§ Section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1925 (which, as amended by section eight of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, makes provision for an allowance in respect of earned incomes), shall have effect as if the word "one-fourth" were substituted for the word "one-fifth"—[Mr. Lees-Smith.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 9.42 p.m.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITH
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
928 This Clause proposes to change the differentiation between earned and unearned Income Tax from a fifth to a fourth. It does not raise the specific issue, so to speak, between rich and poor. It deals rather with the technique of the Income Tax and it would lead to a juster incidence and make the tax a more productive instrument. We consider that the distinction between earned and unearned income should be steeper. The reason for the distinction in the rate is that earned income is of a more precarious nature than unearned. A doctor, for instance, earning £600 a year, actually pays tax on the same basis as a man with an unearned income of £480.
929 What the new Clause states is that the difference in the position of a person earning £600 a year and a man who is living on investments and obtains £480 a year income, is greater than is represented at present in the tax. The man obtaining £480 a year from unearned income is in every real sense far better off than the doctor earning £600 a year. The doctor may break down. He is subject to all the changes and chances of life. In that case, his whole income may disappear. A doctor has to insure, because some day he will retire. Some day he will die, and his income will disappear, whereas the man who obtains £480 from unearned income, say, from War Loan, is in a position where the income goes on whatever happens to himself. He need not insure, and he has all his time at his own disposal, to deal with as he likes. The difference between these two cases and the fact to which the new Clause calls attention is not represented by one-fifth. The difference is greater. It is well illustrated—I will not say actually illustrated—if you take the difference in their capital position. I believe I am right in saying that the value of a doctor's practice is usually three years' purchase.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITH
In a case that I came across in the Recess it was three years' purchase. Therefore, a doctor earning £600 has a capital value of £1,800, on which he can depend. Take the case of the man who has £400 year from Consols, producing him 3 per cent. His total capital value is worth £16,000. That is the amount of capital required to produce £480 a year from Consols. Yet the same rate of Income Tax is paid by the man whose income, capitalised, is £1,800 and the man whose income, capitalised, is £16,000. I am not saying that that is conclusive, but it shows the extraordinary difference in the position of these two men. The new Clause says that the difference of one-fifth is not really sufficient to make the system of taxation fair to earned as distinct from unearned income.
I put the case for the new Clause on technical grounds as well as on the grounds of equity and justice. We had a very interesting Debate in the House last week on Income Tax. I did not take part, but it was one of the best Debates 930 we have had. I quote that Debate in support of my new Clause, because the more you increase the differentiation in favour of earned income the more you encourage the active and visible factors in the production of wealth at the expense of the more passive recipients of the wealth which is produced by those who create earned income. The new Clause would have the effect of increasing the productivity and the yield of Income Tax. The new Clause is quite moderate. There has been a greater differentiation in times gone by than that which it proposes. When I first paid Income Tax on earned income the differentiation was one-third. One year, and I think it was a great mistake, without much discussion the differentiation was changed from one-third to only one-tenth. Ever since that time we have been going back and retracing our steps. In 1924 it was changed from one-tenth to one-sixth. Under the Labour Administration it was changed from one-sixth to one-fifth. I have no doubt that it will some day go back to one-third, and as a first step in that direction I move the new Clause, proposing that it should go back to one-fourth.
§ 9.50 p.m.
§ Mr. GARRO JONES
I rise to support my right hon. Friend on this new Clause. We recognise that the Clause does not embody the most thorough method of reducing the taxation on earned income and increasing the taxation on unearned income. The first result of the Clause will be to deplete the total revenue in respect of the amount charged on earned income. When that depletion of revenue comes to be recouped there is no provision in the Clause which will require the recoupment to be made at the expense of unearned income. The recoupment will be made out of some general taxation, according to the inclination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, but if we move this Clause, accompanied by an expression of our intention that the reduction in the taxation on earned income should be followed by an increase in the taxation of unearned income, there is no reason whatever why the Clause should not be accepted. The recipients of unearned income have had an exceedingly prosperous time in the last few years. Industrial dividends have increased beyond their 931 wildest hopes. Financiers' profits have increased in a manner which, if they could be presented—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must confine himself to the purpose of the Clause, which is to reduce the rate of tax on earned income.
§ Mr. GARRO JONES
With great respect, when my right hon. Friend moved the Clause you accepted from him the principle that was involved tacitly in the Clause, namely, that reduction of the taxation on earned income was with the object of increasing the taxation on unearned income. The whole trend of my right hon. Friend's speech was in that direction.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman's speech as being more than a suggestion that that might be a method of dealing with the deficiency. The hon. Member was going right into it.
§ Mr. GARRO JONES
I can only say, with the greatest respect, that your vigilance was more acute when I was speaking than it was when my right hon. Friend was speaking. I trust that every hon. Member of this House, whether he speaks from the Front Benches or the back benches, will get equal latitude when you are in the Chair.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not entitled to criticise me in that way. He must withdraw that remark.
§ Mr. GARRO JONES
I expressed the hope that hon. Members on the back benches would get the same latitude as right hon. Members on the Front Benches when you are in the Chair.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Order. The hon. Member is now criticising the conduct of the Chair, and he must withdraw that remark.
§ Mr. GARRO JONES
I certainly have no intention of withdrawing it. With the greatest respect I expressed the hope that—
§ Mr. GARRO JONES
I have no wish to find myself in collision with the Chair, especially on a matter which cannot be held to be a vital matter of principle in regard to what we are discussing. I would say that I feel that you gave, consciously or unconsciously, a greater latitude to the right hon. Gentleman than you gave to me, but I withdraw the suggestion that you did so deliberately.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am prepared to accept that, but I do not think that it is a very full withdrawal.
§ 9.55 p.m.
§ Mr. JAGGER
I want to support the new Clause moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), and I hope I may do so without straying beyond the limits which you have laid down, Captain Bourne. I would say broadly, to begin with, that I am motived in this support by that very high authority which desires us to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. I would make an earnest appeal to the Financial Secretary to give, by accepting this new Clause, some consideration to those people who, after all, are the bulwark of the State and who make for the well-being of the country. The people whose shares have appreciated during the last three years five, six, seven, eight, and ten-fold in capital value are not nearly so important to the country's welfare as the struggling working man or the small professional man whose sole source of wealth is in the labour of his hands or the exercise of his brains. Both of them contribute in a very real sense to the well-being of the country, and on that ground I would appeal for sympathetic consideration for this new Clause.
There is one other consideration that I would urge, and it is that the Government should have regard to the innumberable expenses not recoverable as expense allowances under the Income Tax law, but which are inevitably incurred by the higher paid worker by hand and the lower paid proportion of the professional classes. In addition to the uncertainty of their ability to continue earning the sums in future years on which they are being taxed at present, there are very many real and irrecoverable expenses which they have to incur which are not incurred by those who live on rent, interest, and profits, 933 and for that further reason I strongly urge that the Financial Secretary should accept this new Clause.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS
May I, in supporting this new Clause, urge upon the Government to give consideration to the type of case that I have met with, as have many of my hon. Friends, often in recent months? In the areas which are so often referred to in this House as the Special Areas we have had cases brought to our attention where there may be a single wage earner, a man who may be exceptionally skilled, working in a pit or a steel works, and because he is particularly skilled and in the full bloom of his youth, he is able to earn wages above the average and thus becomes responsible for the payment of Income Tax. When a member of the same household has occasion to apply for unemployment assistance, the full wage of that son will be taken into consideration and used as part of the family income. That will be done this week and next week, and then, when the appropriate period comes, this man will be subject to Income Tax. Therefore he has to bear two kinds of burden; he has to pay Income Tax to help meet the State's activities, and at the same time he has to bear a special responsibility for the needs of his household. In that way these young men are being particularly penalised, and if the Government accepted this new Clause on that ground as well as on other grounds, it would be some measure of justice to these young men, who to-day work very hard to learn their trade, who become skilled in it, who give the best in their brains and in their bodies to their trade, and who are doubly penalised in this way.
This decrease in the amount of tax payable would be some kind of encouragement to these young men who are trying to bear their own responsibilities and looking forward to the day when they will set up homes of their own, but who find that they have to bear this extraordinary responsibility towards their own household and at the same time pay Income Tax. I therefore appeal to the Government to give this measure of justice to the workers of this country, who find their wages lagging far behind the increases in profits that are being made. Taking the recent 934 wages campaign among the miners, as a result of the shilling per day granted in some areas, there may be some miners who now have to pay Income Tax and whose increased wages, therefore, will go back to the State in the form of Income Tax. If this new Clause is accepted, it will give some encouragement and relief to these young men.
§ 10.3 p.m.
§ Mr. W. S. MORRISON
The last speaker has dealt with the effect which this new Clause would have upon certain persons in the distressed areas, but he would be the first to agree, I am sure, that this new Clause would have to be justified on a much wider ground than that, because, if passed, it will apply not only to the section of the population to which he has drawn our attention, but also all over the country, and it should therefore be justified on something like the broader argument put to us by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith). The right hon. Member, in moving this new Clause, made some comparisons between the relief granted to earned income in previous times and that accorded to it to-day, but it is very difficult to compare like with like in questions of relief from Income Tax, because the whole system has been changed so much of recent years, and relief has been granted to taxpayers on such different grounds, that you may get one form of relief reduced but yet the total relief to the taxpayer actually increased.
Dealing with earned income allowance, which is the object of this new Clause, it has existed in its present form, as the right hon. Member said, since 1920, and it then followed a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Income Tax that this particular allowance should be one-tenth. At that it was fixed in the Finance Act of 1920, and that was in operation until 1925, when it was increased to one-sixth. That remained so until 1931, when it was increased to one-fifth, and at that figure it remains to-day. The right hon. Gentleman asks in this new Clause to increase the allowance from one-fifth to one-quarter, but I would remind him that to-day there have been other allowances to Income Tax payers on the lower rates of income which ought to be taken into account in measuring the real claims for this additional relief. I would particularly draw his attention to the provisions 935 made in this year's Finance Bill which give increased allowances to married persons, both personal allowance, and an allowance in respect of children greater than has ever been given before in a previous Finance Bill. They should be borne in mind by the Committee in weighing up the pros and cons whether or not the right hon. Gentleman's new Clause should be accepted.
I take the second ground on which he justifies the proposal. He said with truth that one of the reasons which lies at the bottom of the difference between earned and unearned income is the assumption that there is a greater security about unearned income, and that there ought to be some account taken of that greater security by the State, and allowance ought to be made to those whose income is earned, to enable them to replace that security by some saving. That is the outlook of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is a very proper outlook. On that basis I would ask the Committee to reflect that the allowance given on that basis is one-fifth. The ordinary man with earned income who can manage to save, year after year, one-fifth of his income, I think makes a very generous saving. I have been an earned income man and have always found it difficult to save one-fifth even though I am supposed by reason of my nationality to have a bent for that particular form of thrift. If the Committee views it from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman as to what an earned Income Tax payer should save, one-fifth is a very good allowance from that point of view. It does not end there. There is a great deal of saving by reliefs on insurance policies, and when we come to that form of saving, the Committee is well aware that there is another series of reliefs which accrue to the earned Income Tax payer because he has taken out an insurance policy. I suggest to the Committee that the present position is not an ungenerous differentiation when all the factors are taken into account, and when I say that, I would remind the Committee that the cost of the proposal would be
§ £7,000,000 in a full year, and that the Budget is balanced at present on £450,000.
§ 10.9 p.m.
§ Mr. BENSON
The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary that it was impossible to make a real comparison between the earlier relief of one-third and the present relief of one-fifth because a large number of other reliefs have been changed or increased does not, upon the particular relief that we are discussing, seem to be a really valid argument. The relief on earned income is one which distinguishes earned income from unearned income. It is not merely a question of giving relief to people below a certain income. As far as we are concerned it is a very fundamental matter of principle, and even if in a moment of generosity the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried all reliefs up to £1,000 a year, we should still be prepared to press for a further differentiation between earned and unearned income. We do not believe that there is any moral justification for unearned income. The whole of the wealth of the country is created by work, labour of hand and brain, and those who take out of the common stock without adding anything to it in return, are definitely parasitical. We feel that that contradistinction of position between those who are parasitical and those who are definitely adding to the wealth of the community should be marked clearly and definitely in our system of taxation. It is for that reason that we press for an increase from one-fifth to a quarter in the relief upon earned income. It is not merely a question of one relief among many. We regard this as a very fundamental relief standing in an entirely different category from the others, and we press it not merely upon the grounds of political or social expediency, but upon the more fundamental ground of principle.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes,.127; Noes, 246.939
|Division No. 238.]||AYES.||[10.12.p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke||Banfield, J. W.||Benson, G.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Barnes, A. J.||Bevan, A.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Barr, J.||Broad, F. A.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Batey, J.||Bromfield, W.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Bellenger, F.||Brooke, W.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Buchanan, G.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Potts, J.|
|Burke, W, A.||Holland, A.||Price, M. P.|
|Cape, T.||Jagger, J.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Compton, J.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Ritson. J.|
|Cove, W. G.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Daggar, G.||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Dalton, H.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Rowson, G.|
|Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||Kelly, W. T.||Salter, Dr. A.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Seely. Sir H. M.|
|Dobble, W.||Kirkwood, D.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Lathan, G.||Shinwell, E.|
|Ede, J. C.||Lawson, J. J.||Short, A.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Leach, W.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Lee, F.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)||Leonard. W.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Leslie, J. R.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Foot, D. M.||Logan, D. G.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Frankel, D.||McGhee, H. G.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Gardner, B. W.||MacLaren, A.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Maclean, N.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)||Thurtle, E.|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||MacNeill, Weir, L.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Gibbins, J.||Mander, G. le M.||Viant, S. P.|
|Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Markiew, E.||Walker, J.|
|Green, W. H, (Deptford)||Maxton, J.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Milner, Major J.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro. W.)||Montague, F||Westwood, J.|
|Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y. S.)||White, H. Graham|
|Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Whiteley, W.|
|Groves, T. E.||Muff, G.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Naylor, T. E.||Williams. T. (Don Valley)|
|Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Oliver, G. H.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Hardle, G. D.||Owen, Major G.|
|Harris, Sir P. A.||Parker, J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.||Craddock, Sir R. H.||Gridley, Sir A. B.|
|Albery. l. J.||Craven-Ellis, W.||Grimston, R. V.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.||Critchley, A.||Gritten, W. G. Howard|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Crooke, J. S.||Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll,N.W.)|
|Assheton, R.||Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||Gunston, Capt. D. W.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Guy, J. C. M.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Cross, R. H.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.|
|Balfour, G. (Hampstead)||Crowder, J. F. E.||Hanbury, Sir C.|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (isle of Thanet)||Cruddas, Col. S.||Hannah, I. C.|
|Balneil, Lord||Culverwell, C. T.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.|
|Beaumont, Hon. B. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Davidson. Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.||Haslam, Sir J, (Bolton)|
|Beit, Sir A. L.||Davies, C. (Montgomery)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Davison, Sir W. H.||Hepburn. P. G. T. Buchan-|
|Birchall, Sir J. D.||Dawson, Sir P.||Hepworth, J.|
|Blaker, Sir R.||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)|
|Blindell, Sir J.||Denville, Alfred||Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Dower, Capt. A. V. G.||Holdsworth, H.|
|Bracken, B.||Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)||Holmes, J. S.|
|Bralthwaite, Major A. N||Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.|
|Brass, Sir W.||Dugdale, Major T. L.||Hopkinson, A.|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Duggan. H. J.||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Duncan, J. A. L.||Horsbrugh, Florence|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)||Dunglass, Lord||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Eckersley, P. T,||Hudson, R. S. (Southport)|
|Bull, B. B.||Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Hulbert, N. J.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Elliot. Rt. Hon. W. E.||Hunter, T.|
|Burghley, Lord||Elliston, G. S.||Jackson, Sir H.|
|Burton. Col. H. W.||Emery, J. F.||James, Wing-commander A. W.|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Emmott. C. E. G. C.||Jones, L, (Swansea, W.)|
|Cartland, J. R. H.||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Keeling, E. H.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Erskine Hill, A. G.||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)|
|Cary, R. A.||Everard, W. L.||Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)||Fildes, Sir H.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Channon, H.||Findlay, Sir E.||Latham, Sir P.|
|Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)||Fleming, E. L.||Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Christie, J. A.||Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Leckie, J. A.|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Ganzonl, Sir J.||Leech, Dr. J. W.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Gibson, C. G.||Lees-Jones, J.|
|Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.||Gluckstein, L. H.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.|
|Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.||Levy, T.|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)||Lewis, O.|
|Little, Sir E. Graham-||Penny, Sir G.||Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)|
|Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)|
|Lloyd, G. W.||Petherick, M.||Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.|
|Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Pilkington, R.||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|Loftus, P. C.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.|
|Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Radford, E. A.||Spens, W. P.|
|Lyons, A. M.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)||Ramsbotham, H.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|M'Connell, Sir J.||Ramsden, Sir E.||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|McCorquodale, M. S.||Rankin, R.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|McKie, J. H.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Macnamara, Capt, J. R. J.||Rayner, Major R. H.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Magnay, T.||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Maitland, A.||Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Manningham-Buller, Sir M.||Remer, J. R.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Markham, S. F.||Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)||Touche, G. C.|
|Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. V. V.||Ropner, Colonel L.||Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.|
|Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.|
|Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)||Turton, R. H.|
|Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)||Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)||Wallace, Captain Euan|
|Mitcheson, Sir G. G.||Salmon, Sir I.||Ward, Irene (Wallsend)|
|Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.||Salt, E. W.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.||Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Sandeman, Sir N. S.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)||Sanderson, Sir F. B.||Wells, S. R.|
|Munro, P.||Sandys, E. D.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Nail, Sir J.||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.||Savery, Servington||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)|
|Nicolsen, Hon. H. G.||Selley, H. R.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Wragg, H.|
|Palmer, G. E. H.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Patrick, C. M.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Peake, O.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Peat, C. U.||Smith, L. W. (Hallam)||Lieut-Colonel Sir A. Lambert|
|Ward and Major George Davies.|