HC Deb 18 June 1934 vol 291 cc153-67

10.30 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 16, line 32, to leave out "section twenty-eight," and to insert: sections eleven to fifteen, inclusive, twenty-seven to twenty-nine, inclusive, and thirty-one to thirty-five, inclusive. The object of this Amendment is to retain not only Section 28 but the other Sections relating thereto; the whole of the Sections of the Finance Act of 1931 which provide for a valuation of land to be made on which land tax is to be based. It will be observed that the Amendment refers only to the retention of the valuation sections. There has been a certain amount of discussion on this matter already and I do not intend to detain the House at any length. What we are asking the House to agree to is the retention of the Sections which deal particularly with and provide for the valuation of land. When the matter was before the House on a previous occasion no real explanation was offered as to why these Sections were swept away. A certain amount of ridicule was poured upon them and there was a suggestion that it was quite impossible for a valuation to be made on the system proposed, that it was ridiculous to suppose that anyone could arrive at the value of the site of the Savoy Hotel without the Savoy Hotel being there. It is quite easy to make amusing suggestions of this kind but it must be remembered that these valuation Sections were constructed with the best advice at the disposal of the Government and it must be assumed that the advisers of the Government would not allow a system to be put into an Act of Parliament which was clearly and absolutely unworkable. Therefore, the House has a right to know the definite grounds upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that these Sections are impossible and unworkable.

I am not going into the question as to why these Sections were originally retained and are now swept away. That is another matter altogether. What I am concerned with is to ask the Chancellor to let the House know clearly why these Clauses are unless for the purpose of any valuation. The right hon. Gentleman says that Clause 28 is quite sufficient for his purpose. That Clause merely allows the Commissioners to see the records of land transactions. Undoubtedly that is a useful factor in arriving at a valuation, but it is a very small factor in the whole problem which has to be considered by any valuer in attempting to arrive at the valuation of a particular site. It was with the object of enabling the valuer to arrive at that value on a basis that was clearly set out that these valuation Clauses were included. They are now to be swept away. I hope the Chancellor will let the House clearly understand, apart from all political considerations—I am not touching on those at all—why it is that a valuation system built up as this was, is unsuitable for retention for the purpose of valuing the land of the country.

10.34 p.m.


I beg to second the Amendment.

Even at this eleventh hour I hope the Government will be able to give us, if not some assurance that this valuation should be kept in being for future use, some promise that the Chancellor has in mind the provision of a form of valuation of the land separate from its improvements. The Liberal party throughout the country has for years been unanimous on the matter. I challenge any Liberal Member, whether he belongs to the Government or is a supporter on the opposite side, to get up and say that the Liberal party in his constituency is not in favour of valuation and the principle of land taxation. It has been a cardinal principle of the Liberal party for the last 30 years. It is something that we have worked for and believed in, and to which we attach the greatest importance. It is rather mean for the Government to take advantage of these special circumstances in order to repeal something to which we attach such great importance, and to do so after the statement last year of the Lord President of the Council, leader of the Conservative party, that he would not take advantage of a majority obtained through a national appeal in order to repeal the tax, much less the valuation.

This is the second time we have been let down badly on the excuse of a Coalition Government. We claim that it is in the national interest, quite apart from the form of tax, that there should be a Doomsday Book in which is recorded the valuation of the land of the country. Great play has been made by various interests with the argument as to the difficulty of making a valuation of the unimproved value of land, but such a principle has been in practice for years in almost every part of the British Dominions. In New Zealand and Australia, particularly in Sydney, they have been able to devise schemes which have worked effectively, have caused no injustice and have presented no exceptional difficulties. It is interesting to find Tory after Tory in favour of some form of land taxation in theory, but always opposed to any kind of land taxation in practice. We had a remarkable and impressive speech on this subject from the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who has had considerable experience of the management of large estates and is conscious of the difficulties. He put in a strong plea that the Government should do something to deal with this problem of land taxation. Speaking on 5th June, he said: In spite of this unpopularity it is the business of a National Government I believe to produce a constructive reform of the whole system of land taxation, which shall ensure that land shall pay its fair share, shall ensure especially that the fortunate landlord who earns—put the emphasis on 'earns'…"—["OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1934; col. 861, Vol. 290.]


I must point out to the hon. Baronet that the question of the taxation of land values is not involved in this Amendment.


I quite realise that, Sir, and I was going to point out that the Noble Lord pressed on the Government the importance of having a policy for land taxation, and that the first step towards any form of land taxation in the future must be land valuation. Land taxation without valuation is not a practicable proposition. You cannot value land apart from buildings, for either taxation or assessment purposes, unless by a long and arduous process of valuation. Time is the essence of the matter in connection with any form of valuation, and the first step to enable any future Government next year or the year after to tackle this problem is to put in operation without delay some form of valuation. Time is vital. While we wait, values of land are constantly rising, especially in great centres like London. In London during the last 10 years there has been an increase of over 1,000,000 in the population which has enormously added to the value of land and turned ordinary agricultural land into valuable urban properties, making great fortunes for the owners.

Take the great arterial roads stretching out north, south, east and west. Let any hon. Member take his car along the Great West Road, the Kingston by-pass or the Great North Road, and he will see values created by the expenditure of public money, particularly through the Ministry of Transport with the assistance of local authorities. As the Noble Lord pointed out, these great improvements are causing enhanced values in which the State, the community, has a right to share. But in the absence of any form of valuation it is impossible, either from the point of view of rating or from the point of view of taxation, for the State and the community to have that share.

I suggest that in these difficult times, with so many economic problems to solve, at any rate the machinery of valuation should be set up. It is, after all, a machinery Clause which we are anxious to retain; it is the Clause which provided the organisation to value the land, so that if any Government or local authority wanted to deal with the value created, there should be the machinery in existence to deal with it. The plea put forward, with some reason, two years ago was that valuation was a costly business and that in the state of the national finances economy was vital, and to secure that economy it was wise to suspend the operation of this expensive machinery. That excuse no longer holds good, and I suggest that the Government have a responsibility to face up to this question. The local authorities are clamouring for something to be done in this direction, because this value is required not merely for the purpose of the State and taxation, but is asked for by local authorities who desire to see a fairer distribution of the rate burden.

Only in 1930 the Middlesex County Council, by no means a very progressive body—I think it is fair to say that it is generally Conservative in character—passed, by a majority of 39 to 20, a resolution that in its essence required some form of valuation of the land apart from the improvements. It is pointed out that during the previous 10 years no less a sum than £6,000,000 had been spent on creating some 70 miles of roadway, that the owners of the land who had frontages gained the free gift of £1,750,000 by being saved the cost of road making, and at the same time it was estimated, by a careful calculation, that these 70 miles of roadway had added some £13,500,000 to the value of the owners' property jutting on these new roads. Does it not seem reasonable that something should be done to value this land, so that the community should know how much—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend opposite does not want to hear this, because his record has been so variable on almost every problem that he does not like to be reminded of it.


My position with regard to this tax is perfectly clear. I am with the hon. Member with regard to valuation, but my complaint has been with regard to this method of taxing land values, which I contend is not and never has been a Liberal policy.


Then I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will vote for us in the Division Lobby and express his approval of the course that we are pressing on the Government, and no doubt he will add his great and undoubted eloquence to our plea to the Government to reconsider this question. The county of Middlesex is typical of other counties. They see these enormous values being created, due to the new and great development of the country by the development of motor transport, by the immense expenditure, rightly or wrongly, on roads, by the development of land hitherto of a wholly agricultural value into important urban sites, bringing immense accretions of fortune to their fortunate owners. In the county of Middlesex on the sites referred to, it was pointed out that land had jumped up in four or five years from £50 an acre to £300, £400, £500, and even £600 an acre. Does it not seem right that the Chancellor of the Exchequer above all people, as custodian of the national wealth, should see that there is some proper machinery in existence dealing with these enormous values created by the activity of the community, and that it should be available for rating purposes. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes shelter behind the plea that it is not in the Government's mandate. It is not in the Government's mandate to repeal this legislation. An hon. Member says that the Government had a doctor's mandate, and that it includes everything. Then it ought to include the right of the Government to face up to this problem. The right hon. Gentleman had no mandate to take out of the pigeon-holes of the Tariff Reform League of the Tory party a fullblown ready-made tariff policy.

It is sheer hypocrisy to take cover behind the plea that the Government had no mandate. We are not asking anything unreasonable. All we ask is that the law should be left unchanged, that this should be left on the Statute Book in a state if necessary of suspended animation. It is creating no great controversy, and there is no issue of the taxation of land values arising. All we ask is that the valuation of land values should remain intact so that if opportunity arises a Government should be able to make use of its provisions and set the machine in operation, so that some of these undoubted scandals, the result of a faulty land system, can be dealt with. This is something asked for by over 100 local authorities. I do beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer at any rate to give us some promise that he realises the importance of this issue and that he is prepared to bring forward some other policy next year for dealing with this matter.

10.50 p.m.


The speech which the hon. Baronet has addressed to us has completely ignored the real policy and meaning of the land taxation to which the valuation Clauses, which it is now sought to repeal, are appropriate. The most remarkable thing is that the Liberal party has put down an Amendment maintaining the present system of valuation, but leaving in complete doubt what system of taxation was to be imposed on that system of valuation. You cannot separate the system of valuation from the precise form of taxation you intend to found upon it. I need hardly remind the House, for example, that the valuation scheme of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced in 1910 was not the same as that proposed by Lord Snowden for an entirely different form of taxation. The hon. Baronet has not been arguing in favour of the tax proposed by Lord Snowden. He has been arguing in favour of the increment tax. His whole illustration—the arterial roads that radiated out north, south, east and west—


On a point of Order. I accepted the Ruling of the Chair and did not argue about the tax, but only about the valuation. I was limited by that Ruling, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should be equally limited.


I shall be called to order when I transgress the Rules. I am commenting on the argument of the hon. Baronet, who spoke of arterial roads that radiated out north, south, east and west and raised the value of the land adjacent, and said that it was a monstrous thing that we were not introducing some system of valuation in order that a contribution might be levied upon the increased value of the land brought about by the construction of these arterial roads. That was his argument. Let me point out to him, although it may be unnecessary to the rest of the House, that in order to impose an increment value tax we want a different kind of valuation from the one we are considering. We must have some sort of datum line: a valuation at a particular date and another valuation at a subsequent date, and the difference between the two would give us the amount of appreciation upon which the increment value tax would be levied. That is not the system of valuation we have here at all. The reason why it is useless to retain these Clauses dealing with a particular system of valuation is that even the hon. Baronet himself does not want to per-0 petuate the form of the tax which is proposed, and obviously, therefore, if we are not going to deal with the tax we had better leave the valuation as well as the tax for those who are going to impose the tax, and who will know what kind of valuation they want in order to found their tax upon it.

The whole question is really one of common sense. I am not going to argue the merits of a particular tax or a particular system of valuation. The two things go together, What I do say is that nobody has any doubt that there is not the slightest prospect of imposing the tax during the lifetime of the present Government, and that therefore whether we leave the Clause in its present form under which it is for Parliament to name a time when it comes into operation, or whether we repeal it, makes no practical difference except that so long as these Clauses are on the Statute Book they constitute a certain hindrance to the flow of credit into the agricultural system, and that it is desirable, if we are not going to make use of them, that we should remove this hindrance to the proper development of land and allow credit to flow freely into it if it is desired. I am not proposing to deal with the merits of the case at all. That is not really in question. It is only a question whether it is desirable to remove this encumbrance from the Statute Book, but it leaves the situation open to any future Government to bring in any form of land taxation that they may think proper together with an appropriate system of land valuation.

10.59 p.m.


I really must protest against the attitude taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). He and his friends were the people partly responsible for this National Government, and for him now to turn round and complain about what was quite obvious when he took part in getting them there that the Government would do, really does not seem quite right. He supported the doctor's mandate, and I suppose he understood what it meant when he supported it at the last election, and I really cannot believe that even the Liberal party were so simple as to think that if, with their assistance, a vast Tory majority came into this House, they would not wipe out the land valua- tion Clauses as well as the Clauses for the taxation of land values. I do not on this occasion wish to waste the time of the House, and have only two observations to make. First of all, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as regards the connection between valuation and taxation. If the valuation is a proper one it can have no connection with the sort of tax that is going to be imposed. I cannot believe the right hon. Gentleman thinks that any Government would "wangle" the valuation to suit the type of taxation it wants.

There is only one true and proper basis for valuation, irrespective of what is the tax to be afterwards imposed. The basic value of the site must be arrived at by the best means available, and that is only a question of threshing out what are the proper matters to be taken into account, as was threshed out in this House three years ago. I quite appreciate that it was a basis which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends did not in the least agree with, but it was not because of the form of taxation that they did not agree with it. They did not agree with it as a means of valuation, and there really is no connection between the question of taxation and valuation in that sense. If I may say so with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is a very poor argument to say that the valuation is being dropped because some other method of taxation may be adopted in the future. The valuation is being dropped because the Conservative party do not like it. They made it quite clear, when it was going through the House, that at the earliest opportunity they would repeal it—they said so—and this is their earliest opportunity. That is the truth of the whole matter. The only surprising thing about it is that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, having been challenged to be present, has on every occasion when this matter has been discussed, thought that discretion is the better part of valour.

11.3 p.m.


I am rather surprised, after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he did not accept the suggestion contained in the Amendment, because I was struck by the points of agreement between him and my hon. Friends who moved the Amendment. The points of agreement are far more numerous than they used to be. The Chancellor indicated as his overriding objection, as the real necessity for doing away with this valuation Clause, the fact that it was a deterrent to the introduction of capital into the agricultural industry. I understood that this valuation Clause did not apply to agricultural land where the agricultural value was the higher, so if that is the overriding objection to the maintenance of this Clause surely it cannot be a valid objection to meeting the request of the Amendment. What made me say the points of agreement are far more numerous now than they used to be is the fact that one of the first Acts passed by this Parliament was a land tax Act. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, for the first time placed a very heavy increment duty upon the owners of land which had been improved by developments carried out by a public authority. No less than 75 per cent. of the betterment created by the activities of a local authority is taken by the State to-day under an Act passed in this Parliament. After that, how can it be said that there is any real difference of opinion in any section of the House as to the principle of land valuation and taxation?

If this Parliament has said that 75 per cent. of the betterment must be taken, how can you determine how the 75 per cent. is to be calculated if the machinery of valuation is taken away? The reason why this valuation Clause is being deleted from our laws is that the Conservative party have become dominant in the National Government and are determined to entrench the landed interests behind them. Otherwise, what is the reason for the abolition of this valuation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the real reason is that the Clause is acting as a deterrent to the introduction of capital into the agricultural industry, but, as I understand it, the valuation Clauses do not apply to agricultural land, where the valuation is higher. How can it be said that it is a deterrent to the introduction of capital into agriculture? What other reason is there, if that reason is not valid, except that the Conservative party has become paramount within the National Government, and that we are no longer faced with a National Government but with one that is determined to protect the landed interests?

It is against that attitude that we raise our protest at this eleventh hour—and just after. After the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I feel that to go on any further is to waste the time of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The cheers and the jeers of hon. Members will not remove from my mind the conviction that the Conservative party will be forced within our lifetime, despite its regard for tariffs as a revenue-producing instrument, to have regard to the taxable capacity of the land.

11.7 p.m.


I would like to say a word in defence of the Prime Minister, and I am very sorry that he is not here to hear it. When the Debate took place before on this matter, the Prime Minister had to go away to listen to Herr Kreisler. I do not know what artist has taken him away to-night to prevent him facing the music in this House. There is a good deal to say for him. I feel that in assenting to this proposal he has been actuated by the highest sense of duty. It is true that: Not once or twice in our rough island story, The path of duty was the way to glory, but I am sure that that consideration had no weight with him, but that he was moved by considerations of pure duty, and not by personal reasons. I am sure for personal reasons he would rather that the original proposition should remain on the Statute Book.

There are two personal reasons why I am sure the Prime Minister would want to keep the original tax. First of all it is the one solitary constructive achievement of the Prime Minister's greatest friend, the late Lord Snowden—[Laughter]—not late but gone before. The life-long friendship which has existed between those two statesmen has long been the wonder and admiration of everybody who has been able to see it. We know that for years they wandered hand-in-hand in opposition and in obscurity. Hand-in-hand they have risen to power and position. Hand-in-hand they entered Downing Street and set up house there side by side. Nobody can say that any envy or jealousy ever marred that perfect association for mutual self-admiration. Shades of Damon and Pythias, and David and Jonathan! They were not in it with the Prime Minister and the Noble Lord. And yet, because of his great sense of duty, the Prime Minister, like some Spartan father, has had to deal two hurtful blows at his ancient crony. In the first place, there was the painful business of the British Broadcasting Corporation, when, for reasons which we all appreciate, a member of the Noble Lord's household had to give place to the biographer of the Prime Minister; and now there is the question of these taxes. Never since the time when Shy-lock had to give up both his ducats and his daughter has such a double loss fallen on an eminent, if over-rated, financier.

The second reason which would have made the Prime Minister very much want to keep these taxes on the Statute Book is that they are so typical of his policy. They meant nothing; they have brought in nothing; and, in my opinion, they were never intended to bring in anything; and being, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, absolutely useless and empty, they are naturally very dear to the Prime Minister's heart. I believe that when these duties were brought in in 1931 they were brought in for a special purpose. I do not think they were ever intended to be actually operated. It was stated at the time that it would be two years before they could become operative, and nobody ever thought in 1931 that that Labour Government would still be in office in 1933. If Lord Snowden had intended them to operate, he would have brought them in in 1930, when there might have been some chance, however slender, of their being put into force in 1932. But no; they were brought in merely as a smoke-screen to disguise what was going on behind the scenes—all the plotting and planning and conspiring to create a bogus national crisis and a bogus National Government. All the dust and controversy which accompanied their passage through this House simply hid all those things which were going on. All those little dinners which took place, whose hosts have since been rewarded with peerages, might have attracted far more attention and suspicion if it had not been for this controversy about the land taxes. Now, having done their work, the Government lets them go. The Financial Secretary the other day described these duties as museum pieces; but no museum would ever want to preserve the robe of Judas or the tinsel coronet of Snowden. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself does not want to preserve them on the Statute Book, even as a memorial and proof that there once existed in this country a worse Chancellor of the Exchequer than even himself. So let them go, down the hurrying stream of

Time, which will bear away to merciful oblivion, both the memory of these Clauses and of the two renegades who begot them.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 48.

Division No. 293.] AYES. [11.15 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Edmondson, Major Sir James Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Eillston, Captain George Sampson McKie, John Hamilton
Albery, Irving James Elmley, Viscount McLean, Major Sir Alan
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Emrys-Evans, P. V. Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Everard, W. Lindsay Marsden, Commander Arthur
Atholl, Duchess of Fleming, Edward Lascelles Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Balley, Eric Alfred George Fraser, Captain Sir Ian Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Fremantle, Sir Francis Milne, Charles
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Fuller, Captain A. G. Mitcheson, G. G.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Ganzoni, Sir John Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Gillett, Sir George Masterman Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Gluckstein, Louis Halle Munro, Patrick
Bateman, A. L. Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Goff, Sir Park Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Goldie, Noel B. O'Connor, Terence James
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Gower, Sir Robert O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Blindell, James Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Boulton, W. W. Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Patrick, Colin M.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Grimston, R. V. Pearson, William G.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Peat, Charles U.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Gunston, Captain D. W. Penny, Sir George
Brass, Captain Sir William Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Petherick, M.
Broadbent, Colonel John Hales, Harold K. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hanley, Dennis A. Potter, John
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Procter, Major Henry Adam
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Brown, Brig.- Gen, H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Haslam, Henry (Horncasfle) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Browne, Captain A. C. Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Ramsden, Sir Eugens
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Rankin, Robert
Burghley, Lord Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Burnett, John George Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd) Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Butt, Sir Alfred Hopkinson, Austin Reid, David D. (County Down)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Hore-Belisha, Leslie Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Hornby, Frank Remer, John R.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Horsbrugh, Florence Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Carver, Major William H. Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rickards, George William
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Robinson, John Roland
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hume, Sir George Hopwood Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Colfox, Major William Philip Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Colman, N. C. D. Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Runge, Norah Cecil
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cook, Thomas A. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Cooper, A. Duff James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Copeland, Ida Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Salmon, Sir Isidore
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Salt, Edward W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cranborne, Viscount Ker, J. Campbell Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Craven-Ellis, William Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Selley, Harry R.
Crooke, J. Smedley Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Law Sir Alfred Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) Law, Richard K. (Hall, S. W.) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Leech. Dr. J. W. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Leighton, Major B. E. P. Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lindsay, Noel Ker Somervell, Sir Donald
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Llewellin, Major John J. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Dickie, John p. Lloyd, Geoffrey Spens, William Patrick
Dixey, Arthur C. N. Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert Loder, Captain J. de Vere Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Drewe, Cedric Loftus, Pierce C. Stones, James
Duckworth, George A. V. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Storey, Samuel
Duggan, Hubert John Lyons, Abraham Montagu Stourton, Hon. John J.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Strauss, Edward A.
Strickland, Captain W. F. Turton, Robert Hugh Wills, Wilfrid D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Sutcliffe, Harold Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. Womersley, Sir Walter
Thompson, Sir Luke Wayland, Sir William A. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Train, John Whyte, Jardine Bell TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) Major George Davies and Dr.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) McEntee, Valentine L.
Attlee, Clement Richard George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Banfield, John William Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mainwaring, William Henry
Batey, Joseph Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Bernays, Robert Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Groves, Thomas E. Milner, Major James
Buchanan, George Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Owen, Major Goronwy
Cape, Thomas Harris, Sir Percy Rothschild, James A. de
Cripps, Sir Stafford Holdsworth, Herbert Salter, Dr. Alfred
Curry, A. C. Janner, Barnett Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Daggar, George Jenkins, Sir William Inker, John Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) John, William White, Henry Graham
Dobbie, William Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Edwards, Charles Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Wilmot, John
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Leonard, William
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Logan, David Gilbert Sir Robert Hamilton and Mr. Walter Rea.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly and agreed to.