§ (1) If, in any proceedings in which the standard rent of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply is required to be determined, the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain the standard rent of such dwelling-house in manner provided by Section six of the Act of 1933, the court shall determine the standard rent as being, for the purposes of those proceedings, the amount of the rent stated in the return made to the rating authority for the purpose of the making of the valuation list:
- (a) in London, in the year nineteen hundred and fifteen;
- (b) in Scotland, in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen;
- (c) elsewhere, next before the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen:
§ Provided that, where there was no such return in respect of the dwelling-house, the court shall have power to determine the standard rent as being, for the purposes of 961 the proceedings, of such amount as the court thinks proper having regard to the rents stated in the returns made in respect of similar dwelling-houses in the neighbourhood.
§ (2) As from the date on which any determination is made under this Section the standard rent of the dwelling-house shall, unless the court making the determination otherwise orders, be deemed for all purposes to be of that amount.—[Mr. Silverman.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 4.28 p.m.
§ Mr. Silverman
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to clear up difficulties which has arisen in the ascertainment of what is now the correct controlled rent of controlled tenancies in those cases where for a variety of reasons it is not easy to ascertain what was the standard rent in 1914, and where the Act of 1933 provides no adequate or satisfactory method of ascertaining it. There are, of course, a great many such cases. It is now something approaching a quarter of a century since the control of dwelling-houses of this type was instituted, and inevitably, during that period, there has been a good deal of mutation, with regard, not only to landlords, but to tenants, so that a situation frequently arises where both the tenant and the landlord of a controlled house are quite different from those of 1914, and have lost touch completely with the landlord and the tenant of that time. The Clause ought, I think, to be regarded as non-controversial. It seeks to provide a means, and I think the House will agree that it is a fair means, of ascertaining what the standard net rent is. In the first place, it goes to the year of assessment, which is not always the same. That is the reason for the three paragraphs of Sub-section (1) laying down the dates of 1915 for London, 1914 for Scotland, and elsewhere the year next before 3rd August, 1914. It suggests that we should go to the valuation list of that year and ascertain what the landlord then represented to the rating authority as the rental value of the tenancy.
It is considered—and we invite the Minister to accept it—that it is quite fair to go to the figure advanced by the landlord himself in the relative year as the figure which, in fact, is the proper rental to be taken into account in making the ascertainment. The landlord is not likely to have overstated it, for reasons arising 962 out of our peculiar rating system; therefore, it is not unfair for the public point of view; and if the landlord had in that year understated it, for reasons which were then profitable to himself, there is no reason why the tenant should not this time get the advantage of something of which the landlord has had the advantage for a considerable period. Of course, it would be much more satisfactory when you know what the actual rent is; but we are dealing with circumstances when that is not known and cannot be ascertained. It does happen—and this is the purpose of the proviso that begins in line 12—that that such returns sometimes do not exist and the valuation lists do not contain such statements of rental value. In such circumstances, there is no written record to which the court or interested parties may look to see what the standard rent was in 1914.
When all other methods fail, and you cannot get the figures, you do not know who were the predecessors in title, and there is no entry in the valuation list to guide you, it is proposed that you should go to similar houses in the neighbourhood where accommodation and other conditions are similar, ascertain what was the rental value for those houses, and proceed, as an assessment committee always proceeds in such cases, to determine the value according to the value of similar relevant property. It seems that if those methods are adopted, no unfairness will accrue to anyone, and you will have found some machinery for dealing with a gap in the law as it now is. There is no reason why any matters arising under this legislation, where no conflict of principle arises, should not be dealt with by this machinery. In this case, there is no conflict of principle. In a great many other matters which arise the House is inevitably divided, on principle, if you like, arising from social necessities and different views as to what those social necessities are. Here you have nothing of that sort.
§ 4.35 p.m
§ Mr. T. Smith
I beg to second the Motion.
I take the opportunity of doing so, in order to draw attention to the fact that some of us find a good deal of difference of opinion as to what exactly was the 1914 rent. I have a statement here from the secretary of a tenants' defence league. 963 I think the House will agree that, on the whole, since Rent Restrictions Acts have been in operation tenants' defence leagues have done excellent work for tenants. They have made recoveries on arrears which would never have been obtained if the tenants had not organised. This secretary says that, in trying to ascertain what is the exact standard rent, he finds a conflict of opinion as to whether the landlord before the War actually paid the full 100 per cent. of rates or a lesser sum. He goes on to say that it is often stated in county courts that the amount of rates paid by the landlord before the War was a less percentage. I think the new Clause does lay down quite a fair method of ascertaining what the position is.
§ 4.37 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor)
I am very much afraid that, although we are seized with the point, the Government cannot accept the proposed Clause, for reasons which I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) will appreciate when I expound them. In the first place, the provisions would not apply to Scotland at all, because in Scotland they are quite unnecessary. There, the actual rent is in the ordinary course each year in the valuation roll, so that the roll itself is already direct evidence. Therefore, as far as Scotland is concerned, if you took the valuation roll you would only get at what is the existing basis of the valuation. As for England and Wales apart from London, the Clause would not work at all, because outside London there never had been such returns as are spoken of in the Clause until 1925. So the new Clause could only apply, by a process of elimination, to London. Would it be of any advantage to have provisions of this kind in regard to London?
In the first instance, I quarrel, merely as a lawyer, with what the Clause is attempting to do, because it is saying that, in certain circumstances, it may not be reasonably practicable for the courts to do what they are told to do in the 1933 Act. The Act of 1933 casts a duty on the court, and it is suggested that, if the court finds that it is not reasonably practicable to discharge that duty, it may discharge a different duty. That is perhaps a lawyer's point; but there is a 964 point of more substance, namely, that in the only place to which it can apply, that is, London, there always will, in fact, be houses in the neighbourhood to which the court can have regard in order to discharge its duties under the Act of 1933. The Act of 1933 says, in Section 6, that, where you cannot ascertain the standard rent of a particular house, the court shall have power to fix it at such an amount as the court thinks proper, having regard to the standard rents of similar dwelling houses in the neighbourhood.
It is inconceivable that in London a court should ever find itself in a position in which there were not similar houses in the neighbourhood, by reference to which the standard rents could be calculated if there were no data by which the rent of the particular house could be calculated. In England and Wales, outside London, there have been no such returns as this Clause mentions, except since 1925. Since 1225, by Section 40 of the Rating and Valuation Act, there have been returns made to the rating authority for the purpose of making the valuation list. That is what is to be the test according to the Clause. Those lists do not exist outside London, so the Clause could not operate anywhere outside London, except in Scotland, where it is irrelevant. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to take this Clause to a Division.
§ 4.43 p.m.
§ Mr. George Griffiths
I wish to speak on the subject of the rest of England, outside of London. If my memory serves me right, there was a tremendous upheaval as to what was the rent that we were paying in 1914. We went to the rating officer. In my own case, I was paying 5s. 9d. a week rent and rates combined in 1914. Then they put the 40 per cent. on—15 per cent. plus 25 per cent. for repairs. We had got to find out what was the actual rent, exclusive of rates. We found it out in the rates book. This thing can be worked out quite easily if they put it in the Bill.
§ 4.44 p.m.
§ Mr. Ammon
I am a little puzzled by the Solicitor-General's answer. Perhaps he will tell us how the authorities outside London arrived at their assessment. It seems to me that they must do the same 965 as we do in London. That is to say, they must have had a rating committee, and then there must have been an assessment committee set up to hear any appeals, and they must have fixed the rent at that time. We should be obliged if the Solicitor-General would tell us what difference there is in the methods adopted in London and elsewhere in arriving at this figure.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Bellenger
I cannot quite follow the Solicitor-General's reasoning. What we are trying to arrive at is the best possible method for ascertaining the standard rent. that is, the rent at which the premises were let on 3rd August, 1914. I am not conversant with the conditions that prevailed in Scotland in 1914 or that prevail there to-day, but I know something about the conditions appertaining to London. Perhaps the Solicitor-General is not aware that in London in 1914 there were numerous flats or suites of rooms let out as parts of houses that used to be occupied in the days of prosperity in the last century by one family. In other words, they were tenement houses. The rents of those flats, or suites of rooms, or dwellings—they are recognised as dwellings by the Rent Acts law—were fixed at varying figures.
In the Royal Borough of Kensington, which is composed very largely of big houses some of which even in 1914 were let out in parts, the rents varied by as much as 2S. a week. When there is any dispute as to the standard rent of that part of the house, it is within the discretion of the county court judge to fix the standard rent. The Solicitor-General has told us that under the Act of 1933, in the absence of other evidence, the judge can fix the standard rent by relation to the rents of adjoining premises or flats. Would it not be better to get a true rent which might be lower than the rent which the county court judge would decide on, because he would have to take into account not only the rent of that particular hereditament, but also the rent of similar hereditaments, perhaps next door, which might be as much as 2s. a week more than the rents paid in 1914 for a similar dwelling a few yards away?
It would be better to provide a means of getting at the standard rent of that particular hereditament which might be in dispute, by reference to the figures 966 which are available, certainly as far as London is concerned. I forget the quinquennial year which would govern 1914 —probably it would be 1910 or 1911—but the figures are in the possession of the local authorities for each hereditament forming part of the whole of the dwelling house. If that information can be given where the standard rent is in dispute, then the county court judge would have better evidence for fixing the standard rent than by calling evidence as to what somewhat similar premises were let at, perhaps next door, or further down the street. If it were possible for the Government to accept this Clause it would be a better method of ascertaining the standard rent than by reference to the sort of evidence which might be otherwise produced before the county court judge.
§ 4.49 p.m.
§ Mr. Oliver
In 1914 there was no valuation list in existence as we know it to-clay, because of the passing of the Act of 1925, but in 1914 there was the rateable value, which was well known to the local authorities for the purpose of rating assessments, which were based on the rental value. I understand that that was the valuation to which the mover of the new Clause was making reference. Surely, it would be possible by using the rateable value in the possession of the local authority to arrive at the rent of certain properties, almost without any reasonable measure of doubt. If that be so, why should that valuation not be accepted? The Solicitor-General referred to comparable property. There is no place in the world where comparable property could be used with greater authority and with less marginal error than in the provinces. In London it is a different matter, although the Solicitor-General says that in London the thing can be done. If it can be done in London it can be done with much greater accuracy in the provinces. If the principle be sound, then, where the standard rent cannot be ascertained in 1914 by any other means, this new Clause provides a medium whereby the standard rent can be ascertained. Therefore, I ask the Solicitor-General to accept the new Clause, if for that reason alone.
§ 4.51 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-General
If I am wrong in my interpretation of the new Clause, 1 967 am sure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) will not be lax in correcting me. As I understand him, what he wants to do is this. In a case where the landlord has made a return of his premises for the purpose of rating, and if there is no other evidence, he would like the matter to be settled by the figures which the landlord himself has put into his return. That is a perfectly understandable point of view, because the landlord in making a return for rating purposes is not likely to say that the rateable value is higher than it is. But that kind of return—this will answer the point raised by the hon. Member or North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon)—did not exist as regards the Provinces before 1925. The hon. Member asked me how it was done before 1925. The assessment was made by the guardians, acting as the assessing authority. The point sought to be made in the new Clause is not, therefore, applicable as regards the country and would not work anywhere except in London.
The new Clause says that where you cannot find the standard rent you shall have regard to the amount of rent stated in the return to the local authority. My short reply to that point is that there is not a return to the local authority and, therefore, the Clause would not work as regards anywhere except London. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made another point. He said it was admitted that it would work as regards London, and I agree that it could be worked as regards London, but even then the Clause would not operate, because what the Clause says is that you shall only have regard to the return made to the local authority where it is not reasonably practicable to apply Section 6 of the Act of 1933. That Act tells the county court judge that he is to have regard to the standard rent of similar dwelling-houses in the neighbourhood. So far as London is concerned there would not be the slightest difficulty in the county court judge applying that test, because he has only to look at a house round the corner and apply the test. The Clause really would not do any good in regard to London, because so far as London is concerned it is unnecessary.
§ Mr. T. Johnston
If the Solicitor-General will look at Section 6 of the Act 968 of 1933 he will note that the county court judge, as I read the Section, has only to examine comparable rents in the neighbourhood when he has been unable to find sufficient evidence otherwise to enable him to fix the standard rent. First, he has to examine other sources of evidence, and only when that examination fails has he to go to comparable houses in the neighbourhood. In that event, why should not the county court judge be called upon to take the guardians' assessment prior to 1925 as reliable evidence before he goes to examine the rents of other houses in the neighbourhood?
§ The Solicitor-General
It is very difficult to give an answer upon the basis of a Clause which is not before the House. The Clause before the House requires the court to have regard to a non-existent return. It does not contain any statement by the landlord which would guide the court. As regards the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made on Section 6, the scheme is this. If you can find the standard rent, then your task is over. If you can find out the rent paid for the premises on 3rd August, 1914, there is an end to the matter. If you cannot do that, and it is not reasonably practicable to do it, then you look at the neighbouring houses and you say: "What were these let at?" Having got that figure, you then say that that is a guide as to the figure that ought to be applied to the premises in dispute. What is proposed in the new Clause is that if it is not reasonably practicable to do that, then you shall look round and see what is stated in the rating return. But I find it difficult to conceive of any single test in which the judge would invoke this new Clause, even as regards London, if it were put on the Statute Book, because he has to carry out the Act of 1933, and if it is not reasonably practicable otherwise to find out the standard rent paid in 1914 all that he has to do is to look round the corner and ascertain the rents paid for comparable houses in 1914.
§ The Solicitor-General
I do not think the Proviso helps. The Clause itself would come into operation only if the machinery of Section 6 of the Act of 1933 broke down, that is to say, if the judge 969 could not find a comparable house from which he could say what the standard rent would be. There could be no difficulty as regards London, but as regards the Provinces the Clause would not be workable. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Clause.
§ 4.58 p.m.
§ Mr. Silverman
With regard to the Solicitor-General's point about the Act of 1933, I think he has failed to note the effect of the wording of the Clause. If the Clause were added to the Bill its machinery would not come into operation unless and until the court was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to ascertain the standard rent by the method laid down in the Act of 1933. If the Solicitor-General is right when he says that it is always practicable in London and no difficulty will arise in London, then as a safeguard against the objection which he had in his mind I would point out that the court itself has to decide whether or not to apply this machinery.
In regard to the other matter that he raised, he scored a point when he said that the statement by the landlord for the
§ purpose of the valuation list began outside London only in 1925. Therefore, if the Clause were accepted it would have to be verbally amended to meet that point; but the principle is quite easy to apply. It is not true to say that that objection goes to the root of the Clause. When the valuation list was made out in 1914 by the guardians and the assessment was made by the guardians, the landlord either accepted the assessment or appealed against it, and ultimately he had to accept whatever assessment was finally made. That assessment is obviously based on the letting value of the premises, so that all the purposes of the Clause could easily be made to operate with a very slight verbal emendation in a part of the Clause. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the purpose of the Clause is right, I suggest to him that he should accept it and not regard those difficulties to which he has referred as going to the root of the matter.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 211.971
|Division No. 174.]||AYES.||[5.1 p.m.|
|Adams, D. (Consett)||Gardner, B. W.||Maclean, N.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)||Mathers, G.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Maxton, J.|
|Ammon, C. G.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Messer, F.|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Grenfell, D. R.||Montague, F.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.)|
|Barnes, A. J.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Muff, G.|
|Barr, J.||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Noel-Baker, P. J.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hall, J. H. (Whiteahapal)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Benson, G.||Hardie, Agnes||Paling, W.|
|Bevan, A.||Hayday, A.||Parker, J.|
|Broad, F. A.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Bromfield, W.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Pearson, A.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)||Hicks, E. G.||Price. M. P.|
|Buchanan, G.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Pritt, D, N.|
|Burke, W. A.||Hollins, A.||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Cape, T.||Hopkin, D.||Ridley, G.|
|Cassells, T.||Jagger, J.||Riley, B.|
|Charleton, H. C.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Ritson, J.|
|Chater, D.||John, W.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Kelly, W. T.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Cove, W. G.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Silverman, S. S.|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Daggar, G.||Lathan, G.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Dalton, H.||Leach, W.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Lee, F.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Leonard, W.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Day, H.||Leslie, J. R.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Logan, D. G.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Ede, J. C.||Lunn, W.||Strauss. G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Summerskill, Edith|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||McEntee, V. La T.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||MeGhee, H. G.||Thorne, W.|
|Gallacher, W.||MacLaren, A.||Thurtle, E.|
|Tinker, J. J.||Westwood, J.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Tomlinson, G.||Wilkinson, Ellen||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Walker, J.||Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Watkins, F. C.||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Watson, W. McL.||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Fyfe, D. P. M.||Peake, O.|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Peters, Dr. S. J.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)||Petherick, M.|
|Allen, Col. J, Sandeman (B'knhead)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)||Gluckstein, L. H.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton|
|Apsley, Lord||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Procter, Major H. A.|
|Assheton, R.||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Radford. E. A.|
|Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Raikes, H. V. A. M.|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Grimston, R. V.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)|
|Barrie, Sir C. C.||Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Hannah, I. C.||Rayner, Major R. H.|
|Bernays, R. H.||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)|
|Blair, Sir R.||Harbord, A.||Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Briscoe, Capt. R. G.||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Ross Taylor, w. (Woodbridge)|
|Brocklebank, Sir Edmund||Hepworth, J.||Rowlands, G.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)||Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.|
|Bull, B. B.||Holdsworth, H.||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Holmes, J. S.||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Burton, Col. H. W.||Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.||Salt, E. W.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hopkinson, A.||Scott, Lord William|
|Campbell, Sir E. T.||Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Cartland, J. R. H.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hulbert, N. J.||Shepperson, Sir E. W.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Hunter, T.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Hurd, Sir P. A.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgh't'n)||James, Wine-Commander A. W. H.||Spens. W. P.|
|Channon, H.||Joel, D. J. B.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylds)|
|Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Jones, L. (Swansea W.)||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Christie, J. A.||Keeling, E. H.||Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)|
|Clarke, Frank (Dartford)||Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Latham, Sir P.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Liddall, W. S.||Thomas, J. P, L.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)||Little, Sir t. Graham-||Thomson, Sir J. D. W.|
|Cox, H. B. Trevor||Lloyd, G. W.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page||Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Touche, G. C.|
|Crooke, Sir J. S.||Loftus, P. C.||Train, Sir J.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.||MacAndraw, Colonel Sir C. G.||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Crosswder, J. F. E.||McCorquodale, M. S.||Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.|
|Davison, Sir W. H||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|De Chair, S. S.||McKie, J. H.||Ward, Lleut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|De la Bère, R.||Magnay, T.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Maitland, A.||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.|
|Denville, Alfred||Manningham-Buller, Sir M.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Doland, G. F||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Han H. D. R.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Dower, Major A. V. G.||Markham, S. F.||Watt, Major G. S. Harvie|
|Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)||Mason, Lt.-Col, Hon. G. K. M.||Wayland, Sir W. A|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Duggan, H. J.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.||Wells, S. R.|
|Eckersley, P. T.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||White, H. Graham|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Emery, J. F.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Withers, Sir J. J.|
|Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)||Munro, P.||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Everard, W. L.||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Wragg, H.|
|Findlay, Sir E.||Nioolson, Hon. H. G.||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Fleming, E. L.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Palmer, G. E. H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Furness, S. N.||Patrick, C. M.||Mr. Cross and Major Sir James|