HC Deb 30 June 1931 vol 254 cc1103-21

Where in pursuance of any general or local Act any capital sum or any instalment of a capital sum has been paid to any public authority in respect of the increased or enhanced value of any land due to any improvements made or other action taken the the authority, the amount of that capital sum or instalment shall be deducted from any land value of the land for the purpose of the collection of land value tax under this part of this Act.—[Sir T. Inskip.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


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

This proposed new Clause raises in a very striking way the question of double taxation. I am sorry that the benches below the Gangway on this side of the House, usually occupied by hon. Members who take such a keen and unalterable interest in this matter, are not occupied by hon. Members who could add their criticisms to anything that I may have to say. Hon. Members may be aware that upstairs in connection with the Town and Country Planning Bill a proposal has been made, on the lines of existing legislation, providing that in the case of what is called betterment 50 per cent. of that value shall be paid to the local authority. The Government had proposed that the 50 per cent. should be increased to 100 per cent., but by an Amendment made the other day in Standing Committee the 100 per cent. has been altered to 75 per cent. But the principle remains, namely, that a portion of the betterment, the greater portion of the betterment, shall be paid to the local authority by the private owner whose property has been increased in value in consequence of the operations of a scheme under the Act. The proposal in the new Clause which I am moving is that when a payment has been made of that nature it shall be deducted from the value of the land unit before the Land Tax is claimed upon the unit.

The owner is in this position, that he has a property which is worth so much, and the local authority adds to the value of that property something else, and a portion of that something else has to be repaid to the local authority. It seems to me contrary to natural justice that, having made paid a portion, 75 per cent., in respect of the addition to the value of his property, it shall none the less be valued as if the property had been enhanced by the whole of the benefit which the local authority has conferred upon it. This question illustrates in a very striking form the inconvenience of dealing with two Bilk concurrently relating to the same subject matter. Whether the Town Planning Bill or the Town and Country Planning Bill will reach the goal of receiving the Royal Assent first, nobody can tell. What alterations will be made in the course of the Bill upstairs, by Amendment, no one can tell, and no one can say what may happen in the course of the Finance Bill through the House. We have very little time to consider the Amendment, but as matters stand it is quite clear that the Government's present intention is to ask the House to assent to levying upon the owner something which, to that extent, will diminish the value of the unit when it comes to be valued under the Finance Bill.

Having taken from the owner their pound of flesh, the Government ought to be satisfied, but in addition to taking the pound of flesh the Government actually propose to deal with the taxpayer as if that impost had not been insisted upon by the Government. I shall be very curious to hear what defence even the ingenious Solicitor-General of the present Government has to make of a proposal which I think every hon. Member opposite, whatever views he may take about betterment or the Land Tax, would say is inequitable. It is inequitable, and I challenge any hon. Member opposite, be he on the Front Bench or on the back benches, to say, whatever views he may hold about nationalisation, confiscation, land taxation or anything of that sort, that it is right to tax a man upon that which the Government have already taken from him. I can conceive circumstances such as arose in the Amendment which the House last refused, namely, that the Government may be faced with a condition of things in which they have collected a tax which is in the nature of a double tax, for some years, and then find themselves unable to afford the loss of revenue which the giving up of the double tax would entail. That was the defence which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer supported.

That emphasises the necessity for dealing with this' matter at the earliest possible moment lest, if we allow double taxation and the Chancellor of the Exchequer carries out his veiled intention or threat to increase this impost when the convenient opportunity arises, when hon. Members below the Gangway and hon. Members on this side realise that double taxation is becoming intolerable, the Government may come along, shrug their shoulders, and say: "Double taxation, yes, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot afford the loss of revenue which would be involved by removing a manifest injustice." He will say that the justice has 10 years prescription behind it, and that the House must expect it as in the natural order of things. This is in its most unmistakeable form an illustration of double tax, and I hope the Government will see that it is indefensible on its merits and that it will not detract from the principle of the Finance Bill if the Solicitor-General yields, and accepts the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.


We have been discussing what has been described as double taxation, and it is as well that I should explain what I understand by that term, because it is wholly inapplicable to the circumstances we are discussing. It means that the same taxation shall not be taken from the same source of income twice in the same year. What we are dealing with at the present time is betterment. Betterment, in effect, is the purchase price for a particular value in the land. Taxation is a sum of money levied upon the subject for the purpose of defraying the general cost of the State. Betterment is the purchase price paid by an individual in respect to a particular value given to him by any work or arrangements or plans in a locality. The position is exactly the same as if an owner had purchased land, or, say, a lease, from a private individual, the reversion of which was in the local authority, and had then proceeded to purchase the reversion from the local authority. He would have paid directly to the local authority the price for the reversion. I do not think that any hon. Members opposite will venture to suggest that he was taxed to the extent of the price of the reversion, and that, therefore, there would be double taxation. What he has to pay in betterment is a portion of the capital value of the property which has been created by reason of the works or plans executed by the local authorities.

In these circumstances, I suggest that the term "double taxation" has no application at all. The real point is that the owner eventually gets a property, say, of £1,500, that he has paid £1,000, and that there is £500 to the local authority, making the £1,500 which is the value of the unit. It would not have made any difference if he had bought that unit straight out for the £1,500 or if he had got the leasehold rights of it for a thousand pounds and paid the reversioner £500. It is impossible for me to accept this new Clause, because it is, in our view, based on an entire misconception of what the position really is.


One is not really satisfied with the ingenious explanation which the learned Solicitor-General has just given. He pointed to the case of the man who voluntarily buys something from another person. A man buys, for instance, a lease, say, for £1,000, and having bought it freehold he will have to pay a land tax upon it. It is a very different matter when a local authority makes a road in a man's property that he does not want and the full value is imposed upon that owner. He is not a free agent at all, upon whether he is to purchase this so-called improvement or not. In a very large number of cases he does not want to do anything of the sort, but the Government says, "You have to purchase this betterment value for a sum, say, of £l,000," and, having made him enter into a contract that he does not want to enter into at all, they say that, in addition to the full value of the betterment, he has to pay a penny on the capital value. If that is an equitable transaction I am surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General putting it forward on those lines. It seems to me to be perfectly monstrous. You are first of all making the owner pay a capital value of 75 per cent., if the proposed Bill goes through in that form, and for ever afterwards pay one penny in the £ on the money paid over to the local authority. He has been mulcted of the capital sum in advance. The learned Solicitor-General shakes his head, but the local authority says you have to pay a certain amount of the value of this land to it.


Betterment is not a part of the value being paid to the local authority; it is an increased value to the individual who owns the land.


As I understand it, the responsible authority can recover from the individual that sum which has been assessed as betterment.


If there is an increase of value in the land to the local authority there is an increase in the value of the land to the individual.


The question is to whom the money is to be paid. I think I am right in saying that the money has to be paid to the local authority. The local authority obtains the money for this land and ever thereafter the Government valuer or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue demand a penny in the £ on that value so long as the tax exists. I should have thought that this was clearly a case where the Government in equity ought to release this additional value from further taxation. It seems to me, also, that the part of the Bill we are discussing has very little relevance if the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is right. Under Clause 8, the value of the land is to be assessed on the assumption that (e) the unit was free from any encumbrance except any of those mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act. If we turn to the First Schedule I (g) we find restrictions on user which have become operative, imposed by or in pursuance of any Act or by any agreement (not being a lease to which the unit is subject): As I understand it, the assessment shall be made of the land as though taking into account the restrictions of the user that were placed upon it. That seems to bring us back to the case where the town-planning scheme is in operation. There seems to be a restriction under the proposed Town Planning Act in those areas. I thought, until the learned Solicitor-General spoke, that the reply would be that the increased value would not be put upon this land at all, if it was increased in value by the town-planning scheme. In many cases there may be a restriction under the town-planning scheme.


It seems to me that we could not have a clearer exposure of the injustice of the principle of this Bill than the remarks of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. There is no allowance made whatsoever for improvements in the value of the land which an owner put on it himself by his own initiative, or which he is compelled to pay for by the action of the local authority. Take the case of land worth £1,000. The local authority puts a road in the neighbourhood, which increases the value of the land by £500, and the owner is compelled to pay £500 as betterment to the local authority. Where is the difference between that case and the case of the man owning land and paying £500 to make the road for himself? You are taxing him on his improvement whether he has paid for it voluntarily or otherwise. You are, in effect, taxing a man on the improvements he himself puts on the property.


The hon. and learned Solicitor-General made some play with the argument that this was not double taxation. It may not be double taxation in one sense of the word, but it is making a man pay twice for the same thing. A man owns a piece of land and the local authority improves it and increases the value of that land. But he pays for that improvement. He has to pay 75 per cent. or whatever fraction it may be, of the improved value of the land. Because he pays that to the local authority, I cannot see why the State should tax him again on the amount he has paid to the local authority. It is quite true that the value of the land unit that that man possesses has increased in amount, but surely on a technicality of that sort you ought not to tax a man twice.

It is entirely a technical distinction between a man who finds the value of his land increased by the action of the local authority and the man who has spent money on his own land for the purpose of improving it. It is an improvement for which the man has paid. The improvement is made by the local authority but the hand which pays for it is the hand of that owner, and surely improvements which are paid for by the landowner ought to come into the same category as improvements which the landowner himself has made. It makes no difference whether or not he has carried out the work himself. The important thing is that he has paid for it. Here you propose to force him to pay for work which increases the value of the land, and then you say to him, that since he has paid to improve the value of his property, he must pay tax on the money which he has paid to the local authority.

I am afraid that it is no good arguing with the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman is too much pinned to a system which may be called double taxation or may be called something else, but which means paying twice for the same thing and I fear that any arguments which I could bring forward would be useless to convince him. But I think that the country will realise, if the House does not, how very unfair is this proposal. I quite agree that there is a strong case for betterment. If a local authority improves the value of a man's land, then that man ought to pay, up to 75 per cent. at any rate, of that value but when he has paid that once do not tax him over again. It cannot be right to do so and I respectfully suggest to hon. Members opposite that they cannot have it both ways. Either you want to tax a man on land-owning or you want to tax him on betterment. In this proposal you are spoiling a very useful piece of legislation. I believe that the betterment provisions in the Town Planning Bill constitute a useful piece of legislation but you cannot say that because the amount for compensation is paid to the local authority, while the land taxes are paid to the State, that the imposition of both is not double taxation. It is at any rate a double charge and, even if we are beaten on this Amendment as we have been beaten on many Amendments in the past, I think the party opposite will realise that the country does not like and will not accept an injustice of this kind.


I was very interested to hear the Solicitor-General's description of double taxation. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman there should not be double Income Tax on one thing, but that exactly describes the kind of taxation which will take place under the Land Clauses of this Bill because Income Tax under Schedule A and the Land Tax will be paid on exactly the same capital. Assuming that an individual owns a piece of land worth £1,000. A town planning schemes comes into operation and, owing to the activities of the local authority, that land becomes worth £2,000. A sum of £750 is paid over to the local authority as Increment Duty on the land. I do not say anything about that. The principle is quite right, but what the Solicitor-General suggests is that the Land Tax of 1d. in the £ ought to be paid, not on the balance, that is on the £1,250 which remains, but on the whole £2,000, including the £750 which no longer belongs to the owner but has been handed over to the local authority. I think that is even worse than the ordinary land tax and, if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not accept this Amendment, what he is asking us to do is not merely to impose double taxation, but to impose that double taxation on something which has been handed over and the capital of which has gone from the owner to the local authority.


Hon. Members opposite appear to misunderstand the position to judge from the illustrations which have been given. If a man buys a piece of land worth £1,000, and the local authority executes certain works which increase the value of that land to £1,500, he then has to pay the local authority £500 for the enhancement in value effected by the local authority's operations at the expense of the ratepayers. If that £500 is to be regarded as tax, then I maintain that the £1,000 originally paid by this man for the land is also tax, because the two together simply express the price of £1,500 instead of £1,000 which attaches to that property since the work of the local authority has increased its value. It is not tax, however, but the recovery by the people who actually made the increase in value, of that increase in value, just in the same way as the man who sold the land originally for the £1,000 recovered what he put into the land along with whatever profit he was able to make. I cannot see, therefor, that it is to be regarded as a tax. As to the question of injustice, if it is unjust to put a duty on the £500 it is equally unjust to put a duty on the £1,000. You cannot distinguish between the two. The owner of the property paid £1,000 for it in cash. That money has gone, yet for purposes which we all well understand he is to be required to pay a special Land Tax of 1d. in the £ on the capital value. That is perfectly clear. If he is being taxed twice over on the £500 he is being taxed twice over on the £1,000. The cash has gone, both in the Case of the £1,000 and in the case of the £500, paid subsequently to the local authority in respect of the improvement in the value. He is in exactly the same position with regard to the £500 as with regard to the £1,000. Applying the principle of land taxation to the two, he is now in the position of owning a property worth £1,500, according to the principles of valuation, and he has paid that sum to the two parties concerned, in order that they may let him have that value. There can be nothing unjust, if the tax is to be acknowledged at all, in asking him to pay 1d. in the £ on the £1,500.


I should like to emphasise the point made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) when he suggested that it did not make the matter quite clear to talk about double taxation. I think that a change in nomenclature might make the issue clearer, but, undoubtedly, this proposal involves a double payment to the community. I use that phrase because it has been used freely by hon. Members opposite. The whole point of the Land Tax is that it is a payment to the community for the right of the private owner to use the community's land, and undoubtedly, whether you prefer to talk about a tax or not, as the Bill is drafted a double payment to the community is to be demanded for the same piece of land. We have already had one or two mathematical calculations and perhaps I might give another. Suppose that a piece of land is worth £150 and that a town-planning schemes comes into operation and betters the value of £50. The value of the land then becomes £200. If the Land Tax is levied before the town-planning scheme conies into operation, 1d. in the £ is levied on £150, the value of the land at that date. After the land has increased in value it becomes worth £200 and, according to the theory on which Land Taxes are based, it is reasonable to say, "Very well, 1d. must be levied on the addition of £50, that is, on the total of £200."The land has increased in value by £50 and therefore the payment to the community must increase to the same extent. But the mere fact that the owner has paid £50 for the betterment means that he has extinguished the sum on which that additional annual tax is going to be levied. He has commuted it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He pays for the betterment and extinguishes his liability by that capital payment.


He has got the increased value.


He has chosen to commute an annual payment by the payment of a capital sum. The Solicitor-General shakes his head and even smiles. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be deaf to logic though perhaps not altogether deaf to humour. Let me take the analogy of tithe. A man owns land in respect of which he has to make an annual payment of tithe to ecclesiastical authorities. Let that payment called tithe be considered, for the moment, to be analogous to the payment to the community contemplated in these Land Taxes. The owner, in order to be relieved of the annual payment, pays down a lump sum in commutation of that tithe. According to the scheme visualised in the Bill, the Solicitor-General would regard it as reasonable, after the owner has paid down the lump sum in commutation, that he should continue to pay tithe for future years. Really, if this Amendment is not accepted, I shall despair of the Government.


The hon. Members opposite who have criticised the speech of the Solicitor-General on this Amendment seem to be labouring under a fallacy which it is impossible to remove whatever arguments are advanced. The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Major Muirhead) took the case of land which was worth £150 and said that if the land increased in value by £50 the landowner had to pay £50 to the local authority responsible for the improvement and, in addition, had to pay a tax on the increased amount of £200. Apparently the hon. and gallant Member does not realise that if, as a result of action taken by the local authority, the land originally worth £150 declined in value by £50 and became worth only £100, the landowner would be entitled to receive the sum of £50 by way of compensation and in addition his land would be valued for tax purposes at £100. If that be the case where the value of land depreciates, surely it is a reasonable proposition that the Government should impose taxation, involving the payment of £50, when the value of the land increases by that amount as a result of what the local authority has done, and at the same time call upon the landowner to pay tax on a value of £200. The value of the land as a result of the betterment is £200 and not £150 just as in the other case the value of the land as a result of action taken by the local authority depreciated from £150 to £100.

The whole of the argument put forward by hon. Members opposite is based on a fallacy, and apart altogether from that criticism hon. Members opposite fail to realise the position under the existing law. At the present time, although land may be subject to the payment of Income Tax under Schedule A, and although it may be subject to the payment of rates, it is at the same time subject to the general form of taxation, and is subject, of course, to the same rules as to betterment under town planning. Unless hon. Members opposite are prepared to give up the privilege that landowners enjoy when land depreciates as the result of what a local authority has done, it does not lie in their mouths to criticise the Government for imposing the same principle when the value of land increases as a result of what a, local authority has done.


The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken showed that cunning, which is usual in his family, of avoiding all the points which we raised. [Interruption.] I have no intention of reflecting on the hon. Gentleman. He deliberately avoided the interesting legal point on the question of tithes which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Major Muirhead), which upsets the whole argument put forward from the other side. I was interested in the last statement of the Solicitor-General, when he referred to betterment as really a payment to the individual who owns the land. That is remarkable, even as coming from the Solicitor-General. Earlier in his statement he said that betterment was really a purchase price to the community. I hope that he stands by that statement. Once you have paid the purchase price for an article, surely you cannot be asked to pay a tax on it afterwards. I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General does not see that as applied to land, but suppose that we apply betterment to a lawyer's fees which have increased from £10 to £100. Sup- pose we call that increase a betterment from the community, and take £75 of the £90 increase. When the lawyer has paid out that £75, can we say to him, "You are still getting the fee, and you will pay one penny in the £ on it"?


There can be no analogy. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the lawyer gets that he can sell as a result of that £75 charge?


That is a very easy question. He gets an influential advertisement and a name which the community has created, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had to pay on that value he would be a very bad case after a year or two. I will take a definite case and ask him what the position is. Suppose that two trustees own property worth £100, and suppose that a betterment is created by the community, and the value goes up to £1,100. It is the sole property held by these trustees. They will have to pay 75 per cent. of the £1,000 betterment, that is, £750, and in order to pay it, they will have to mortgage the property or sell it. Are they entitled to sell the land in order to pay the tax out of capital? Can the Solicitor-General tell us what is the position of trustees when they are faced with the double tax, which will compel them to put a big mortgage on the property, for, when they have done that, they will have to pay the Land Tax on the whole of the £1,100. We have heard a great deal in this Debate about the Land Tax being only a small tax, but, added to this double tax, it will put a crushing burden on these people. It is meant to be a double tax, and it is meant deliberately to bear on the people who own land. It is imposed with the deliberate intention of making the owning of land almost an impossibility. The Solicitor - General knows that it is a double duty, and that it has been imposed deliberately in order to hit people with whom he disagrees politically.


I listened carefully to the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. A. Henderson, Junr.) because he began by telling us that we were all suffering from a fallacy, but at the end of it all, I understood his point was that those of us who are committed to standing up for the right of compensation if land is injuriously affected, had not the right to say that the tax must not be paid when it obtains betterment. The Solicitor-General shakes his head, but I do not observe that the hon. Member for South Cardiff is doing so. If the hon. Member thinks that that is implied in the argument we are putting forward here, permit me to say that he is mistaken. We are not objecting in the least to a landowner having to pay under the Town Planning Act for betterment due to the direct action of the community. What we object TO is both paying for that and being taxed on the value after having paid it. Let me try to put our case in a sentence or two. The enhancement of the value of land by the action of the community is stated to be the ostensible justification for the taxation of land values in this Bill. It is also the basis upon which under other measures, including the Bill which is going through Committee upstairs, the owner has to pay a portion of that back to the community, to the local authority. I said that this was the ostensible ground on which this Bill was put forward. That was one of the grounds put forward on the Second Reading. But the Bill departs a very long way from that.

In the case of betterment by the action of the local authority, we will suppose that 75 per cent. of that betterment is paid back in cash to the local authority. That has gone out of the pocket of the owner; he has no longer got it. But the Valuer is to come along and look at the land to see the land as it is, enhanced as it is by reason of the action of the community, and the owner is to pay one penny on every pound of value which is found. How is it possible to say that he is not paying a penny on that sum which he has actually had to pay out just before to the local authority? The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge) has left the Chamber. I notice that the Solicitor-General assented to what he said. Take the case which he put of a man who had paid £1,000 for his land and had to pay £750 by way of betterment to the local authority; he said it was just as true in regard to the £1,000 to say that the penny was double taxation on that, as it was true to say that it was double taxation on the £750. That seems to me to ignore the fact that the payment of the £1,000, the purchase price of the land, was a voluntary transaction. The purchaser decided to pay £1,000 for the land. He need not have paid it unless he wanted to do so. Then again, in all probability, at any rate, it would be so in a great many cases.

The £1,000 was a figure arrived at as between a willing seller and a willing buyer upon the basis that the land would probably improve in value—intelligent anticipation of development and the like. The £1,000, therefore, represented in both their minds the then present value without enhancement. A man who voluntarily enters into a transaction of

that sort, I agree, has no right, and we are not saying he has any right, to complain of being taxed on the purchase money he has? paid in those circumstances, but we say that it is wrong to take from him the £750 which he has actually had to pay because the land has improved, and then to tax him on top of that. Whether you call that double taxation in the strictest sense of the word or not, the substance of the matter is that the man has to pay twice for the same thing.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 267.

Division No. 539.] AYES. [5.44 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ainsworth. Lieut.-Col. Charles Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Albery, Irving James Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Dalkeith, Earl of Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Aske, Sir Robert Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Llewellin, Major J. J.
Astor, Viscountess Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Atholl, Duchess of Dugdale, Capt. T. L. Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Atkinson, C. Eden, Captain Anthony Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. Elliot, Major Walter E. Long, Major Hon. Eric
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) England, Colonel A. Lymington, Viscount
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I, of W.)
Balnlel, Lord Everard, W. Lindsay Macqulsten, F. A.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon Fermoy, Lord Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Betterton, Sir Henry B. Fielden, E. B. Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) Flson, F. G. Clavering Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Forestler-Walker, Sir L. Millar, J. D.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. Galbraith, J. F. W. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Boyce, Leslie Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Bracken, S. Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) Muirhead, A. J.
Brass, Captain Sir William Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Briscoe, Richard George Glyn, Major R. G. C. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Broadbent, Colonel J. Gower, Sir Robert Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G (Ptrsf'ld)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) O'Neill, Sir H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Peake, Capt. Osbert
Buchan, John Greene, W. P. Crawford Penny, Sir George
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Gritten, W. G. Howard Perkins, W. R. D.
Butler, R. A. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Pilditch, Sir Philip
Campbell, E. T. Hanbury, C. Pybus, Percy John
Castle Stewart, Earl of Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ramsbotham, H.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Rawson, Sir Cooper
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Haslam, Henry C. Reid, David D. (County Down)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley) Remer, John R.
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Chapman, Sir S. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Christie, J. A. Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Ross, Ronald D.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Colfox, Major William Philip Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Colville, Major D. J. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.) Salmon, Major I.
Conway,' Sir W. Martin Hurd, Percy A. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cooper, A. Duff Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Courtauld, Major J. S. Inskip, Sir Thomas Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. Iveagh, Countess of Savery, S. S.
Cranborne, Viscount Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. Kindersley. Major G. M. Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Knox, Sir Alfred Skelton, A. N.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) Thompson, Luke Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.) Thomson, Sir F. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W. Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Smithers, Waldron Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Somerset, Thomas Todd, Capt. A. J. Withers, Sir John James
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Train, J. Womersley, W. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Spender-Clay, Colonel H. Turton, Robert Hugh Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South) Waterhouse, Captain Charles Captain Margesson and Captain
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wayland, Sir William A. Wallace.
Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F. Wells, Sydney R.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) Longden, F.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Gibbins, Joseph Lunn, William
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Gibson. H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M. Gill, T. H. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') Gillett, George M. MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Alpass, J. H. Glassey, A. E. McElwee, A.
Ammon, Charles George Gossling, A. G. McEntee, V. L.
Angell, Sir Norman Gould, F. McKinlay, A.
Arnott, John Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) MacLaren, Andrew
Attlee, Clement Richard Gray, Mliner Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Ayles, Walter Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) MacNeill-Weir, L.
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddiesbro' W.) McShane, John James
Barnes, Alfred John Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Barr, James Groves, Thomas E. Manning, E. L.
Batey, Joseph Grundy, Thomas W. Mansfield, W.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) March, S.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Marcus, M.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Markham, S. F.
Bennett, William (Battersea, South) Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) Marley, J.
Benson, G. Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) Marshall, Fred
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Hardie, David (Rutherglen) Mathers, George
Birkett, W. Norman Hardie, G. D. (Springburn) Matters, L. W.
Bowen, J. W. Harris, Percy A. Messer, Fred
Broad, Francis Alfred Hastings, Dr. Somerville Middleton, G.
Breckway, A. Fenner Haycock, A. W. Mills, J. E.
Bromfield, William Hayday, Arthur Milner, Major J.
Bromley, J. Hayes, John Henry Montague, Frederick
Brooke, W. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Brothers, M. Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) Morley, Ralph
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) Herriotts, J. Mort, D. L.
Burgess, F. G. Hicks, Ernest George Muff, G.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) Muggeridge, H. T.
Calne, Hall-, Dement Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Murnin, Hugh
Cameron, A. G. Hoffman, P. C. Naylor, T. E.
Cape, Thomas Hollins, A. Noel Baker, P. J.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) Hopkin, Daniel Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Charleton. H. C. Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) Oldfield, J. R
Chater, Daniel Isaacs, George Oliver, George Harold (likeston)
Church, Major A. G. John, William (Rhondda, West) Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Clarke, J. S. Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Cluse, W. S. Jones. Rt. Hon Lelf (Camborne) Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Palln, John Henry
Cocks, Frederick Seymour. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. Paling, Wilfrid
Compton, Joseph Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston) Palmer, E. T.
Cove, William G. Kelly, W. T. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Cripps, Sir Stafford Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Daggar, George Kirkwood, D. Phillips, Dr. Marion
Dallas, George Lang, Gordon Pole, Major D. G.
Dalton, Hugh Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Potts, John S.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Perk) Price, M. P.
Day, Harry Law, Albert (Bolton) Quibell, D. J. K.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Law, A. (Rosendale) Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lawrence, Susan Rathbone, Eleanor
Dukes, C. Lawson, John James Raynes, W. R.
Duncan, Charles Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) Richards, R.
Ede, James Chuter Leach, W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Edmunds, J. E. Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) Ritson, J.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth) Lees, J. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Egan. W. H. Leonard, W. Romeril, H. G.
Elmley, Viscount Lewis, T. (Southampton) Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Foot, Isaac Lindley, Fred W. Rowson, Guy
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Lloyd, C. Ellis Salter, Dr. Alfred
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) Logan, David Gilbert Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Longbottom, A. W. Sanders, W. S.
Sandham, E. Sorensen, R. Wellock, Wilfred
Sawyer, G. F. Stamford, Thomas W. Welsh, James (Paisley)
Scurr, John Stephen, Campbell Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Strauss, G. R. West, F. R.
Sherwood, G. H. Sutton, J. E. Westwood, Joseph
Shield, George William Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) White, H. G.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Shillaker, J. F. Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow) Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Shinwell, E. Thurtle, Ernest Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Tinker, John Joseph Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Simmons, C. J. Toole, Joseph Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Simon, E. D.(Manch'ter, Withington) Tout, W. J. Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) Townend, A. E. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Sinkinson, George Vaughan, David Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Sitch, Charles H. Viant, S. P. Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) Walkden, A. G. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley) Walker, J. Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Smith, Rennle (Penlstone) Wallace, H. W. Wise, E. F.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract) Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Watkins, F. C.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson