned, and it may be that the Courts will decide that they are not liable to assessment on those properties.

I thought it was the Income Tax. The learned Attorney-General has been good enough to correct me, and to tell me that the case I have in mind does not deal with the point that has been raised.

I accept that at once; my memory or my information was at fault. I did not intend to take part in this discussion. I confess my inability to give the House any clear guidance as to what is the best course to pursue in this matter at the present time. I would submit again, however, that it is not to me that the House has a right to look for guidance on this matter, and it is a subject for legitimate complaint by Members in all quarters of the House that on a Bill of this importance they cannot address their arguments directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and have his attention given personally to them.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General addressed it.

If he had been, he would have heard that, having been appealed to by hon. Friends behind him, my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General used almost exactly the same arguments as the right hon. Gentleman himself has put before the House. My right hon. and learned Friend acknowledged that there are certain anomalies under the existing law, and he pointed out that this was one of the points particularly appropriate for inquiry with a view to making the Income Tax more logical and more workable. He did not go so far as the hon. Member below the Gangway in condemning the practice of exempting charities, and he would certainly not go so far as to extend the number of exemptions, in view of the fact that we are promised an inquiry into the Income Tax which is going to be set up immediately. It was for that reason he suggested that it would not be wise, when he himself could not foresee exactly the extent of the expenditure, nor could the right hon. Gentleman, that would be caused by extending the exemptions.

I could not foresee, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be in a position to foresee.

The right hon. Gentleman knows it is very difficult to make exact estimates on these matters. My right hon. Friend said that he agreed with those who moved this Clause that it would not be a very expensive matter. The law at the present moment exempts certain charities from taxation on the lands they occupy; but the Clause now before us seeks to exempt all charities from taxation on the lands they occupy. My right hon. and learned Friend suggested that that was a very proper matter to leave to the Committee of Inquiry, because it might turn out to be wise, rather than to extend the exemption, to withdraw them altogether. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was justified in the attack he made on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I think he will find, has been present throughout the discussions on the Budget in all its stages until this afternoon, when it is not difficult to understand the reason for his not being here.

I should like to refer to the case the Attorney-General made in reply to the hon. Member for Salisbury. To me he did not seem to reply to the point, and he drew the attention of the House away from the Amendment—to all charities. The Amendment, as I read it, is confined to those charities where there is property invested in the trustees, but the right hon. Gentleman attempted to make the House think that it was going to include all charitable institutions of whatever kind.

Because the exemption is to extend to a great number of charities in the country with lands or property vested in trustees.

The words of the Amendment are quite clear, but I am afraid they are regarded from the financial point of view. We are representatives of the people in this House, and numbers of Members must know from their own personal experience as governors the great difficulty there is in obtaining the necessary finances to carry on these charitable institutions, and with this extra burden, as the hon. Member for Salisbury showed, charitable activity is decreased. That is a point which surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take into account. We who represent the people of the country, we who are governors and trustees of charitable institutions, ought to see, if we are to represent the feeling of the country, that these exemptions are made. Surely it is for us to enforce our views on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to point out that this would not affect the revenues of the country so adversely that he could not afford to meet the wishes and feelings of an enormous number of people, whatever their political views, by remedying this anomaly in the Income Tax. I would point out to the Attorney-General that he should take into consideration the fact there is a feeling on his own side of the House that this anomaly should be put right. We have been told that there is to be an inquiry, but that answer might be given over and over again to later Amendments, and the House is not satisfied to be told simply that their Amendments shall be referred to some Committee.

Division No. 190.]


[5.1 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James TynteDickson, Rt. Hon. C. ScottHunter, Sir C. R.
Astor, WaldorfDuncannon, ViscountIngleby, Holcombe
Baird, J. L.Du Pre, W. BaringJessel, Captain H. M.
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.Kerry, Earl of
Baldwin, StanleyFaber, George Denison (Clapham)Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Banbury, Sir Frederick GeorgeFaber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)Lane-Fox, G. R.
Banner, Sir John S. Harmwood-Falle, B. G.Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)Fell, ArthurLocker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Barnston, HarryFisher, Rt. Hon. W. HayesLockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Barrie, H. T.Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)
Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)Fletcher, John SamuelLyttelton, Hon. J. C.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh HicksGanzoni, Francis John C.MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Beckett, Hon. GervaseGardner, ErnestMackinder, Halford J.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)Gastrell, Major W. HoughtonMacmaster, Donald
Beresford, Lord C.Gibbs, G. A.M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.
Bigland, AlfredGilmour, Captain JohnM'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Bird, A.Glazebreek, Captain Philip K.Magnus, Sir Philip
Blair, ReginaldGrant, J. A.Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Gritfith-Gretton, JohnMills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Bridgeman, W. CliveGuinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)Moore, William
Bull, Sir William JamesGuinness, Hon. W. E. (BurySI. Edmunds)Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Burdett-Coutts, W.Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Burn, Colonel C. R.Haddock, George BahrNewman, John R. P.
Butcher, John GeorgeHall, Frederick (Dulwich)Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Campion, W. R.Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Carlile, Sir Edward HildredHardy, Rt. Hon. LaurenceOrmsby-Gore, Hon. William
Cassel, FelixHelmsley, ViscountPaget, Almeric Hugh
Castlereagh, ViscountHenderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)Perkins, Walter F.
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)Hewins, William Albert SamuelPeto, Basil Edward
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.Hibbert, Sir Henry F.Pole-Carew, Sir R.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. HenryHickman, Colonel Thomas E.Pollock, Ernest Murray
Clive, Captain Percy ArcherHills, John WallerPretyman, Ernest George
Clyde, J. AvonHill-Wood, SamuelPryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Cooper, Sir Richard AshmoleHoare, S. J. G.Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)Hohler, G. F.Randles, Sir John S.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord NinianHope, Harry (Bute)Rees, Sir J. D.
Croft, H. P.Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Remnant, James Farquharson
Currie, George W.Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)Ronaldshay, Earl of
Dalrymple, ViscountHorne, E.Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)Horner, Andrew LongSamuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Denison-Pender, J. C.Hume-Williams, William EllisSanders, Robert Arthur
Denniss, E. R. B.Hunt, RowlandSharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

May I ask the Attorney-General whether the exemption proposed in this Clause would be referred to the Committee of Inquiry?

I should like to ask, further, whether the Committee will take into consideration the primary question that there should be no exemption of charities?

I am inclined to think that one of the principal reasons for an inquiry is to see that the Income Tax laws are made more consistent as a whole. I cannot imagine a more obvious example of the need for such an inquiry than the present state of the law which exempts some charities and docs not exempt others.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 283.

Spear, Sir John WardThomas-Stanford, CharlesWilloughby, Major Hon. Claud
Stanier, BevilleThompson, Robert (Belfast, North)Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)
Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)Tobin, Alfred AspinallWood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Starkey, John RalphTryon, Captain George ClementWood, John (Stalybridge)
Staveley-Hill, HenryTullibardine, Marquess ofWorthington Evans, L.
Steel-Maitland, A. D.Valentia, ViscountWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Stewart, GershomWalrond, Hon. LionelYate, Colonel C. E.
Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutstord)Watson, Hon. W.Younger, Sir George
Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)Weston, Colonel J. W.
Talbot, Lord E.Wheler, Granville C. H.


Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)Mount and Sir H. Craik


Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Addison, Dr. ChristopherDuncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)Lardner, James C. R.
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.Elverston, Sir HaroldLevy, Sir Maurice
Agnew, Sir George WilliamEsmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert
Ainsworth, John StirlingEsmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Alden, PercyFalconer, JamesLundon, T.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)Farrell, James PatrickLyell, Charles Henry
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)Fenwick, Rt. Hon. CharlesLynch, A. A.
Arnold, SydneyFfrench, PeterMacdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)Field, WilliamMacdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)Fiennes, Hon. Eustace EdwardMcGhee, Richard
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)Fitzgibbon, JohnMacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, S.)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)Flavin, Michael JosephMacVeagh, Jeremiah
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)Furness, Sir Stephen WilsonM'Callum, Sir John M.
Barnes, George N.Gelder, Sir William AlfredMcKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)George, Rt. Hon. D. LloydM'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)Ginnell, L.M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Beale, Sir William PhipsonGladstone, W. G. C.Manfield, Harry
Beauchamp, Sir EdwardGlanville, H. J.Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Beck, Arthur CecilGoddard, Sir Daniel FordMarshall, Arthur Harold
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)Goldstone, FrankMason, David M. (Coventry)
Bentham, George JacksonGreig, Colonel J. W.Meagher, Michael
Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineGriffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis JonesMeehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Black, Arthur W.Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)
Boland, John PlusGulland, John WilliamMillar, James Duncan
Booth, Frederick HandelGwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)Molloy, Michael
Bowden, G. R. HarlandHackett, J.Molteno, Percy Alport
Bowerman, C. W.Hancock, John GeorgeMontagu, Hon. E. S.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)Mooney, John J.
Brady, J. P.Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)Morgan, George Hay
Brockiehurst, William B.Hardie, J. KeirMorrell, Philip
Brunner, John F. L.Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)Morison, Hector
Bryce, J. AnnanHarmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHarvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)Murphy, Martin J.
Burt, Rt. Hon. ThomasHaslam, Lewis (Monmouth)Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryNeilson, Francis
Byles, Sir William PollardHayden, John PatrickNicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.Hayward, EvanNolan, Joseph
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)Helme, Sir Norval WatsonNorman, Sir Henry
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)Hemmerde, Edward GeorgeNorton, Captain Cecil W.
Chapple, Dr. William AllenHenderson, Arthur (Durham)Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Henry, Sir CharlesNuttall, Harry
Clancy, John JosephHigham, John SharpO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Clough, WilliamHinds, JohnO'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Clynes, John R.Hodge, JohnO'Doherty, Philip
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)Hogge, James MylesO'Donnell, Thomas
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)Holmes, Daniel TurnerO'Dowd, John
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.Holt, Richard DurningO'Malley, William
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Hope, John Deans (Haddington)O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)Howard, Hon. GeoffreyO'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crooks, WilliamHudson, WalterO'Sullivan, Timothy
Crumley, PatrickHughes, Spencer LeighOuthwaite, R. L.
Cullinan, JohnIllingworth, Percy H.Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)John, Edward ThomasParker, James (Halifax)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)Parry, Thomas H.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Dawes, J. A.Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
De Forest, BaronJowett, Frederick WilliamPhilipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)
Delany, WilliamJoyce, MichaelPhillips, John (Longford, S.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.Kellaway, Frederick GeorgePirle, Duncan V.
Devlin, JosephKelly, EdwardPonsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Dewar, Sir J. A.Kennedy, Vincent PaulPratt, J. W.
Dillon, JohnKenyon, BarnetPrice, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Donelan, Captain A.Kilbride, DenisPrice, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)
Doris, WilliamKing, J.Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Duffy, William J.Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

Primrose, Hon. Neil JamesSamuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)Waring, Walter
Pringle, William M. R.Scanlan, ThomasWarner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.
Radford, G. H.Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Raffan, Peter WilsonSeely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)Sheeny, DavidWatt, Henry Anderson
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)Sherwell, Arthur JamesWedgwood, Josiah C.
Reddy, M.Shortt, EdwardWhite, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Redmond, John (Waterford)Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John AllsebrookWhite, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Redmond, William (Clare, E.)Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)Whitehouse, John Howard
Rendall, AthelstanSoames, Arthur WellesleyWhittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir AlbertWhyte, A. F. (Perth)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)Wiles, Thomas
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)Sutherland, J. E.Wilkie, Alexander
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)Sutton, John E.Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)Taylor, John W. (Durham)Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robinson, SidneyTaylor, Thomas (Bolton)Winfrey, Sir Richard
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold JohnWing, Thomas Edward
Roche, Augustine (Louth)Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Roe, Sir ThomasThorne, William (West Ham)Yeo, Alfred Wililam
Rowlands, JamesToulmin, Sir GeorgeYoung, W. (Perth, E.)
Rowntree, ArnoldTrevelyan, Charles PhilipsYoxall, Sir James Henry
Runciman, Rt. Hon. WalterVerney, Sir Harry
Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)William Jones and Mr. Webb.