HC Deb 23 June 1925 vol 185 cc1438-53
Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

On these benches we have pleaded with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for various concessions for different classes of taxpayers on the1 different Clauses, and although we have elicited sympathy in some cases, the right hon. Gentleman has argued that there were practical difficulties preventing him from making the concessions we have asked for. We have been lectured by hon. Members opposite, and particularly by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who has told us that we are not capable of taking what he calls the community view, and he says that we are too much concerned for individuals and individual classes. That is the kind of lecture to which we have listened, and yet I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for York will go into the Lobby in support of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote half of his surplus to redressing an anomaly which only applies to a few thousand people in these islands.

10.0 P.M.

The case of agricultural property has been singled out for this preferential treatment. The arguments: with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attempted to defend these proposals have not only been slight in substance but few in number. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that in Debate as in war the best defence is attack. He has not wasted much time defending his proposals but he has delighted the House with pyrotechnical displays of wit and eloquence. I find that there are only two arguments he has used in support of these proposals, and he has rung the changes on these two arguments very frequently. His first argument has been that the cost of the transfer and the sale of land to meet the Death Duties is higher than the cost of the sale and transfer of shams. The second argument is that the tax will do good to the agricultural industry as a whole by exempting this particular class from the increase in the Death Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeated in his last speech the comparison he used in his first speech, and he has compared the case of the landlord with the case of the man who owns stocks and shares. It is quite obvious that the man who owns wholly stocks and shares is in a much more and exceptionally favourable position, and the right hon. Gentleman is not having much regard for the hard case of the man who owns the small shop or a small business. That is a case which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not even attempted to meet. You must redress this anomaly all round and not simply do it in the case of a few favoured individuals. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to redress this anomaly, why does he not do it in some general way and address himself to this particular problem? There was an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ashford (Major Steel) which attempted to deal with this problem, and I am sorry this question has not been discussed more from that point of view, although you would certainly have had to bring in the case of the shopkeeper, instead of adopting these proposals for the general exemption of a particular class from the new taxation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, and some hon. Members who support him, have also laid stress upon the effect of this proposal upon industry. The effect of the Budget as a whole, in my opinion, will be to lighten the burden on the ownership of land, and increase the burdens of those who are cultivating the land and working on it producing food. The tenant farmers and the occupying owners will have their burdens increased to the extent of the amount of capital which they put into the soil. The curse of British agriculture at the present time is their farming, and the effect of the Chancellor's proposals must be to encourage that tendency, because the more capital the man puts into the actual tenant interest in a farm, the higher will be the tax for Death Duties. These proposals do nothing for the tenant farmer, and very little for the occupying owner. The more they sink in capital improvements, the more they will have to pay in Death Duties, and the Chancellor is spending £500,000 of the taxpayers' money to increase the amount of capita] in the agricultural industry without obtaining any guarantee that his object will be attained. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is true that invariably when an estate changes hands, capital is going out of the industry. After all, landlords can be divided, roughly, into two classes. In the one case, there is the landlord with external resources, or with his estate not mortgaged, and who can put mortgages on his estate or realise his external resources. There is also the man who has no such external resources, and whose estates are heavily mortgaged. He is the man who is hard hit, and has to realise his estate to pay, but he is just the man who is unable, on the existing scale of Death Duties, and will be in no better position to meet his obligations after the Budget is passed than he was before. He will have to realise his estate, and it is quite possible that when he does, it will be bought by a man who will have more capital, and will be able to put more into the estate than the present impoverished owner.

Even if that were not the case, there is no guarantee that this money he would gain by exemption from the higher scale of Death Duties would be put into agriculture. I know of estates in the North of Scotland bought purely for sporting purposes. I certainly know two cases, and I think I am pretty correct in saying I know three cases in which the new owners of these estates are planting pheasant covers on agricultural land, to the detriment of that particular land and of the whole agricultural land around. Those people will benefit to exactly the same extent as the good landlord who is putting money into the agricultural development of his estate. The right hon. Gentleman said that grouse moors and deer forests did not come under this scheme. But I can see no reason why grouse moors, if they are being used for grazing, should be treated differently from other pasture land, for sport and grazing can be carried on together without doing each other any harm. Where sport does harm to agriculture is where it is carried on on agricultural land, when such land is resumed for planting covers, and the pheasants go out to ravage the farmers' crops. Yet the owner of such an estate will get just as much benefit as the man who is using his capital in agriculture.

It is certain this £500,000 will have to be found from the pockets of other taxpayers. No one can say how much of that is going into agricultural development. There was an Amendment put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Ashford and others which would have had the effect of exempting from Death Duty charges the maintenance and equipment of a farm on an estate. I do not say that in the form in which it was put down it was entirely unobjectionable, but, at any rate, it was a sensible and an intelligent proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has rejected that sensible and intelligent proposal put down by certain hon. Members behind him, and has submitted to the guidance of the most reactionary, and, if I may say so without offence, the least enlightened section of his party. They have been alarmed and infuriated by what they regard as the neglect of their interests when he introduced the Budget. They expected him rather to lighten their burdens than to increase them.

It is because I believe this Clause will create more serious anomalies than those it sets out to redress; because it fails to do justice as between individual taxpayers; because it does nothing for the tenant farmer, and very little for the occupying owner, and therefore positively discourages high farming, which is the great hope of British agriculture; because there is no guarantee that the expenditure of this £500,000 will go to the industry which the Chancellor hopes to benefit; and because nobody will rejoice, unless perhaps a few short-sighted and elderly landowners, that I move the rejection of this Clause.

Mr. RILEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

May I ask the House to give their attention to what is the real object of this Clause? It asks the House to exempt one class of property from an increase of Death Duties. As the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has pointed out, the number of persons who. are to be thus privileged at the expense of the rest of the community is extremely small. To-day some 256 persons own no less than one-quarter of the entire land of England and Wales, which contains a population of some 45,000,000 inhabitants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer considers, apparently, it is public policy to go out of his way to exempt 256 people, amongst others, who are almost invariably well-to-do, from taxation which has to be made up by the rest of the 45,000,000 inhabitants.

Something has been said, in the course of the Debate on the Super-tax, as to the iniquity of relieving small numbers of taxpayers who have substantial incomes, while so many people on the lower rungs of the social ladder are receiving no relief at all. This Clause carries this policy of the relief of special classes, who do not need relief, to an extreme point. Who are the persons who are going to benefit specially? There is, for instance, the Duke of Sutherland, who is the owner of something like 1,000,000 acres; there is the Duke of Buccleuch, with 400,000 acres; the Duke of Richmond with 286,000; the Duke of Devonshire with 186,000. These are the persons, amongst others, for whom, or for whose descendants, this exemption is specially designed. I submit that Members on the Conservative side cannot with any sense justice defend this special relief in view of the general condition of the country.

Again, there is the very great danger that this special kind of exemption for one or two classes connected with land is going to become more and more a settled policy of the present Government. Already we have seen during the last 20 or 30 years how special treatment has been provided in the matter of agricultural rates, differentiating between the small occupier and the larger occupier of agricultural land, and piling on to the small occupier—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]— and the village shopkeeper, the village blacksmith and the village publican the rates that ought to be borne by the land. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes forward—it is quite true to say that he had to be pushed into it, because in his first draft Bill there was no provision for this exemption, but pressure from his friends reminded him that he was too much neglecting their interests— and his friends once more are being looked after. I have indicated to what a very small class of the community this relief will go at the expense of the remainder. For instance, in 1922–23, some 363 persons died and left estates valued at £36,300,000, and, of this £36,300,000, no less than £14,600,000 was the value of land. At 5 per cent., that itself—

Mr. S. ROBERTS

Is that agricultural land?

Mr. RILEY

No, I do not say that, but I suppose some of it is agricultural land, and to that extent their descendants are going to reap the benefit. As has beer, said already by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment, one could understand some reason for this special kind of relief if it were going to be translated into extra industry, extra cultivation, and better farming; but no argument has been put forward to show, and there is no evidence, that a single penny of this relief will go to improve farming at all. The only substantial argument put forward in defence of this special exemption was that used by the Financial Secretary the other day, that, unless landed agricultural estates are relieved of increasing taxation of this kind, the result will be that the estates will be broken up. In view of the failure, from an agricultural point of view, of large estates, it is time that they were broken up. There is no country in Europe, I might say in the world, of this size, with estates so large as are found here, and there is no country in Europe where agriculture has gone back as it has in this country. There is no country in Europe where the agricultural population has diminished as it has done in this country, and if landlordism, as exemplified by large estates, is not able to carry on the agricultural industry so as to enable the rural population to remain prosperous, and to extend its prosperity, it will be a good thing for the country when agricultural estates are broken up and small holdings take their place.

Mr. CHURCHILL

We had a long afternoon's Debate on this Clause, and I think all the arguments which represent the points of view of various sections were very fully employed on that occasion. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment reminded us, he himself has already addressed the House twice on the same subject, and on each occasion he has not felt called upon to restrain himself from doing full justice to the topic. I have no doubt others who will take part in the Debate will be able to say the same. The issue is not really a very great one and, apart from the opportunities of using the ordinary arguments of prejudice, it is not really a very important one. The real argument which justifies the Amendment which I moved, and which is now being reported to the House, was not furnished from these benches at all. If I or any of my hon. Friends sitting here had used it, it would have been regarded as a grotesque exaggeration. It would have been received with a sigh or a gasp of derision from the benches opposite. The real argument for this relief was used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He said the existing class of owners of agricultural land are doomed. They are being shattered by taxation. He proved effectively that in two generations they would be completely swept away. They were being exterminated and obliterated and wiped off the face of the earth as the result of the depression which has become a feature in our national life. The whole of the latter part of his argument was, as they were going to be ruined, why not give them a parting kick? Why withdraw the particular application of this increased duty from these people? They are going downhill, anyhow. They are bound to perish. Why should you give them any relief?

I have never stated the argument in those terms. I do not think it is true. I think the owners of agricultural property are still discharging and will stall discharge an invaluable and important task. I think their task is undoubtedly that of financing farming operations and the farmer by capital obtained at a far lower rate of interest than it could be provided by the State or through the ordinary financial agencies. They do that because of old associations, because of amenities which are connected with the ownership of land, and such as is that foundation it is the only one which at present exists for a very great part of our rural life. It would be very hard to accelerate the process, in the words of the Leader of the Liberal party in this House, of the liquidation of this class. I am not quoting his actual words. It would be very unwise to do that, when you have not at your hands any other machinery for immediately replacing them in anything like the same satisfactory manner. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) is a member of a small party, numerically, but he has a great leader, and I am surprised that he has not weighed more carefully the arguments which his leader used, that the agricultural class were being swept away and shattered by the existing taxation.

I have not set out to shatter anybody or to sweep anybody away. On the contary, this Budget about which so many people have said critical things is not a Bill of that sort. It is a Measure, a combination of Measures, animated throughout by benevolent intentions. It is the realisation of that truth which has so notably eased its passage through the House. The more it has been understood and the more it has been discussed the better its progress has been. I do not feel that I am exposed to any criticism in having relieved the owners of purely agricultural property, property having only an agricultural value, from an extra burden, in view of the fact that the Leader of the Liberal party in this House has pointed out how excessively hard is the lot of these people under the conditions of modern taxation.

I am told that it is an afterthought on the original scheme of the Budget. No Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever been asked to discriminate exactly between his first thought and his afterthought, and nobody has any right to insist that it is an afterthought unless they can prove that it is so. I thought that it would be better to relieve the Super-tax payer and to transfer the same burden to the Death Duties, but I also knew perfectly well that the class which would be most hardly affected by the increased Death Duties would be the owners of agricultural property. From the very outset I bore in mind that a representation could be addressed to me upon that subject, and that that was a case which ought to be met in the ordinary course of the discussion which takes place in the long and complicated passage of a Finance Bill through Parliament. Therefore, at the proper time we have made this very modest and reasonable Amendment, which confers no advantage on the agricultural class, but leaves them exposed to all those devastating consequences on which the leader of the Liberal party dwelt. It simply relieves me from the burden of responsibility of laying an additional aggravation upon a situation already almost intolerable, as we have been assured from the party opposite.

I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness has made a great study of the land. He has been in the position to do so, and certainly he occupies a very peculiar position in this House when he stands up as the violent opponent of any concession of any kind to landlords or of any mitigation of the rigorous treatment of landlords. I would say seriously to him that it would be very unwise for us, in the absence of some general policy for dealing with the whole of our rural position, to add at this moment an extra burden upon agricultural land. The dislocation caused in the countryside when these splendid estates have to be broken up on paying Death Duties is very serious and far reaching, and far exceeds the bounds of ordinary liquidation. It produces not merely economic but social complications. Large numbers of people are affected. They are a fertile source of wages. There is no doubt that it is the cause of much trouble when land has to be sold and the tenant is forced into the position either of having to produce the capital which he cannot readily command to purchase his holding or of leaving a site which has been his home for many years to see it occupied by some stranger.

That is a matter which is no real advantage to any individual or class. Our law proceeds on a certain basis, and this one class has been hit above all other classes in the community. New classes have come to take its place, and this one class has lost its relative position in the State. That hon. Gentlemen should attack me because in the course of this Budget I have declined on this occasion to add to the burdens of this class is much to be regretted. I ask the House to renew upon the Report the decision already come to in Committee, and to reject the proposal which has been made to add to the burdens upon agricultural land which already, in the opinion of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs have attained crushing and destructive dimensions.

Mr. DALTON

When we leave aside the sentimental rhetoric and the crocodile tears shed over the owners of agricultural land, who have been already replaced, the Chancellor has told us, by a new class of men, many of whom have made large profits in industry and spent some of them in acquiring agricultural land, as he has told us largely for its amenities, we find that the proposal of the Chancellor does differentiate in favour of the better to do landlords as against the landlord who is more hardly pressed. The effect of the Clause is to give relief to estates, as compared with what they would have to pay under the scale appropriate to other property passing at death, of between £12,500 and £1,000,000. The £12,500 is net. In other words, the poor landlord about whom fairy tales are told, who goes through life burdened with debts and mortgages and other incum-brances, in most cases will not come in for any relief at all. All these incum-brances, debts and mortgages are deducted from the value of the estate before it is subject to Estate Duty, and it is only on those who have £12,500 net that this relief operates.

Furthermore, in many cases the owners of agricultural land are also the owners of considerable quantities of other wealth. It is quite a mistake to suggest that the greater part of the agricultural land of the country is held by people who own nothing else. In many cases it is a mere side-show to the ownership of large quantities of stocks and shares. In these particular cases what is happening is that a further dole is being given, in addition to those conferred by other Clauses of the Budget, to the extent of £500,000 a year, to a class of people who have no special claim to receive it on the grounds of poverty. I could have understood the proposal much more easily if it had applied to the smaller estates as well as to the larger. It applies only to estates of £12,500 and upwards.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Because those estates over £12,500 are the only ones to which the new burdens apply.

Mr. DALTON

The arrangement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has described is a futile arrangement if it is to benefit the poorer landlord as distinguished from the richer. The Financial Secretary said on the last Amendment, "We have done our best." I then said it was a poor best. This is a poor best, too, if it is designed to carry out the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. This proposal to give special treatment to agricultural land, compared with other forms of property, is a reversal of the practice since Sir William Harcourt's Budget of 1894, which for the first time swept real property into line, so far as the Death Duties were concerned. It is evident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has acquired what used to be called in those days "landed ideas." Sir William Harcourt had a brother who owned land. He protested against the 1894 Budget and told Sir William that he had no landed ideas. The Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, "You have the land and you may leave the ideas to me." The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this case has reverted to the older mentality of the conductors of our finance, and has acquired a special tenderness for the interests of agricultural land.

I shall not develop the point already made, that this is not the only inducement which agricultural land owners have received to continue in allegiance to the Conservative party. In addition to this particular dole, which excites great enthusiasm in many quarters on the other side—I believe it is even more highly prized than the Super-tax dole—agricultural rates have been reduced for the benefit of landlords who in many cases are perfectly well able to pay, and Income Tax and Super-tax reductions have been thrown into their laps. I am glad to have the opportunity of recording my protest against this reactionary, and, in some respects, revolutionary proposal, reverting to an earlier and much less enlightened time, and I hope the day is not far distant when we shall be in a position to reverse this step, which is taken entirely in the wrong direction.

Captain GARRO-JONES

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, placing his hand on his heart, boasted about his benevolent intentions. Our complaint is that he manifests his benevolent intentions to such a restricted class. I was interested to hear him say, in interrupting the last speaker, that any benefit which might conceivably be conferred on agriculture by

this proposal would be confined to those estates which were worth more than £12,500. The truth of the matter is that this relief is a concession to those wealthy landlords who have been squealing ever since the War about the breaking up of their estates. I know of no more unbecoming feature of English life since the War than the fact that these dukes and large landlords have protested against the burden of taxation more than any other class in the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had said that agriculturists were labouring under heavy burdens. It is perfectly true that they are, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was referring to the small farmers. I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but there happened to be lying in front of me a copy of "Whitaker's Almanac," and it occurred to me that it might contain some figures relevant to this Debate. I find from it that the number of farms in this country under 300 acres is 411,000 and the number above 300 acres is only 2,000 or 3,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide"!] I am well aware that these facts are distasteful to hon. Members opposite but that is no reason why they should not be heard. This boasted benevolence is confined to about 2,000 people while 411,000 small agriculturists are not deriving one penny of benefit. If this Clause is brought in on the supposition that it is going to benefit agriculture, I say that it is a deliberate sham and ought to be rejected by the House.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 145.

Division No. 205. AYES. [10.43 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Berry, Sir George Buckingham, Sir H.
Albery, Irving James Bethell, A. Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Birchall, Major J. Dearman Bullock, Captain M.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Burman, J. B.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Blades, Sir George Rowland Burton, Colonel H. W.
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Blundell, F. N. Butt, Sir Alfred
Astor, Viscountess Boothby, R. J. G. Campbell, E. T.
Atholl, Duchess of Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cassels, J. D.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Brass, Captain W. Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Brassey, Sir Leonard Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Briggs, J. Harold Chapman, Sir S.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Briscoe, Richard George Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Brittain, Sir Harry Chilcott, Sir Warden
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Christie, J. A.
Bennett, A. J. Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Clary, Reginald George Henn, Sir Sydney H. Radford, E. A.
Clayton, G. C. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Raine, W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A. Ramsden, E.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Herbert, S. (York, N. R, Scar. & Wh'by) Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone) Rees, Sir Beddoe
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Conway, Sir W. Martin Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Cooper, A. Duff Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Remer, J. R.
Cope, Major William Hopkins, J. W. W. Rentoul, G. S.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Rice, Sir Frederick
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim) Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Ropner, Major L.
Crook, C. W. Hume, Sir G. H. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) Hurd, Percy A. Salmon, Major I.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Curzon, Captain Viscount Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Dalkeith, Earl of Jacob, A. E. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Jephcott, A. R. Savery, S. S.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) King, Captain Henry Douglas Shepperson, E. W.
Dawson, Sir Philip Lamb, J. Q. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfst)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan Little, Dr. E. Graham Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Drewe, C. Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
England, Colonel A. Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Lougher, L. Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Everard, W. Lindsay Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Storry Deans, R.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Lumley, L. R. Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Lynn, Sir R. J. Strickland, Sir Gerald
Falls, Sir Charles F. McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D. McLean, Major A. Styles, Captain H. Walter
Fielden, E. B. MacMillan, Captain H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Fleming, D. P. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Forestier-Walker, L. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Forrest, W. Makins, Brigadier-General E. Templeton W. P.
Fraser, Captain Ian Margesson, Captain D. Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Frece, Sir Walter de Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E. Merriman, F. B. Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Meyer, Sir Frank Tinne, J. A.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Ganzoni, Sir John Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Gates, Percy Moles, Thomas Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Waddington, R.
Goff, Sir Park Moore, Sir Newton J. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Gower, Sir Robert Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Grant, J. A. Moreing, Captain A. H. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Greenwood, William (Stockport) Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Murchison, C. K. Wells, S. R.
Gretton, Colonel John Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent Neville, R. J. White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristrol, N.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Nuttall, Ellis Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne) Oakley, T. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Wise, Sir Fredric
Hanbury, C. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh Womersley, W. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Orsmby-Gore, Hon. William Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W. R., Ripon)
Harland, A. Pennefather, Sir John Wood E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Harrison, G. J. C. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wood, Sir Kinnsley (Woolwich, W.)
Hartington, Marquess of Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Perring William George Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Hawke, John Anthony Pielou, D. P. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Preston, William Commander B. Eyres Monsell and
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Price, Major C. W. M. Colonel Gibbs.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Barnes, A. Briant, Frank
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Barr, J. Broad, F. A.
Ammon, Charles George Batey, Joseph Bromfield, William
Attlee, Clement Richard Beckett, John (Gateshead) Bromley, J.
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Buchanan, G.
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Sitch, Charles, H.
Clowes, S. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Smillie, Robert
Compton, Joseph Kelly, W. T. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Connolly, M. Kennedy, T. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Cove, W. G. Kirkwood, D. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lansbury, George Snell, Harry
Crawfurd, H. E. Lawson, John James Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Dalton, Hugh Lindley, F. W. Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Livingstone, A. M. Stamford, T. W.
Day, Colonel Harry Lowth, T. Stephen, Campbell
Dennison, R. Lunn, William Sutton, J. E.
Duncan, C. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Taylor, R. A.
Dunnico, H. Mackinder, W. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) MacLaren, Andrew Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow).
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) March, S. Thurtle, E.
Fenby, T. D. Maxton, James Tinker, John Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Gillett, George M. Montague, Frederick Varley, Frank B.
Gosling, Harry Morris, R. H. Viant, S. P.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wallhead, Richard C.
Greenall, T. Murnin, H. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Naylor, T. E. Warne, G. H.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Oliver, George Harold Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Groves, T. Owen, Major G. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Grundy, T. W. Palin, John Henry Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Paling, W. Welsh, J. C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Westwood, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Ponsonby, Arthur Whiteley, W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Potts, John S. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hardie, George D. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Harris, Percy A. Riley, Ben Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Hayday, Arthur Ritson, J. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Hayes, John Henry Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich) Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) Windsor, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Robinson, w. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) Wright, W.
Hirst, G. H. Saklatvala, Shapurji Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Scrymgeour, E.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Scurr, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Sir R. Hutchison and Captain
John, William (Rhondda, West) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Garro-Jones.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)