Skip to main content

New Clause—(Income From Capital Earned By Recipient)

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.

For the purpose of computing income for the assessment of Income Tax and of Super-tax, income arising from capital earned by the recipient shall be regarded as earned income.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

No one has dealt with the matter so far with which I am endeavouring to deal in this new Clause, or which the new Clause is meant to cover. I cannot understand if an income which is earned, say, by a doctor, barrister, or any other class of profession that may occur to hon. Members, is earned income while he is earning it, why that money which has just been earned and saved, and accumulated as capital, instead of being spent, should not be regarded as much as earned income as the several classes of income enumerated in the Finance Act of 1907. The cases I have in mind, and which I have been asked from many quarters to raise, are not in the least differentiated from other cases, but I may mention, with the indulgence of the House, the particular class of cases which have been brought under my notice from many quarters. Take the case of an official who serves a great part of his life, say, twenty-five years, abroad, and then comes back to this country to live and educate his children and spend his declining years. He saves, during his service abroad, a certain sum of money, and when he comes home with the interest on that money to supplement his pension, he hopes to be able to bring up his family in tolerable comfort. Why is the money, which he has earned and put aside for this estimable and admirable purpose, as every hon. Member will allow it to be, not just as much earned income when banked and invested, as when he actually earned it? I confess I do not know what the answer to this question will be, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, if he does not accept this Clause, will explain what is the difference. Is the definition in the Finance Act of 1907 to be rigidly construed?

What is the difference in kind and principle between the income arising from earned income when invested in this manner, and from earned income when it is being received? The effect of the inclusion of income of this character would seem to me to be to induce people—Government officials and others—who otherwise might be prudently inclined to lay by money for the benefit of their children, to dissipate that money, I will not say in riotous expenditure, but in very liberal expenditure, of what they should properly lay by for that time when they have returned, and when, in the absence of special circumstances, they are always rather hard pushed for money in order to maintain themselves upon a similar plane to that which they occupied when enjoying the full income of their salary. It is a case of extremely common occurrence, and there are hon. Members of the House, I am sure, who are acquainted with towns or districts in this country which are populated to a great extent by people of that class. They are very seldom heard in this House. Very rarely representations are made in their behalf. They are a feeble part of the electorate, and they do not count for very much. They have no claim upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, I am appealing to the House for a fair consideration of their case. But, as I said, I do not see that their case in any way differs from that of any professional man. Take a man engaged in a profession in this country. Why should his earned income be rigidly restricted in the manner in which it is by the Finance Act of 1907? I must accept it that it does not cover a case of this sort. I will not venture to take up the time of the House by reading the Section of the Act, but it is quite evident that that interpretation is accepted by the Government, and, for my part, I do not dispute that that is the interpretation, and for that reason I venture to move this Clause.

There is one answer that I hope will not be given. The Attorney-General, in reply upon another new Clause, pleaded that it would cost too much to accept it. I submit that is not a satisfactory reply, and that any such plea comes with very ill-grace from a colleague of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Government which has added some £50,000,00 or £60,000,000 to the expenditure of the country. None of those affected in this case can accept any such plea as satisfactory. I confess it does not seem to me to be satisfactory. I think it is absurd to plead that lack of funds is a sufficient reason for not doing justice when once a case of injustice is established. I have endeavoured to establish that case of injustice, and I will leave it to my hon. Friend who is to second this new Clause to develop the case which. I have endeavoured, however inadequately, to put before the House.

I desire to second this new Clause, which appears to be of real substance and importance. I have never been able myself to understand why a legislative distinction has been drawn between earned and unearned income. I should think it was obvious that the King's English meant something quite different from what the Statute of 1907 laid down. After all, earned income is income that has been earned; to my mind, it does not change its character because it is put into the funds where it is invested. If a man is a success in business and a success in the world and makes a fortune, large or small, he has earned the whole of that fortune, and that fortune, be it large or small, remains earned income as long as it is in his possession. That seems to me to be the natural sense of the word "earned," and I have never been able to understand thoroughly, or to understand at all, why the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have chosen to set up this artificial distinction, which is entirely contrary to the ordinary meaning and sense of the word. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer always pleads on these occasions that the Government want the money, and therefore that they must spread their net as far as possible. I think he must admit that these taxes are not justifiable. The reason for all this is that the Government, and in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has launched out upon a spendthrift policy, and having done so entirely contrary to the advice of wise financiers, whether permanent officials of the Treasury or outside, he is obliged to resort to this sort of tactics in order to accumulate the money which he requires. I urge that this is a hard case in respect of many people. It is hard in the case of those who have succeeded in making large fortunes, but it is much harder in the case of those who have made small fortunes. In many cases small tradesmen whom I represent have said to me, "It is very hard upon us to pay this tax after having worked for fifteen or twenty years at our business, and, after we have put enough money away to make a material difference in the bringing up of our families, to be told that all this is not earned income, and that we are to pay this tax upon it." I think this does involve a great injustice, and I urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some mitigation ought to be devised by which such people would not suffer. After all, an action of this kind is really a penalty on thrift. These people have been thrifty, and why are they to be penalised by an artificial interpretation of this word by Statute, such as this artificial definition of the word "earned" is? It is time this House should recognise that such business men as I have referred to and others are harshly treated, and I urge upon the Government to alter this definition so as to make the tax more equitable in the cases to which I have referred.

This is the first time I have had to deal with a proposal of the hon. Member for East Nottingham since I left the India Office, and once again I have to differ from his view. On this occasion I think the arguments advanced are not such as ought to commend this Clause to the House. The first argument was that the hon. Member hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister who represented him would not urge as an answer to this new Clause that it would cost too much, because, it is said, this would be a ridiculous argument in the face of an injustice from any Chancellor of the Exchequer, and much more so from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have been unable to see any difference between this Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessors except that when there has been an irresistible demand for money the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been more fertile and successful in finding the money than his predecessors.

Hon. Members opposite are moving this Clause on the Report stage, cost what it may, when both of them know that any alteration in the balance-sheet cannot be repaired by imposing new taxation. Consequently the cost of their proposal becomes all the more important. Even if we had plenty of money and a large surplus to meet this demand, I would suggest to the House that it should be resisted, because I do not think it is founded upon equity. The hon. Member for East Nottingham talked of the hardship upon a tradesman who finds that his invested savings are treated as unearned income. After all it is a concession to that tradesman only dating from 1907 that any attempt has been made to differentiate between earned and unearned income.

The hon. Member forgets that at that time the Income Tax was totally different, because it was not an inordinately high and penal impost like it is now.

If it had not been for the new departure then made, the tradesman to whom the hon. Member referred who is sensible of such hardship, would have been taxed at 1s. 3d. instead of 9d. When this new differentiation was made in 1907 the arguments now put forward were urged upon the House then, and it is quite clear from the speeches of both hon. Members opposite that they have not read the relevant Debate on the Finance Act of 1907, because they have not attempted to deal with any of the arguments dealt with at that time by the Prime Minister, which are as good to-day as they were then. The Prime Minister then dealt with the difference between savings which are not treated as earned income, and those which are treated as earned income. Earned income which has not been saved and invested is a precarious income, dependent upon the earning capacity and the health of the man who earns it, where as the savings are not dependent upon the man's health or upon whether he is capable of earning them or not. That is one substantial difference between the two. Further than that, earned income was not intended to include pensions or deferred pay at all, and it was only after a considerable amount of Debate that the present Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that after a great deal of heart searching and doubt he had agreed to include as earned income pensions and superannuation allowances.

A distinction was then made, despite the very cogent arguments of the hon. Member for Yarmouth, between pensions and superannuation allowances on the one hand, and the savings of those officials whom the hon. Member refers to on the other hand. For this reason: the pension might be regarded as deferred pay and as part of the consideration upon which the official enters a public service; he was to get so much a year, and when he retired from that service he was to get either a superannuation allowance or a pension. That was part of the terms of his contract, and there was this further distinction: If a man saved during the time he was employed and invested his savings he could sell either the annuity he had bought or the investments, as he thought fit, whereas the pension was an unsaleable thing, and died with him. So that on all these grounds, on the ground of the fact that one is a voluntary saving from pay and the other might be regarded as a compulsory deduction from pay; on the ground that one was saleable and the other was not; on the ground that both pensions and savings do not depend upon the health and well-being of the individual who is earning the income, there is every reason to differentiate between capital invested as a result of earnings and the earnings themselves. I do not think, after this feeble recapitulation of the unanswered arguments of the Prime Minister in 1907, that I need add anything; but, if anything more has to be added, I would say that if you were to try and differentiate between investments made out of savings and investments made out of truly and strictly unearned income, it would put upon those who administer the Income Tax Acts a task which would be almost impossible. You would have to accept the guess arrived at by the taxpayer himself when he said: "I think this part of my investment is savings, and this part ought legally to be taxed as unearned income." Not only would it increase the difficulty of the administration of the Acts, but it would increase the expense of administration. I think it will be agreed in all parts of the House that the more easy it is to administer the Acts and the less friction there is in the collection of the tax, the better on the whole for the tax; and when you have in this particular case to set the Inland Revenue a task which must admittedly be difficult to meet a grievance which does not really exist, I venture to suggest to the House that it would do well to reject the proposed Clause.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the cases to which I refer, and to which my hon. Friends refer, the taxpayer would have no difficulty in differentiating, because he has nothing except what he earns?

9.0 P.M.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made a statement which needs a reply. He says that this is not a Clause which could be upheld in equity. If there is a Clause which has been suggested which could be upheld in equity, it is this one. Once it has been decided that there shall be a differentiation between earned and unearned income, surely it must be a matter of equity that the savings of a man who denies himself over many years should be treated as his earnings. I was made executor of one gentleman whose life is an example of the point in question. He started with a salary of £150 a year, and he told me that whatever his salary was he determined to save a certain percentage. His whole system was continued as he advanced in business until, at the age of ninety-four, after an enormously long life, he had saved £90,000. Surely during that man's lifetime, while he was still working, the money which he had little by little invested in one security and another was earned income, and I claim, in equity, if there is any differentiation, that he was entitled, and all those who deny themselves in order to save money which they may leave to their children, and their children's children, are entitled to have it regarded as earned income. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury suggests that it would be almost impossible for the Commissioners to decide these matters. I know there would be a difficulty, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that there is practically no appeal from the Commissioners, and we know, when we enter the Commissioners' room, that it is a matter of secret questions and cross questions, and there is no reporter there. It would be a simple matter for these Commissioners to ask a gentleman whether this item was his own earnings or whether it was an inheritance from somebody else. It would be very easy for the Commissioners to discriminate between investments and securities held by any man who could prove whether they were his own savings or whether they were an inheritance. I claim that this Clause is perfectly sound in equity. Now that the Government have raised this taxation so high they have roused the feelings of individuals against them to such a point that this sort of difference exasperates the individual to an enormous extent. I have heard men on the business exchanges resent this kind of difference in their taxing enormously, and surely it is the province of the Government, while levelling the tax at an enormously high rate, to prevent this irritation of the individual against the tax collector and against the Government. Surely we do not want them to be at enmity where it is necessary that the individual shall pay. There is a very strong feeling by the average man that he should be treated differently in his Income Tax return between the money he saves and the money for which he works.

There has been certain loose talk with regard to what is earned and what is unearned income. I suppose all income is earned by someone, though the person who earns it does not always receive it, and, so far as the Income Tax applies to unearned income, it applies to that portion of a person's income for which he has put forth no effort except to receive the cheque. That is about what it amounts to. You have some money invested in the bank or in the funds, and before the interest is paid over to you obviously someone, somewhere and somehow, has had to put in some work to earn that income. If you are to receive income, as I suppose some of the Members of this House, including the Labour Members, in some small degree do, which is the product of other men's labour, surely, altogether apart from Socialism or any of these things, it is only just and right that upon that income you should pay a larger tax than upon the income which you may earn by manual or brain labour. I am opposed to the Clause, and though I agree there are certain hard cases, I have no sympathy with the poor Indian Civil Servant who retires with £1,000 a year. Perhaps it is rather hard in the case of the widow who is left with an income of not more than £150 or £160 year, or even less sum, so far as unearned income is concerned. The Amendment, however, has not been moved to deal with that case, but with the question of unearned income generally. I claim that there is a wide difference between the income which a man earns as a Member of Parliament or as a navvy and the income which comes to him from money deposited at the bank or invested in Consols, and I think that the law which differentiates between the two is perfectly just and equitable.

I hope it will not go forth to the world, as a result of what the last speaker has said, that the income which many of us here unwillingly receive as Members of this House is easily earned. I may say that every penny that I receive in this regard is devoted to the destruction of Radicalism—

That is hardly a question relevant to the matter before the House.

It was rather provoked by what has fallen from the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Parker). I wanted it to be known that the treadmill of daily life in this House is as hard as any work performed outside. The view expressed by the hon. Member was rather in the direction of suggesting that money earned by a daily avocation stands in a different category to money accruing from dividends. But it must be remembered that in the case of small persons their capital fund is the creation of their own work, and therefore it never loses its character as earned increment.

No one suggests that that capital was not earned. What I do say is that the money received in respect of it is not earned by the recipient.

If a man in a humble walk of life is able to put by year by year a sum of £10 or £20, and in due course invest it, ought he by reason of his self-denial to be penalised by having to pay Income Tax upon it at a different rate from the Income Tax on his ordinary income? It seems to me an almost suicidal policy from the Government point of view, because it destroys the opportunity of creating a capital upon which Death Duties are charged. It destroys the encouragement to be thrifty, it encourages people to live up to the last penny of their incomes, and it is bad for the State, because it brings about a condition of disturbance. Anyone who was a Member of this House fifteen or twenty years ago, if he had heard such a speech as we have just had from the Secretary to the Treasury, would have been very much surprised. We are not, because we have been accustomed to that kind of speech since 1906. But anybody would think from the lecture the hon. Gentleman delivered to us, that we are all conspiring to defraud the State, when we are merely protesting against the heavy imposition put upon us. I do not suppose the Secretary to the Treasury, bearing the name he does, has ever experienced what any ordinary person feels who is dependent upon a small-earned income. We have been told it is not right to seek to have this differentiation made in respect of income which has really been put aside simply as an act of self-denial. Although it may make a considerable difference in the final balance-sheet, which would have to be redressed by still further impositions on unearned income, I do say this is an act of injustice which ought not to be withheld. It seems unintelligible to me that, because a person chooses to say "I will not live like my neighbours, I will provide against any accident happening to me which may deprive me of my earning capacity," therefore the income he receives from the money thus saved is to be specially taxed. I say such a course prohibits a person adopting that thrifty policy; it penalises him for his self-denial, and it destroys the very fund from which considerable Death Duties can be collected. If a man comes into a windfall, for which he has done nothing himself, then, of course, he should pay the additional rate of tax, but if he chooses to be frugal in his method of living, then he

Division No. 193.]


[9.11 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James TynteDickson, Rt. Hon. C. ScottOrde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Ashley, W. W.Du Cros, Arthur PhilipOrmsby-Gore, Hon. William
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)Duke, Henry EdwardParker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Baldwin, StanleyEyres-Monsell, Bolton M.Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Banbury, Sir Frederick GeorgeFell, ArthurPerkins, Walter Frank
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)Fletcher, John SamuelPryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South)Forster, Henry WilliamRandles, Sir John S.
Barrie, H. T.Gardner, ErnestRawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)Gibbs, G. A.Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bennett-Goldney, FrancisGlazebreek, Captain Philip K.Sanders, Robert A.
Bigland, AlfredGoldman, Charles SydneySanderson, Lancelot
Bird, A.Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)Sassoon, Sir Philip
Blair, ReginaldHaddock, George BahrSharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)Spear, Sir John Ward
Boyton, JamesHamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)Stanier, Beville
Bridgeman, W. CliveHarris, Leverton (Worcester, East)Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Bull, Sir William JamesHelmsley, ViscountStaveley-Hill, Henry
Butcher, John GeorgeHenderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)Stewart, Gershom
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Carlile, Sir Edward HildredHewins, William Albert SamuelSwift, Rigby
Cassel, FelixHibbert, Sir Henry F.Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Castlereagh, ViscountHohler, G. F.Talbot, Lord E.
Cave, GeorgeHope, Harry (Bute)Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)Horner, Andrew LongThomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)Tullibardine, Marquess of
Clay, Captain H. H. SpenderJoynson-Hicks, WilliamWatson, Hon. W.
Clyde, J. AvonLocker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)Weston, Colonel J. W.
Cooper, Sir Richard AshmoleLockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.Wheler, Granville C. H.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)Magnus, Sir PhilipWhite, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)Malcolm, IanWills, Sir Gilbert
Crichton-Stuart, Lord NinianMorrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)Worthington Evans, L.
Currie, George W.Newman, John R. P.
Dalrymple, ViscountNewton, Harry Kottingham


Denison-Pender, J. C.Nield, HerbertJ. D. Rees and Mr. Evelyn Cecil
Denniss, E. R. B.


Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)Clough, WilliamFarrell, James Patrick
Acland, Francis DykeClynes, John R.Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles
Addison, Dr. ChristopherCollins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)Ffrench, Peter
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)Field, William
Agnew, Sir George WilliamCompton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.Fitzgibbon, John
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Flavin, Michael Joseph
Armitage, R.Cory, Sir Clifford JohnGelder, Sir William Alfred
Arnold, SydneyCrooks, WilliamGeorge, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)Crumley, PatrickGladstone, W. G. C.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)Cullinan, J.Glanville, H. J.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Barnes, George N.Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Goldstone, Frank
Beale, Sir William PhipsonDavies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)Greig, Colonel James William
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones
Bentham, G. J.Dawes, James ArthurGuest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Black, Arthur W.Delany, WilliamGwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Boland, John PlusDenman, Hon. R. D.Hackett, J.
Booth, Frederick HandelDevlin, JosephHancock, J. G.
Bowerman, C. W.Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)
Brady, P. J.Dillon, JohnHarcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Brockiehurst, William B.Donelan, Captain A.Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)
Brunner, John F. L.Doris, W.Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Bryce, J. AnnanDuffy, William J.Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnDuncan, Sir J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Burt, Rt. Hon. ThomasEdwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)Hayden, John Patrick
Byles, Sir William PollardElverston, Sir HaroldHelme, Sir Norval Watson
Chancellor, H. G.Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Chapple, Dr. William AllenEsmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)Hewart, Gordon
Clancy, John JosephFalconer, JamesHigham, John Sharp

ought not to be made to pay Income Tax as for unearned income.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 230.

Hinds, JohnMontagu, Hon. E. S.Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hodge, JohnMooney, John J.Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Hogge, James MylesMorgan, George HaySamuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Holt, Richard DurningMorison, HectorScanlan, Thomas
Howard, Hon. GeoffreyMorton, Alpheus CleophasScott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)
Hudson, WalterMunro, Rt. Hon. RobertSeely, Colonel, Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Hughes, Spencer LeighMurphy, Martin J.Sheeny, David
John, Edward ThomasNeedham, ChristopherShortt, Edward
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)Neilson, FrancisSimon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Jones J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)Nolan, JosephSmith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)Nuttall, HarrySmyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)Sutherland, J. E.
Jowett, Frederick WilliamO'Doherty, PhilipSutton, John E.
Joyce, MichaelO'Donnell, ThomasTaylor, John W. (Durham)
Kellaway, Frederick GeorgeO'Dowd, JohnTaylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Kelly, EdwardO'Malley, WilliamTaylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Kennedy, Vincent PaulO'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Kilbride, DenisO'Shaughnessy, P. J.Thorne, William (West Ham)
King, J.O'Sullivan, TimothyToulmin, Sir George
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)Palmer, Godfrey MarkVerney, Sir Harry
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)Parker, James (Halifax)Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Lardner, James C. R.Parry, Thomas H.Wardle, George J.
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)Pearce, William (Limehouse)Waring, Walter
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)Watt, Henry Anderson
Levy, Sir MauricePhillips, John (Longford, S.)Webb, H.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. John HerbertPratt, J. W.Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Lundon, T.Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Lynch, A. A.Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)Pringle, William M. R.White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)Radford, George HeynesWhitehouse, John Howard
McGhee, RichardRaffan, Peter WilsonWhittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)Whyte, Alexander F. (Pertn)
MacVeagh, JeremiahRea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)Wilkie, Alexander
M'Callum, Sir John M.Reddy, MichaelWilliams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)
M'Curdy, C. A.Redmond, John (Waterford)Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. ReginaldRedmond, William (Clare, E.)Williamson, Sir Archibald
M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs, Spalding)Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Markham, Sir Arthur BasilRichardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Marshall, Arthur HaroldRoberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Meagher, MichaelRoberts, G. H. (Norwich)Winfrey, Sir Richard
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)Wing, Thomas Edward
Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)Robinson, SidneyYeo, Alfred William
Millar, John DuncanRoch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Molloy, M.Roche, Augustine (Louth)


Molteno, Percy AlportRoe, Sir ThomasIllingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.Rowntree, Arnold