HC Deb 30 November 1926 vol 200 cc1087-99
Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, at the end, to insert the words but so that in such purchase or lease the basis of compensation shall be the net annual value of the land. This Amendment was moved in Committee, and the main theme of the Minister s reply was that, while it might be that certain alterations are desired, at least by members of my party, this is not the moment when by piecemeal methods we should be altering the normal methods of purchasing land. I submit that is no reply whatever. Here we are engaged providing land for public and social purposes; purposes which the Com- mittee and, perhaps, a large proportion of the people beyond these walls are agreed is of first importance from the national point of view. That being the case, it seems to me that the basis of compensation ought to be as suggested in this Amendment, the net annual value of the land. In the past, one has found that wherever the Government in any of their schemes have entered a market, the price of land has quickly begun to increase. Between 1908 and 1919 the price paid for land for the settlement of people on small holdings averaged £32 per acre. When we were showing our patriotism and were settling ex-service men, following 1919, then the Government or the county councils had to pay an average price of £42 per acre, or an increase of 25 per cent., to ex-service men who were going to be settled, as some small remuneration for the services they rendered the State.

In this financial Memorandum some reference is made to the possibilities of the price of land interest, land charges, and so forth. I do not know whether it is a question of coming events casting their shadows before or not. "If a council buys land at £50 an acre," and so forth. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that figure was used merely as a means of illustrating a point, or whether it is going to act in the country, particularly where arbitrators are called in, as a guiding influence. Land is to be purchased for small holdings under this scheme. No social or amenity value or any other value than the value at present obtained from the land should be paid to any landlord who is going to be compensated because of his land being taken over for general public purposes and the establishment of small holdings. The hon. Member for Maldon (Major RugglesBrise), replying to the Mover of this Amendment in Committee, said: The whole purpose of this Bill is that the State should assist in order to get the right class of men settled on the land. The State is assisting financially to the extent of 75 per cent. of the loans. He proceeded: This is adequately provided for in the terms of the Bill, and there is no need, in addition to that State assistance, also to give further assistance by robbing a man of his possessions, as would be the case if this Amendment were accepted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 16th November, 1926; col. 34.] If there has been any robbery in the past certainly the landowners have not been robbed. On every occasion when the nation, through its officials, has entered into the market, there has been an increase of price. It is the nation that has been robbed from time to time. I hope that if the promoter of this Bill desires to obtain the maximum value out of it he is going to limit to the least possible price the land on which small holdings are going to he settled. I think that the net annual value of the land is a fair and reasonable price. That should be an instruction to the county councils and arbitrators where they are called in. Then we may reach that stage when the price of land will no longer be a, barrier, and we will be able to settle a larger number of people on the land than hitherto.

Mr. MacLAREN

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend. The moment the Government appears on the scene as a land purchaser prices are inflated at once. When we were discussing the Agricultural Credits Bill it was openly admitted from the Government Front Bench that the land became higher in price the moment the Government appeared on the sence as a purchaser. It was true, and it will be true again. I cannot help recording what Lord Bledisloe said in another place in dealing with this question: The great difficulty which arises in the case of allotment gardens outside a great urban area is that of acquiring land at any= thing like an economic value, bearing in mind that the rents charged to the allotment-holders are bound to be based upon the price paid on the acquisition of the land. That is a point which the Minister should keep in mind in discussing this Amendment. Lord Bledisloe proceeds: When there comes an urgent demand for allotments, the land has suddenly to be acquired. Land of high capital value, based upon its value for industrial purposes, has to be let or sub-let to the allotment-holders at rates which they find difficult to pay. He goes on to give illustrations. In Committee we pointed out, and I think it is worth while pointing out again, that land which is to be any use for small holdings must be contiguous to towns or markets or some centre of activity and that is bound to he reflected in the enhanced site value. Therefore, if this Bill is going to be carried out and create smallowners and proprietors, surely the first precaution the Government should take is against any attempt on the part of the landowners to take advantage of site values in handing the land over, and thereby create an enormous demand, increase prices, and hinder development. If it were left to me, I would have another device for dealing with that Seeing we are trying to inject Amendments into a very reactionary form of legislation, on the face of it this seems to be the only step if the Government are going to carry this through. Inflation is bound to take place where the Government or local authorities are likely to appear as buyers, and this will tend to hinder that desire which every man in this House has, to open up natural opportunities for men who are unemployed. It is to facilitate that that we hope the Government will clip the wings of the speculators, and give opportunities for land to be obtained at lower prices.

Mr. GUINNESS

The Amendment raises issues which go far beyond the scope of this Bill. The conditions under which land is compulsorily acquired for public purposes are laid down in the Acquisition of Land Act of 1919, which, as the House will remember, was carefully considered, and endorsed prices less favourable to the landlord than those which had previously been in force. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has told us that whenever the Government appears in any land transaction up goes the price. That is not applicable to transactions under this Bill where the price is fixed by arbitration. He quoted, as an example of the high price of land obtained for small holdings, not land obtained in agricultural districts for allotments, but, as I understood him, the case of allotments on the outskirts of the towns where there was a substantial building value. Naturally, the price of such land is necessarily higher than we expect local authorities to have to find under this Bill. Under the provisions of the Act of 1919 as applied to the purchase of small holdings by the Land Settlement Act of the same year, the average number of years' purchase of the net rent, not the gross rent, was about half what the hon. Member said. It was 22½ years' purchase of the net rental value.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The right hon. Gentleman might inform the House what he means by net rent. For instance, does he deduct the cost of management and repairs?

Mr. GUINNESS

Anyhow, I do not mean gross rent, which the right hon. Gentleman Stated was the practice. Any valuer would arrive at his figure on the sum which the landlord would expect to receive, net, into his pocket. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is here, because he made the same statement on the earlier occasion when we discussed this Bill, and he could not have been in the House when I gave the facts. These facts have been looked into, and it is no answer to me to say that I do not know the elements of the case. I have been given these facts by the Department who have the figures, and, if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept my word for it, I shall be delighted, if he challenges it, to submit, the facts to the President of the Surveyors' Institution for him to certify that the land bought under the 1919 Land Settlement Act was bought at an annual value not exceeding 22 years' purchase of the net rent. This is a little aside from the point, but I could not resist replying to the argument.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I think it is very much to the point.

Mr. GUINNESS

The Amendment raises only one of the points relating to the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, which applies to an owner expropriated against his will from his land who is really not concerned as to the purpose to which his land is going to be put. It is no comfort to the owner to be told that his land, being wanted for small holdings, is to be bought at a lower price than he would have received for some other public purpose, such as municipal waterworks. I do not think those who propose the amendment of the present law which governs the compulsory acquisition of land can argue in favour of applying a new alternative system to one type of transaction in land, and to exact much more severe treatment when the land is required for some other public purpose. Even if hon. Members were of the opinion that this was a just principle to apply in a just way all round it would be limited by this Bill to one type of transaction. I do not argue that it would be just, but even if it were, it would be most unjust to apply it in a piecemeal fashion, which is the only possible way under this Bill. For these reasons I am bound to resist this Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The Minister of Agriculture has made a very important statement. If what he says is correct, I cannot see why he should resist this Amendment, which simply pins him to the declaration he has made, and which he says he is willing to submit to the Surveyors' Institute. I would like to know has he submitted that proposal to the House of Commons?

Mr. GUINNESS

have submitted it to the House of Commons, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated what I said.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The right hon. Gentleman misses my point. May I suggest that before he interrupts me he should first understand the argument which he is interrupting. The argument I am putting is this: The Minister of Agriculture says that the purchase at the present time by county authorities for allotments or small holdings is on the basis of the net, and he says that he is prepared to submit that point to the Surveyors' Institute. If that is the case, why does he not accept this Amendment, which simply says that the practice which he says obtains shall have statutory recognition? The Amendment says: but so that in such purchase or lease the basis of compensation shall be the net annual value of the land. If the right hon. Gentleman says that that is the practice at the present moment, why does he not show his faith in the Surveyors' Institution by accepting the Amendment? The advisers of the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that is not the case, and I accept his challenge. "Net value" means what remains to the landlord, that is, what he puts into his pocket after he has paid for management, tithe, repairs and there may be other things, but in the main those are the chief items of deduction. The net is what he pockets and can use for his own domestic purposes. If the Minister of Agriculture says that that is the basis of compensation at the present moment why on earth does he not accept this Amendment. In order to make an argument for rejecting this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman proves that the Amendment is right. Does he mean to say that no change of the law is required and that this is the law at the present time?

Mr. GUINNESS

The right hon. Gentelman has put a question to me which cannot be answered "Yes," or "No," but I shall be quite willing to give him a complete answer.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I hope it will be more intelligible than the last. I accept the challenge, and I say that at the present moment when you have arrived at the number of years purchase for county councils, you do not make these deductions, and if you do there is no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. This Amendment says that what the Minister of Agriculture has stated is the practice at the present moment should be recognised as the law of the land, and the only objection which he seems to put forward is that that is the practice now. Does the right hon. Gentleman object to making it perfectly clear in an Act of Parliament? There are county councils who are under quite a different impression and are paying on what is, in substance, the gross rent before you deduct the cost of repairs, and therefore it should be made clear to the county councils. As a matter of fact, this is vital to the whole settlement of the agricultural question in this country, whether you have a peasant proprietary or county council ownership, and you will never be able to settle the land question satisfactorily until the land is purchased upon the basis of the net rent. That is the amount which the landlord gets at the present moment and the money that comes into his pocket. When I made the proposal that the net rent should be the basis of compensation, my proposal was met with the criticism that it was confiscation. And now the Minister of Agriculture vindicates me, and says not only was that right, but the Surveyors' Institution says it is right. What better defence could you have than that for the proposition which I have made? I shall gladly accept the challenge which the right hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. GUINNESS

I can only reply to the right hon. Gentleman by the consent of the House. Let me first say that if he will consult the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that I did not say what was the present basis upon which allotments, etc., were bought but that land bought under the 1919 Land Settlement (Facilities) Act would work out at not more than 22½ years' purchase on the average of the net rental value of the land. Now the right hon. Gentleman argues from that that I should accept this Amendment, and he apparently thinks that rental is the same as net annual value. Surely net annual value is a very well established principle, and an easily defined basis of valuation in our rating lists. That, however, is not the net annual value mentioned in this Amendment, and it is quite different to the rental which the right hon. Gentleman is taking here. My issue with the right hon. Gentleman is that it has nothing to do with the annual value in the rating lists and it is not the fact that in the last seven or eight years in these land transactions 40 or 50 times the net annual value has been paid but something under 22½ times.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I did not say that.

Mr. GUINNESS

The right hon. Gentleman did say that, and if he looks in Column 806 of the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that he said: When you talk about 25 years' purchase it is really 40 or 50 years' purchase upon the net rent."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 16th July, 1926; col. 802, Vol. 198.]

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I said 25 years meant that, but that does not mean that 22 years' purchase means that.

Mr. GUINNESS

These public transactions he says took place at 40 to 50 years' purchase upon the net rent. The facts and figures we will put before the President of the Surveyors' Institution, and then I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that for the Land and Nation League, and tell them it is not 40 or 50 years' purchase but 22½ years as the maximum.

Mr. BUXTON

I should like to advance a point of view which in the interesting discussion we have just heard has not been touched upon, and that is justice to the community. Whenever you undertake to establish a smallholder you pass on to the taxpayer the market value so far as it includes luxury value, monopoly value, and excessive sporting values, where sport has been carried on to the detriment of the party. It seems to me to amount to a kind of immorality to saddle your own scheme with a burden of that magnitude. No doubt there would he difficulties in the differentiation which would arise. It is the business of the Government to deal with anomalies, but it is the business of those who support the principle to press it when the occasion arises. The Government could, a course, adopt such a proposal in regard to net annual value, if it is desirable to do so.

You happen to have a valuation—the Income Tax valuation, or, if you like, the rating valuation—which does arrive at the net annual value by subtracting from the gross value the items which have been mentioned. I think one was forgotten, namely, renewals, which are also deducted before the official net annual value is put down. The Government recognise that the agricultural industry cannot afford to bear the burden of the full capital value, by their proposal to make a very large contribution. Is it really fair that, if you want to promote small holdings on a large scale, you should begin by saddling the whole scheme with a burden of great magnitude? Is it in any case efficient to place on the county councils the part of the burden which they have to bear? If the councils had the opportunity of acquiring land on a basis which, however debateable, is to my mind a perfectly sound and fair basis—the basis of real net value—what else would they have to bear? The whole scheme would become a paying proposition, it would be economical, and, therefore, it would be capable of great extension.

The Minister, by his own calculations, is estimating for a small result from his Bill. Why is that? It is because of this peculiar artificial financial burden which is placed by the conditions of the Bill on the action of the county councils. Why should we be talking about a miserable limit of, I think he said, 2,000 holdings in a year, if the whole affair were placed on a really economic basis? I was brought up at Cambridge on sound economics, and I have been encouraged by hon. Members opposite to stick to sound economics, and to avoid the attractions of the fancy economics which sonic attribute to certain advanced politicians. If you really are proceeding on sound economics, and you assume that nothing but agricultural considerations are brought to bear on this question, the development of small holdings ought not to cost public money at all. To my mind there is no case for small holdings unless they pay better than larger holdings. It is really very interesting that the councils actually found, after the War, that the thing was a paying proposition, and I am Personally dead against the artificial creation of luxury small holdings. I should hope we are all agreed that that is not sound. The country cannot afford to spend money on holstering up small holdings, any more than it can afford to bolster up any other form of trade.

The only reason why money has to be spent is that other values are paid for which are artificial and are not properly claimable when the State sets itself to put the land to its best use. The extra amenity value which a great deal of our land possesses in the ordinary market is not a value which ought to be compensated for when the State is spending the taxpayers' money for the purpose of putting the land to its best use. What actually happens You have county councils naturally limited in the amount they wish to spend—limited in regard to capital, limited in regard to the burden they are prepared to put on the rates, but inclined to prefer buying land to leasing land. The Minister knows what a natural bias there is on the part of

councils concerned with small holdings towards buying land, and also against the use of compulsory powers; and what a bias there also is in favour of equipping their land as a council, and not letting the bare land. This all adds a little to the expense, and limits the total result of the operation. If the Government were willing to apply sound economic principles to this Bill, a vastly different result might be hoped for from it. It is the artificially high price of the land which will produce stagnation and limit the value of the Minister's scheme. I support the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 196.

Division No. 513.] AYES. [7.36 p.m.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon Sexton, James
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayday, Arthur Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hayes, John Henry Slesser, Sir Henry H
Baker, Walter Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)
Barnes, A. Hirst, G. H. Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
8romfield, William Hirst, W. (Bradford South) Smith. Rennie (Penistone)
Bromley, J. Hudson, J H. (Huddersfield) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda. West) Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Buchanan. G. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Stamford. T. W.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Stephen, Campbell
Charleton, H. C. Jones, Morgen (Caerphilly) Sutton, J. E.
Clowes, S. Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd) Taylor, R. A.
Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T. Thomas, Rt. Hon, James H. (Derby)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Kennedy, T. Thome. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Compton, Joseph Kirkwood, D. Therne. W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Connolly, M. Lawson, John James Thurtle, Ernest
Cove, W. G, Lee. F. Tinker. John Joseph
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Lindley, F. W. Townend, A E.
Daiton, Hugh Livingstone, A. M. Trovelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lowth, T. Varley, Frank S.
Day. Colonel Harry Lunn, William Viant. S. P.
Dennison, R. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon) Wall head, Richard C.
Duncan, C. MacLaren, Andrew Walsh, Rt. Hon Stephen
Dunnico. H. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Edwards, J. Hush (Accrington) March, S. Westwood, J.
England, Colonel A. Maxton, James Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Fenby, T, D. Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Whiteley, W.
Forrest, W. Montague, Frederick Wiggins, William Martin
Gardner, J. P. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Gosling, Harry Murnin, H. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Oliver, George Harold Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Greenall, T. Paling, W. Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Potts, John S. Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Pureed, A. A. Windsor, Walter
Groves, T. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wright, W.
Grundy, T. W. Ritson, J. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Hall, F. (York. W. R. Normantan) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hardie, George D. Scrymgeour, E. Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.
Charles Edwards.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Barnett, Major Sir Richard Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Braithwaite, A. N.
Albery, Irving James Beckett. Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Brass, Captain W.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Bennett, A. J. Briscoe, Richard George
Astfaury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish Brittain, Sir Harry
Atholl, Duchess of Birchall, Major J. Doorman Brocklebank, C, E. R.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Blundell, F. N. Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Boothby, R. J. G. Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Balniel, Lord Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Buckingham, Sir H.
Bull. Rt. Hon. Sir William James Hanbury, c Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Pilditch, Sir Philip
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Haslam, Henry C. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hawke, John Anthony Preston, William
Caine, Gordon Hall Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Price, Major C. W. M.
Casseis, J. D. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd. Henley) Raine, W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V, L. (Bootie) Rentoul, G. S.
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Rice, Sir Frederick
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm. W.) Hills, Major John Waller Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hilton, Cecil Rye, F. G.
Christie, J. A. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Clarry, Reginald George Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) Sandeman, A. Stewart
Clayton, G. C. Huntingfield, Lord Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hurd, Percy A. Savery, S. S.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K, Hurst, Gerald B. Shepperson, E. W.
Courtauld, Major J. S. Hutchison.G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's) Skelton, A. N.
Craik. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Hiffe, Sir Edward M. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Curzon. Captain Viscount King, Captain Henry Douglas Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.X.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Knox, Sir Alfred Smithers, Waldron
Davidson.J. (Hertf'd.Hemel Hempst'd) Little, Dr. E. Graham Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Lougher, L. Stanley,Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera Stanley, Lord (Fytde)
Dawson, Sir Philip Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Steel. Major Samuel Strang
Dean, Arthur Wellesley MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Streatfield. Captain S. R.
Drewe, C. Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Eden, Captain Anthony MacIntyre, Ian Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Edmondson, Major A. J. McLean, Major A. Thom. Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Elliot, Captain Walter E. Macmillan, Captain H. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Ellis, R. G. Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm Thomson. Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Elveden, Viscount McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Titchfield Major the Marquess of
Everard, W. Lindsay Macquisten, F. A. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Falle, Sir Bertram G. MacRobert, Alexander M. Waddington, R.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Wallace, Captain D. E.
Fermoy, Lord Makins, Brigadier-General E. Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Finburgh, S. Malone, Major P. B. Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Ford, Sir P. J. Manningham-Buller, Mr Mervyn Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Margesson, Captain L. Warrender, Sir Victor
Foster, Sir Harry S. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Merriman F. B. Wells, S. R.
Frece. Sir Walter de Meyer, Sir Frank Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Mitchell. W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)
Ganzoni, Sir John Monself, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Winby, Colonel L. P.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Glyn, Major R. G. C. Moore, Sir Newton J. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Goff, Sir Park Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Wise, Sir Fredric
Grace, John Murchison, C. K. Withers, John James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) Neville, R. J. Womersley, w. J.
G[...]ant, Sir J. A. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Greene, W. P. Crawford Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Wood. Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld) Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.
Grotrian, H. Brent O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Ormsoy-Gore, Hon. William
Gunston, Captain D. W. Perkins, Colonel E. K. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Perring, Sir William George Major Hennessy and Major Cope.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)