§ Sir G. HURSTI beg to move, in page 25, line 13, to leave out paragraph (a).
Clause 26 is a very important Clause of the Bill, because it defines the owner on whom, under Clause 14, the Land Value Tax is chargeable, and the aim of the Amendment is to object to the language used in paragraph (a), on the ground that, although there may be quite true and sound conceptions underlying it, the paragraph in its present form will inflict a great deal more injustice on individuals than it will do justice to them. As I understand it, the conception underlying the paragraph is this: there may be cases where the lessee for 1853 a term of years may have a larger interest in the land than the freeholder, and in such a case it is a fair and proper thing that the lessee should be made chargeable with the Land Value Tax. It is obvious that if a lessee has a term of 999 years and pays, perhaps, a very small annual rate, he would be a proper person to be charged with the tax, the value of the freehold reversion being very small indeed. The test of the justice or the injustice of charging the lessee is surely the unexpired portion of the term, and not the date on which the lease happens to have been granted. If this paragraph imposed the liability for the tax upon the lessee whose lease has still 50 years to run, there would be little reason to object to it. In its present form, however, it imposes a liability for the tax upon a lessee holding the estate on any lease which was originally granted for a term exceeding 50 years, and in other cases the freeholder is liable.
I should like to put to the Solicitor-General cases where grave injustice may result from the language as used in this paragraph. Take the case of a lessee who holds under a 99 years lease granted in the thirties of the last century. He has two, three, or four years' interest in the property, and at the end of that time he may be under very grave liability to the reversioner who will come into possession and take full advantage of any improvements in the land during the period of the lease. A lessee who has simply three or four years to run in that way has a far less beneficial interest in the land than the reversioner who is going to enter in in three or four years time, yet the liability for the land tax is imposed on the lessee and not upon the freeholder. I ask the Solicitor-General to contrast that case with the case of a lease which has been recently granted for, say, 49 years. In that case it is quite clear that the lessee's beneficial interest, which is going to run for nearly 50 years from now, is very much greater than the beneficial interest of the lessee holding a term which is almost expired, yet in the case of a 49 years' lease granted before the passing of this Bill the freeholder will be liable for the tax, and not the lessee. In fact, under the Amendment of the Solicitor-General two Clauses back, it will be impossible in a case like that for the freeholder to throw the burden on the lessee by contracting out of the Bill.
1854 The contrast is an eloquent one, and shows that there may be many cases of injustice especially in the case of old 99 years leases which are about to expire, and I suggest that the test of liability should be the unexpired duration of the lease rather than the duration of the term, which was the subject of a grant which may have taken place 100 years ago. If I conceive the meaning of this paragraph correctly, exactly the same criticism might be made against the last two and a half lines of this Sub-section:
If there are two or more such leases, the estate owner in respect of the term which will first expire.If I understand that aright, this language might apply to the case of an original lease for 999 years and an under-lease for 99 years. Let us take the case where the under-lease will expire in five or six years time. It is quite clear that the beneficial interest of the present holder of the under-lease is very small compared with that of the superior lessee, who will shortly re-enter and will have the benefit of the rest of the 999 years lease. In a case of that sort the test should be the unexpired duration of his beneficial interest. The position as between the under-lessee and the lessee in those circumstances is much more analogous to the case of the man who is lessee for five or seven years holding under a freeholder. The Solicitor-General would never dream in those circumstances of making the lessee liable, and in my submission the position of the under-lessee and the lessee there is really analogous to that of a short term lease and a freehold. I am not quarrelling with the motive underlying this paragraph, which is clearly a fair one, namely, that there are leasehold interests which are practically tantamount to freehold interests, in which cases the lessee ought to bear the burden of the Land Tax; but there are many cases where that would be unfair. This paragraph is, if I may say so rather roughly and crudely put together, and wants dissecting so as to open the gates for readjustment in the hard cases which may arise in the circumstances which I have explained.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALThis is naturally a matter to which we have given a great deal of thought, because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, there are two ways in which this 1855 matter can be dealt with. We can either take as a criterion the original length of the lease, or else take as the criterion the unexpired term of the lease at the particular date at which it is sought to charge the owner with the tax. The first thing on which we are at one is that there are obviously cases where the lessee is the proper person to be termed the owner for the purposes of this Bill; but the real question is whether we should more suit the actual facts of the case by making the criterion the original length of the lease or taking the unexpired term. The reasons which have actuated us in adopting the course which we are taking are, roughly, these. First of all, the length of the lease originally granted is to a great extent a criterion of the sort of quality or quantity of ownership which the lessee gets; that is to say, in ordinary practice leases which run for over 50 years—and there are very few over 50 years except for 60 years or 99 years—are, as a rule, rather in the nature of building leases—not always, of course, but the others are very rare. If we go below 50 years there is nothing very much before we come to 21 years. Between 21 years and 50 years there seems to be a gap in which we very seldom get a lease. I think the lease which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentions of 49 years would be a very exceptional lease indeed. A lease of 21 years clearly does not seem to give the lessee any real quality of ownership, and therefore we felt obliged to go beyond 21 years up to 50 years.
If we come to the position where the original lease must have been over 50 years—or for 99 years and with 50 years unexpired, having both those qualifications—we reach this difficulty, which we think is a very serious anomaly and one which really militates against the system of the unexpired term. There would be a lease of 60 years running. For the first 10 years the owner would be the lessee, at the end of the tenth year, although there were 50 years unexpired and all the incidents of the tenure were precisely the same, he would cease to be the owner and the lessor would become the owner. So long as he remains the owner under a lease over 50 years all the incidents of his tenure, all his powers of control being precisely and exactly the same, it is difficult to see any reason why, during the currency of that lease, you should 1856 alter the incidence of the tax, because nothing has happened in the rights of the respective parties so long as the lease continues to run, and the continuity, as it were, of the ownership or the part of the ownership which lies in the lessee, is really undisturbed until the lease expires. Therefore, it seemed to us that it was better to take as the criterion the length of the lease, which gives a sort of criterion of the quality of ownership which the lessee has, and so long as that quality of ownership continues, that is, during the term of the lease, we should continue to treat him as being in the first case the owner upon whom the assessments will be made and the tax charged-That is the reason, and in our submission it is a valid reason, why this system is better than dealing with the unexpired term of the lease, and I hope, with that explanation, the hon. and learned Member will appreciate that we have really considered this subject as well as we could and will think that the conclusion we have come to is, after all, a wise one.
§ Sir BOYD MERRIMANWhile we thank the Solicitor-General for his explanation of the reasons which actuated him in the choice between two courses, it must be acknowledged that the test taken is an arbitrary one. I was a little astonished for personal reasons to hear the Solicitor-General say that in ordinary circumstances there are no leases between 60 and 21 years.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALNo I said there were a good many 50-year leases.
§ Sir B. MERRIMANAs it happens, I know very intimately a lease of 41 years.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERALOh, there are a number, of course.
§ Sir B. MERRIMANAnd I daresay that that particular lease is typical on that particular estate of other leases which have been granted. It will be a little difficult to explain to the man who has a lease for 99 years of which only three years are to run that he is the owner, and therefore liable for the Land Value Tax, and to tell him that on the other hand a man who has a lease for 41 years, of which 40 years are still to run is not to be liable for the tax but that the freeholder is to be liable. I am quite sure the Solicitor-General will agree, when I put those two cases side by side that it is an anomaly which it will be very difficult to explain to the 1857 parties concerned, and I will leave it at that so far as the ownership of the lease is concerned. Chief rents and ground rents are a form of investment procurable at a certain number of years' purchase, according to the state of the market. There might be one or more ground rents in addition to the original ground rent created by sub-leases of the original building lease. If the head lease was for 50 years or thereabouts—a period selected by the Government as being typical of building leases—the subleases might well be for a term of under 50 years. Is it not the fact—I hope the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong—that this might create an arbitrary distinction as to the incidence of the tax between one ground rent and another on the one hand, and between certain ground rents and chief rents on the other?
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI do not think it will make a difference between a ground rent on a 99 years' lease or a chief rent which is not, in fact, a rent at all. The cases contemplated are over 50 years, and therefore this Section will not make any difference on that point. It cannot make any difference so long as it is a lease, and it does not matter whether it is a lease for a chief rent or a ground rent.
§ Sir B. MERRIMANYou are taking 50 years as typical. I have given instances of leases under 50 years at slightly different rents. There will be, or there may be a period well over 40 years to run, and there will be a different incidence of the tax in the one case and not in the other as between the ground landlord of the lease above or below 50 years. What conceivable ground is there for making an arbitrary line which really will affect the security of those who hold the ground rent, or the chief rent as the case may be, in one of the categories I have put, who may be the fifth, or the tenth removed from the original owner? I hope the Solicitor-General will see that there is some substance in my point.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI agree that it is a point of substance, but the position would he this: Where you buy a ground rent and the lease has 50 years unexpired, you would pay the tax, but the next year, when owing to effluxion of time there would be only 49 years to run, you would not pay because you would 1858 be dealing with the term which was unexpired. Under the Bill, there will be a far greater degree of security, because you will know that in every lease of a certain nature granted for more than 50 years, this incidence attaches, but under the Amendment during the currency of every lease granted for more than 50 years there will come a time when, so to speak, the guillotine will fall, and there will be a change in the incidence of the land tax. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) will look at the matter from that point of view.
§ Sir B. MERRIMANThe Solicitor-General has given a perfectly reasonable answer on the point of this Amendment, and I feel quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that I was dealing with the arbitrary nature of the 50 years' limit. I hope I have made it clear that that was the point to which I was directing my remarks, and I think that that was what the Solicitor-General admitted was a point of substance, although he answered it by dealing with this particular Amendment. Nevertheless, my point remains, and I think it has not been dealt with.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERALI am sorry to continue this rather exiguous discussion, between, my hon. and learned Friend and myself. I really thought that he was chiefly concerned at the moment with the question whether it should be a 50-year lease or a lease with 50 years unexpired. That was the point put forward by the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment, and I was addressing myself to that point. As regards the arbitrary limit of 50 years, of course any line that is drawn must be arbitrary; it has to be drawn somewhere. I have stated the reasons for drawing it at 50 years. That seemed to be about the nearest that one could get to the point of difference between the lease of a house and a ground rent. From the experience which has accumulated, it seemed that there are very few leases between 21 years and 50 years, while after 50 you get a few at 60, a few at 70, and then some at 90, and as a whole those between 50 years and 90 years are really ground rents.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI have only been able to be present during part of this discussion, but to that part I have 1859 listened with very great interest. I am bound to say that I have been much impressed by the arguments of the Solicitor-General, both on the question as to whether the criterion should be the whole term of the lease or the portion unexpired, and on the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman), as to what length of lease should constitute the dividing point. It is very difficult to say where the dividing point should come, and, while it seems to me that there is a great deal in the argument of the Solicitor-General, it is clear that there may be, not only great awkwardness, but quite considerable hardship, wherever the line is drawn or whichever criterion is taken. I do not propose to continue the discussion, because we have so little time
§ and there are other points that we want to take before the Guillotine falls. I only want to bring forward a protest, and to point out that what the Solicitor-General has said is an extraordinarily good example of one truth, which is that a tax which is inequitable in itself quite clearly leads to hardships, and no apportionment of it as between different people can be fair. As we object to the tax as a whole as being unjustified and inequitable, so we object to this Clause as it stands, because it creates injustices as between one party and another between whom there is no real distinction.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes 119.
1861| Division No. 322.] | AYES. | [8.59 p.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Jones, Llewellyn-, F. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Dukes, C. | Jonas, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Duncan, Charles | Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne) |
| Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. | Ede, James Chuter | Joweitt, Rt. Hon. F. W. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. v. (Hillsbro') | Edmunds, J. E. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Kedward R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Ammon, Charlas George | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Kelly, W. T. |
| Angell, Sir Norman | Egan, W. H. | Kennedy, Rt Hon. Thomas |
| Arnott, John | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Foot, Isaac | Kirkwood, D. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Freeman, Peter | Knight, Holford |
| Ayles, walter | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton) | Lang, Gordon |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Baldwin, Olivar (Dudley) | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lathan, G (Sheffield, Park) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Barr, James | Gill, T. H. | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
| Batey, Joseph | Gillett, George M. | Lawrence, Susan |
| Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Glassey, A. E. | Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
| Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Gossling, A. G. | Lawson, John James |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Benson, G. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.) | Leach, W. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Gray, Mliner | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lees, J. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Leonard, W. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Groves, Thomas E. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Bromfield, William | Grundy, Thomas W. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Bromley, J. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Longden, F. |
| Brothers, M. | Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.) | Lunn, William |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Buchanan, G. | Harbord, A. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Hardie, David (Rutherglen) | McElwee, A. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) | McEntee, V. L. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Harris, Percy A. | McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston) |
| Caine, Hall-, Derwent | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Cameron, A. G. | Hayes, John Henry | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
| Cape, Thomas | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Chater, Daniel | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Manning, E. L. |
| Church, Major A. G. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield. | Mansfield, W. |
| Clarke, J. S. | Herriotts, J. | March, S. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Marcus, M. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Marley, J. |
| Cove, William G. | Hoffman, P. C. | Marshall, Fred |
| Cowan, D. M. | Hollins, A. | Mathers, George |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Hopkin, Daniel | Maxton, James |
| Daggar, Georgs | Hore-Belisha, Leslie. | Messer, Fred |
| Dallas, George | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Middleton, G. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Mills, J. E. |
| Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | Isaacs, George | Milner, Major J. |
| Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) | Jenkins, Sir William | Montague, Frederick |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Morley, Ralph |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Ritson, J. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Romeril, H. G. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Morrison, Robart C. (Tottenham, N.) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Tillett, Ben |
| Mort, D. L. | Rowson, Guy | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Muff, G. | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) | Toole, Joseph |
| Muggeridge, H. T. | Samuel, H. walter (Swansea, West) | Tout, W. J. |
| Murnin, Hugh | Sanders, W. S. | Townend, A. E. |
| Nathan, Major H. L. | Sandham, E. | Turner, Sir Ben |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sawyer, G. F. | Vaughan, David |
| Noel Baker, P. J. | Scott, James | Viant, S. P. |
| Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.) | Sexton, Sir James | Walkden, A. G. |
| Oldfield, J. R. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Walker, J. |
| Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Wallace, H. W. |
| Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Sherwood, G. H. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Shield, George William | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | Shillaker, J. F. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Palin, John Henry | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Paling, Wilfrid | Simmons, C. J. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Palmer, E. T. | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) | Walsh, James (Paisley) |
| Parkinson, John Allen (wigan) | Sinkinson, George | West, F. R. |
| Perry, S. F. | Sitch, Charles H. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Phillips, Dr. Marlon | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Pole, Major D. G. | Smith, Rennle (Penistone) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Potts, John S. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Price, M. P. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Pybus, Percy John | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Quibell, D. J. K. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Sorensen, R. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Rathbone, Eleanor | Stamford, Thomas W. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Raynes, W. R. | Stephen, Campbell | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Strauss, G. R. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Sullivan, J. | |
| Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Sutton, J. E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Ganzonl, Sir John | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C M. S. | Gault, Lieut.-col. A. Hamilton | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Atkinson, C. | Gower, Sir Robert | Salmon, Major I. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Grattan- Doyle, Sir N. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Savery, S. S. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Smithers, Waldron |
| Broadbent, Colonel J. | Hurd, Percy A. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Inskip, Sir Thomas | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Campbell, E. T. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Christie, J. A. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Lockwood, Captain J. H. | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunei | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Thompson, Luke |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Marjoribanks, Edward | Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Muirhead, A. J. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | O'Neill, Sir H. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Peake, Capt. Osbert | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Dug dale, Capt, T. L. | Penny, Sir George | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Perkins, W. R. D. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Elliot, Major walter E. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S-M.) | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Ramsbotham, H. | |
| Ferguson, Sir John | Remer, John R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Fermey, Lord | Reynolds, Col. Sir James | Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) | Austin Hudson. |
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.