§ Section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall have effect as if in Sub-section (1) thereof for the words "one hundred and fifty pounds" there were substituted the words "two hundred and twenty-five pounds," and as if for the words "one hundred pounds" there were substituted "one hundred and thirty-five pounds," and as if in Sub-section (2) thereof for the word "four-fifths," there were substituted the word "five-sixths."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. PARKINSONI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that on this new Clause you are allowing a discussion of all the Income Tax allowances dealt with in the Amendments on the Paper.
The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not quite right there. This Amendment and the following Amendments to some extent involve the same sort of principle, but we cannot properly discuss the other Amendments on this proposed new Clause.
§ Mr. PARKINSONI am much obliged. I must have misunderstood what the arrangement was. The new Clause that I am moving raises the question of the personal allowance, which was reduced in September last. We appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the personal allowance by the amount by 640 which it was reduced in September. I am making my appeal especially for the lower-salaried and higher-waged people whom the September imposition hit most hardly. It will be seen that in the case of married couples I am asking that the allowance be increased from £150 to £225, in the case of a single person from £100 to £135, and that five-sixths be substituted for four-fifths. In his speech in this House in September last the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Snowden, said that his proposals would bring within the range of Income Tax payers a large number of persons with incomes rising to £500 who at present pay no Income Tax or a very small tax. We are quite aware that in many cases the contribution to the Exchequer of these new taxpayers is a very small one, but a small contribution from a very limited income means a hardship.
I suppose it was necessary in September last to increase taxation, but we ought to make sure that the imposition is equitable in its application. Of course it is very difficult to say exactly how this tax applies to the whole range of incomes, but at least we expect it to be equitable in its incidence on large and small incomes. I shall limit my remarks to the cases of those with £500 a year or less. It was argued last September that it was necessary to bring within the range of Income Tax many other people, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at that time argued that the 641 charges were equitable. He said that the year was an emergency year and the Government were seeking an emergency solution. According to the statement of some of his colleagues the emergency is greater now than it was in September last. On the other hand, some Members of the Cabinet only a short time ago were saying that we had turned the corner of the financial crisis. Since those words were spoken there have been many changes in the position of the people of the country. There have been large reductions in the salaries of salaried people, and large reductions in the wages of wage-earners. Consequently the hardships imposed last September have become very much greater, and the power of these people to do what they ought to do has been limited to a very large extent.
These hardships have been suffered not only by the people who have had their allowances reduced, but have been suffered by their children. I know that in many cases it has affected the education of the children; the parents have not been able to give their children the education they intended to give them owing to the reduction of the Income Tax allowances, increased taxation, and the reduction in their salaries. Every slight reduction in the income of people who are on the Income Tax margin is a very heavy reduction indeed. Whether it is possible for them to bear any more remains to be seen. In the case of many the burden is too heavy for them to bear, and has brought them very much nearer what might be called respectable poverty, if such a thing is possible. Let me give one or two percentages. In the case of a single person with an earned income of £400 the amount paid in 1931–32 was 60 per cent. over the amount paid in the previous year; for a married couple without children, with £400 earned income, it was 59.2 per cent.; for a married couple with one child it was over 200 per cent. more than in the previous year; and for a married couple with three children, earning £500, it was something like 373 per cent. Of course these percentages sound very large indeed, but they represent the extra amount of money which has had to be paid with the reduced allowances and after the increase in the Income Tax.
642 I do not know what amount of money is involved in acceptance of the Amendment, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give back these allowances. The impositions of inequitable taxation bear very hardly on people with a limited income, and any remission of the burden would be a very great relief. You might have the case of a man with a respectable salary, or one of the higher wage-earners, and he may have one or two sons who are uninsured and unemployed. Consequently he has the burden of maintaining these children. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the whole question of restoring these allowances and making it possible for parents to do a little more than they are able to do now for their children. But it is not solely for the parents that I am appealing. I know that any tightening in the family life often brings hardship, not for the parents only, but for the children.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. TINKERI wish to support the proposed new Clause. It will probably be said that the state of the country's finances warrants a call being made upon people with smaller incomes but it is hitting very hard a large number of workers. We have cases in which the Income Tax demand made upon these people is driving them to a very low state. We thought that the inclination would have been towards a higher Income Tax limit than that which has been adopted. It was, with regret, that we found one who had been a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer reverting to the position taken by a former Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer. We thought that in 1924 when the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted the method which he did adopt in that year, that we had got away from the old position altogether but we found last year that the same gentleman, though he was not then, as I say, a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, had put us hack to the old position which we thought was associated exclusively with the Tory party. That fact may be used as an argument against us to-night.
It may be said that Lord Snowden would not have done this unless it was a necessity, but I put it to the Financial Secretary that the Government in putting on what they have called tariffs, with other indirect charges to follow, have placed on the poorer people of this 643 country a greater burden than was borne at the time when the Income Tax limit was lower. The poorer people to-day are actually paying a greater rate of taxation indirectly than they were paying at that time. That, I think, is an argument for our case. I have not much hope that our appeal to-night will be listened to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman but this is one of the cases which we are bound to bring forward in order to show where the heaviest burden is falling and I trust that if the Financial Secretary cannot give way to us now he will in the next Budget give consideration to the case which we arc submitting.
§ Major ELLIOTOne must recognise the force of the claim so temperately and so powerfully argued by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), but, as they themselves have said, the difficulty is the difficulty of money. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wigan asked me how much money this concession would cost, and I think he will be rather surprised to learn what it would cost to fulfil the demands made in the series of new Clauses on the Paper, taken together, which seek to restore the allowances in force before the second Finance Act of 1931—because such is the purpose not merely of this new Clause but of the other new Clauses which have been put down on this subject. Would the hon. Member be surprised to know that it would cost £19,000,000 this year alone and in a full year £25,500,000? It would be clearly impossible to balance the Budget at all under those conditions. The extent to which these remissions have been made is very surprising. I do not bring this forward as a completely valid point, but hon. Members opposite have not sought in these proposals also to restore the original earned income allowance which was increased by the Finance Act of last autumn from one-sixth to one-fifth to compensate to some extent for the lowering of the other allowances. They do not apparently propose to put that allowance back to where it was, and that would mean that the rate of taxation which is proposed in these new Clauses would actually be lower than the rate which was proposed in April of last year.
§ Mr. TINKERWe are prepared to make a bargain with the Financial Secretary.
§ Major ELLIOTI should be very careful of making bargains of any kind, but a bargain by which I received £5,000,000 and gave £20,000,000 is not one which I could defend here or even in my constituency. No, the prophecy of the hon. Member for Wigan was unfortunately true. I cannot accept the new Clause, and I cannot restore the allowances as they existed before the autumn Budget of last year. But he asks me, and so does the hon. Member for Leigh, to give serious consideration to this point of easing as far as possible the burden on the families in the lower ranges of income. I shall do my best to remember that. It was under the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that most of these allowances were granted. They were granted with the full concurrence and consent of the party to which I belong, and I think it is true to say that in this matter of the remission of a great deal of Income Tax, all parties in the State have honourably done their best to see what can be done to make these burdens fitted to the shoulders which have to bear them.
The Royal Commission on Income Tax of which the late Mr. William Graham was a member pointed out that personal allowances ought to be introduced, but the children's allowances of £50 for the first child and £40 for the others, were, in fact, far more generous even than the Royal Commission's recommendation, which was £36 for the first child and £27 for the others. That shows how relatively recent is the introduction of the system of allowances in our Income Tax system. They practically did not exist at all in the pre-War years. There was no allowance then in respect of a wife and the only recognition of family responsibility was an allowance of £10 for each child. As I say, the Royal Commission recommended an increase of that allowance to £36 for the first child and £27 for the others and that recommendation was founded upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and others in making a considerable increase of the allowances and reliefs in connection with Income Tax in the Lower rangers in- 645 come which brought the tax down to a matter of pence rather than shillings in the pound.
When I am reproached by the hon. Member for Leigh with having followed a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was not at that time a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer—so the hon. Member contends—let me ask what that Chancellor of the Exchequer did, when he was admittedly a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924 and when he was in command of considerable surpluses? [An HON. MEMBER: "Ancient history!"] It is not so ancient in the history of the country and it is not so very ancient even in the history of Viscount Snowden of Ickornshaw. In those days, with the enthusiastic support of his party, he imposed a tax on a married man with £500 a year earned income and with five children of £9 2s. per annum and in 1931 as continued in 1932 he reduced that tax to £5 per annum.
§ Mr. TINKEROn the down grade.
§ Major ELLIOTIt is, but I thought the hon. Member was complaining that it was on the up-grade.
§ Mr. TINKERI mean that Viscount Snowden was on the down grade.
§ Major ELLIOTIf the effect of being on the down grade is a reduction of Income Tax from £9 2s. to £5, long may the down grade continue. I am sure that most people would be willing to agree to an earldom or even a dukedom being conferred on Lord Snowden if every time that we gave him a step in the peerage it halved the Income Tax. In fact, there would be a special extension of the peerage to provide him with further advancement. The fact remains, however, that the personal allowances represent a part of our Income Tax system which has been highly prized both by Chancellors of the Exchequer and by the people in the lower ranges of income who have enjoyed those privileges. As I say, those privileges were increased in recent years and have since to our great regret had to be reduced; that even with the reduction the allowances in many cases are still more generous than they were in 1924, and, lastly, that it would cost £19,000,000 this year and £25,500,000 next year to restore them, and, taking all these circumstances into account, I am sure that my hon. 646 Friends will not think it unduly harsh of me if I say that it is not possible to accept these new Clauses.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI do not say that we are unduly disappointed, because we did not expect very much from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I should like to point out to the Committee or those Members of it who are here, that this question of personal allowances is worth examination, in view of the history of the taxation of this country since last autumn. In the autumn owing to an emergency, in regard to which equality of sacrifice was heavily emphasised in certain quarters, reductions were made in the Income Tax allowances for both single and married persons, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has reminded us that by that means some £25,000,000 was brought into the Exchequer for a full year.
§ Major ELLIOTNo, I pointed out that this whole series of new Clause represented proposals which would cost £25,000,000 in a full year, but I also pointed out that they would involve actually a lower rate of Income Tax than that which was prevailing at the time of the last Budget and lower than that prevailing in the Budget in which the hon. and learned Member co-operated last April.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI appreciate the distinction and that with the change of the one-fifth earned income allowance back to one-sixth there would not be so much as £25,000,000, but I think I may take it that it would certainly be a figure of somewhere near £15,000,000 as regards these allowances alone. That is the extra charge which has been put upon the lower-paid salary earners and the lower-paid wage earners. At the present time, the single man earning 38s. or 39s. a week comes just on the border of the Income Tax limit, and there is another aspect of this question which makes it particularly hard for that type of single man. Nowadays, under the means test, in many cases the single man earning, say, 39s. to 45s. a week, is compelled to support some other member of his family. If he were married, he would get an allowance under the Income Tax law for supporting his wife and children, 647 but if the public assistance committee in fact compel him, through the means test, to support someone living in the house with him-a brother, a sister, an uncle, or an aunt-he gets no allowance at all on his Income Tax payments, and that is one reason why we think that this personal allowance ought to be put back again to the old standard. There are many cases now throughout the country, when the standard is so low as £100, of persons who are genuinely suffering by reason of the operation of the means test and the charge which that in fact puts upon them to support other members of their family, a charge which they cannot take into account for dependents or any other way. It is a charge, nevertheless, which is very effectively placed upon them by withdrawing support from the other people living in their household, and in fact they have to make a contribution towards the support of those other persons.
But that is not the only thing that has happened. Since the emergency Budget an enormous sum is now being raised by indirect taxation, for the first time in recent years, by a general charge of Import Duties upon the whole mass of commodities, which are used very largely by the very persons who are suffering this extra imposition of Income Tax. So you have these combined circumstances, so far as the sacrifice of these individuals is concerned, that in nearly all cases, like the teachers, the civil servants, and the police, they have had reductions of their
§ salaries, and they have had to pay this new Income Tax in the year in which the reduction of salary has taken place; and now you have the imposition upon them very largely of the indirect taxation. Tie right hon. and gallant Gentleman frowns, but he knows as well as I do that in fact the burden of that indirect taxation proportionately is borne much more by those who have less to spend than by those who have more.
§ It does not matter to him or to me if the price of everyday commodities goes up. We do not really feel it. We may be disappointed that, say, tea costs 2d. or 3d. per lb. more, but it is not anything very vital. But to many of these people it is something that is very vital indeed. It is a real extra burden on them; and you have had all this added incidence falling on the same class, a class which at no time has had those broad shoulders which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman likes to see in the taxpayer who is going to give a large contribution to the Exchequer. They are people who do not have broad shoulders, who cannot bear heavy burdens. We believe that it is going to be shown that the burden that is now being imposed upon them by the system of taxation upon which the Government are embarking will be proved to be so heavy that we hope they will have the energy to throw it off.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 299.
651| Division No. 202.] | AYES. | [8.20 p.m. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Maxton, James |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Milner, Major James |
| Batey, Joseph | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Price, Gabriel |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Buchanan, George | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cape, Thomas | Hirst, George Henry | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Jenkins, Sir William | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Cove, William G. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Daggar, George | Lawson, John James | |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Logan, David Gilbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross) | Lunn, William | Mr. Gordon Macdonald and |
| Edwards, Charles | McEntee, Valentine L. | Mr. Groves. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Atkinson, Cyril | Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Balley, Eric Alfred George | Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Belt, Sir Alfred L. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) |
| Apsley, Lord | Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Blindell, James |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell | Borodale, Viscount |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Bossom, A. C. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Boulton, W. W. |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Harbord, Arthur | Patrick, Colin M. |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Hartland, George A. | Pearson, William G. |
| Briant, Frank | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Penny, Sir George |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Petherick, M. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Heligers, Captain F. F. A. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Burghley, Lord | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd) | Peto, Geoffrey K.W'verh'pt'n, Bllat'n) |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Hepworth, Joseph | Pickering, Ernest H. |
| Burnett, John George | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Potter, John |
| Burton, Colonel Henry Walter | Holdsworth, Herbert | Powell. Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hope Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Staiybridge) | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Caine, G. H. Hall- | Hornby, Frank | Pybus, Percy John |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Horobin, Ian M. | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) | Horsbrugh, Florence | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Howard, Tom Forrest | Ramsden, E. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Ratcliffe, Arthur |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Ray, Sir William |
| Chalmers, John Rutherford | Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring) | Hurd, Percy A. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Christle, James Archibald | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Remer, John R. |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Jamieson, Douglas | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. |
| Clayton, Dr. George C. | Janner, Barnett | Renwick, Major Gustav A. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Jennings, Roland | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip |
| Colville, John | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Rhys, Hon. Charies Arthur U. |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Cooke, Douglas | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Robinson, John Roland |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. | Kirkpatrick, William M. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Cowan, D. M. | Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. H. | Rosbotham, S. T. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Knebworth, Viscount | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Latham, Sir Herbert Paul | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Law, Sir Alfred | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) |
| Crossley, A. C. | Lees-Jones, John | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Salmon, Major Isidore |
| Culverwell, Cyril Tom | Levy, Thomas | Salt, Edward W. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Lewis, Oswald | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Liddall, Walter S. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Savory, Samuel Servington |
| Dickie, John P. | Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- | Scone, Lord |
| Dixey, Arthur C. N. | Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest | Selley, Harry R. |
| Donner, P. W. | Llewellin, Major John J. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Drewe, Cedric | Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick | Shaw, Helen a. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, M.) | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Dunglass, Lord | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Slater, John |
| Eden, Robert; Anthony | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. | McKie, John Hamilton | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Elmley, Viscount | McLean, Major Alan | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | Macmillan, Maurice Harold | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. |
| Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | Magnay, Thomas | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Maitland, Adam | Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) |
| Fleming, Edward Lascelies | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. | Stevenson, James |
| Ford, Sir Patrick J. | Martin, Thomas B. | Stones, James |
| Fox, Sir Gifford | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Storey, Samuel |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | Merriman, Sr. F. Boyd | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Millar, Sir James Duncan | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Gibson, Charles Granville | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. | Milne, Charles | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Golf, Sir Park | Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tt'd & Chisw'k) | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.) |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) | Templeton, William P. |
| Greene, William P. C. | Morrison, William Shepherd | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | Munro, Patrick | Thompson, Luke |
| Grimston, R. V. | Nail, Sir Joseph | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Nathan, Major H. L. | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | O'Donovan, Dr. William James | Todd, Capt A. J. K. (B'wickon-T.) |
| Guy, J. C. Morrison | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Hales, Harold K. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Train, John |
| Hanley, Dennis A. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) | Weymouth, Viscount | Withers, Sir John James |
| Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. | Wood, Sir Murdoch Mekenzie (Banff) |
| Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) | Wills, Wilfrid D. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Watt, Captain George Steven H. | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) | |
| Wayland, Sir William A. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Wells, Sydney Richard | Wise, Alfred R. | Sir Victor Warrender and |
| Commander Southby. |