§ 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.
§ 4.11 p.m.
§ Mr. Lees-Smith
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
2085 This Clause deals with a point which is not new to the House. It is put down in order to raise the question of the differentiation of Income Tax which is at present permitted for earned as distinct from unearned income. The House knows quite well that under the Income Tax earned income is at present allowed an abatement of one-fifth. The object of the new Clause is to increase that abatement to one-fourth. I can put the point very shortly by taking a concrete case to show what it will mean. It is the case of a typical small earned income, the case of a doctor whose earnings, I shall assume, are £600 a year. Under the abatement he will be allowed one-fifth and therefore be allowed to deduct £120 a year, and he will pay Income Tax on £480. That is to say he will pay the same amount as a man living on an unearned income of £480, because the unearned income has no deduction at all. The present position, therefore, is that a doctor earning £600 a year is in the same position as a man with an unearned income of £480 a year.
The new Clause says that the tax-paying capacity of a doctor earning £600 a year is not as great as that of a man living on an unearned income of £480. The reason is this: The doctor's income is a precarious income. If he dies it goes. When he goes on a holiday it is suspended, and if he is ill it is suspended. When he retires it is bound to come to an end. He is expected to put aside about one-sixth of his income every year for insurance in case of death or retirement. This should be taken into account. But take the case of a man living on an unearned income of £480 a year. I am assuming the case of an unmarried man in each instance and am not allowing for deduction in either case. He is not subjected to all the changes and chances of life as the young doctor is. He can go on holiday without his income ceasing. If he dies, the income continues for his dependants. There is no reason for him to take one-sixth of his income for insurance for his old age. In those conditions, we feel that there is a greater difference between the two than is represented by one-fifth of the tax-paying capacity. I do not say that the figure I am about to give is conclusive, but I think that, in discussing this matter, a good deal of weight should be attached to the capital value of their income. In the case of a man living 2086 on an income from War Loan amounting to £480, if it is at 3 ½ per cent., the capital value is £14,000. What is the capital value of a doctor earning £600 a year? I believe that usually it is two years' purchase. Therefore, the capital value of his income is £1,200. Although this is not conclusive, it shows a great difference in the estimation of the stability of the two types of income.
The terms of the new Clause would enable me to speak on the different results of taxing earned and unearned income, but I do not intend to do that, for we had a long discussion on the matter in the Second Reading Debate, and I propose to continue the Debate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on some other opportunity. I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell me that this new Clause is a hardy annual. I have looked up some of these hardy annuals and I have found that, after a time, most of them become Clauses in the Finance Bill. I should like to refer to the history of this proposal. When I first began to pay Income Tax on a small income, the position of the earned income taxpayer was better than it is at the present time. In those days, I had an allowance of one-third. I could deduct that amount. Then there was appointed a Royal Com-mission on Income Tax as a result of which there was a great number of changes, and one of them was that suddenly there was, in 1920, a diminution in the deduction of one-third to what is now generally regarded as having been the quite inadequate amount of one-tenth. That proposal passed through the House without any discussion, but no sooner had it passed than the House realised that it was not enough, and in 1921, this hardy annual was first planted, and this sort of new Clause began to come up on the Committee and Report stages. It has borne fruit. In 1925, after it had been moved year after year, the one-tenth was reduced to one-sixth, and a few years later, in 1931, it was reduced to one-fifth. I would observe that when it was reduced to one-fifth it was in the "economy" Budget, when an enormous burden had to be borne in other directions. I have no doubt that eventually we shall return to the original deduction of one-third, and it is as a step towards that, that I am moving this new Clause 2087 which would make the allowance one-fourth.
§ 4.19 p.m.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon)
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was so much moved by the anticipation of what he would say that he required me to make a reply instead of himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) has for years taken an interest in this subject, and I recall very well the more general, philosophical review of the comparison between earned and unearned income which he made recently. With regard to the new Clause, what the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to do is to sacrifice in a full year the sum of £8,500,000. I am afraid I cannot do that. The controversy about earned and unearned income goes back a long way, and I think I am right in saying that some of the old authorities—and I am not sure that the great name of Mr. Gladstone has not been mentioned in this connection—denied that such a difference could be effectively drawn. The difference was drawn, I think, in one of Mr. Asquith's Budgets, and I have always thought that it was an interesting piece of Income Tax law because, as far as I know, there has never been any controversy, litigation or decided cases about this distinction between earned and unearned income since then. It is one of the changes which, whether it was right or wrong, has worked with the minimum of dispute, misunderstanding or controversy. There is no doubt that we can make a most effective distinction between the two. Hon. Members recognise that income is called unearned, if, in fact, it is nothing more than the investment of an amount which, after years and years of hard work, a person has succeeded in accumulating and from which he secures a small return.
To the history of the matter as stated broadly by the right hon. Gentleman, there is one small addition I would make. When the new system began in 1920 the allowance of one-tenth was made, and then in 1925 it was increased to one-sixth; it is true that it was followed, in 1931—a year of strain and difficulty—by the more generous provision of one-fifth; but the right hon. Gentleman did not add that that was only part of a scheme then 2088 proposed by Mr. Snowden, and that it was combined with a cut in personal allowances of different kinds which would have borne very severely on people of small incomes. While, under the arrangements of 1931, very heavy cuts in personal allowances were imposed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time did make a distinction between earned and unearned income in the matter of this allowance of one-fifth. What has happened since then is that the personal allowances have been increased. The personal allowance does not to-day stand at the figure for 1931. Consequently, to-day the allowances are worth more to some persons than was the case in 1931. Although the standard rate to-day is 5s. 6d., the smaller earned Income Tax payer is better off to-day than he was under the second Finance Act of 1931. He has higher personal allowances and there is a smaller charge of tax on the first slice of taxable income.
§ Sir J. Simon
If the hon. Gentleman will take the personal allowances altogether, I think he will find that my statement is correct and that to-day, taking all the allowances together and setting them against what I agree is the subject of immediate debate, namely, the one-fifth, I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the smaller earned Income Tax payer to-day is better off than he was under the second Finance Act of 1931. I had figures printed last year which showed exactly what the burden was. There is a smaller charge of tax, there is no increased charge of tax on the first slice of income, whereas personal allowances and children's allowances are higher. I am sorry that it is not possible for me to agree that we should alter the present deduction of one-fifth. Whether the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that he could already foresee the time when it would be reduced to one-third, I do not know. In the matter of prophecies, there is competition, but at any rate I must say, not as a matter of 2089 prophecy, but as a matter of present decision, that I cannot see my way to increase the allowance.
§ 4.27 p.m.
§ Mr. Benson
During the proceedings on the Finance Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has twice opposed a new Clause of this character. On the first occasion he suggested that in reality unearned income is taxed equally with earned income and that, in fact, Death Duties are taken from the source on unearned income. This afternoon he has suggested that unearned income has come into being as a result of years of hard work. That theory may apply to smaller estates which give only small amounts of unearned income, but certainly it does not apply in the case of larger estates. It is quite impossible to build up a large fortune by savings on income, for the Surtax prevents that. The source of very large fortunes and of very large incomes is, of course, in the accretions of capital which are not taxed at all. If one takes the figures of Death Duties published by the Board of Inland Revenue, one finds that from year to year there is a steady increase in the capital value of this country and in the amount of estates coming under review for Death Duties. It is obvious that there is a very large amount of capital accretion which does not bear any tax until Death Duties are paid.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can claim that the bulk of the capital of this country is the result of individual savings from taxed income or that the differentiation which we think there should be between earned and unearned income is really made up by Death Duties. I think the main difference between hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite is in our attitude towards the question of unearned income. Hon. Members on this side are not prepared to admit the right to its existence. We are not prepared to admit that there is any moral justification for unearned income. The demand that there should be a big differentiation in the rate of taxation on earned and unearned income is not merely a question of obtaining one more small allowance for the less wealthy members of the community, but is an attempt to state the moral principle that there is no justification for unearned income.
2090 I must say that the mere fact that this allowance would cost £8,500,000 does not affect me very much. We are stating here definitely the proposition, and this Amendment flows from the proposition, that it is not right that unearned income from investments should be in the hands of private individuals. Saving there must be, but saving should be for the benefit of the community as it will be when the means of exchange are in the hands of the community. What we are asking here—I know that we are asking it in vain—is for a declaration that, as a moral principle, unearned income is indefensible.
§ 4.31 p.m.
§ Mr. Radford
I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, but I must oppose the doctrine which has just been enunciated from the benches opposite that no unearned income is justifiable. Take the hypothetical case of the doctor referred to by the Mover of the Clause with an earned income of £600 a year. One doctor may spend his £600 a year: another may be a quiet frugal man who saves half his income. Yet the hon. Gentleman opposite argues that the thrifty doctor is not justified in having any income whatever from the fruits of his self denial. I am astonished to hear an intelligent man like the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) enunciating such a doctrine to be heard and absorbed by the country at a time when everybody recognises that saving on the part of the whole community is essential if we are to finance the huge commitments which have been imposed upon us.
§ 4.33 p.m.
§ Mr. Graham White
I, like the hon. Member opposite, had no intention of taking part in the discussion at this stage, but I was somewhat touched by the moral appeal made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) with whom more often than not I find myself in agreement. But my experience in connection with Finance Bills in recent years is, that I always receive among my correspondence a large number of appeals to support Amendments designed to secure the extention of privileges to incomes now treated as unearned, which the recipients consider should be treated as earned. Only the day before yesterday, I received a most pitiable letter presenting a case 2091 which had, it seemed to me, both moral right and justice on its side. It was from an artist of some distinction who, having worked for many years, had just been able to accumulate enough money to buy a small annuity of between £300 and £400 a year. There does not seem to me to be anything immoral about that procedure. In fact, I should be prepared to argue that that income should be treated as earned and should receive relief accordingly. I hope the view will not prevail that proceedings of that kind are, in any sense, immoral. I am sure we could all multiply such cases from our own experience. There are people to-day living on small incomes which are, in the fullest sense, earned incomes because they have been earned by the recipients during many arduous years of work. It would be a grateful task for me and no doubt for many other hon. Members to argue, without any implications of immorality, that some extension of relief should be given in those cases.
§ 4.36 p.m.
§ Mr. Bellenger
I should like to say that in my interchange with the Chancellor just now on the question of personal allowances, I thought the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the first Budget in 1931. Of course, the personal allowances, at any rate in the case of married couples, were higher then than they are to-day, but the second Budget—the economy Budget—revised those personal allowances, and brought them down to lower figures. To-day they are higher and in that respect, we are all thankful for small mercies wherever they may come from. I do not want to go into the academic side of the discussion on the question between earned and unearned income. I am more concerned with the case of the man or woman earning an income as in the case put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), of the doctor or other professional man who, in the majority of cases, earns his income by dint of hard work and long hours. There should be a considerable differentiation between those incomes and unearned incomes and when I use the expression "unearned incomes" I have in mind estates like the Ellerman estate which according to the public Press has increased out of all proportion since the last death occurred.
2092 If it is possible under our present system for unearned income to accumulate like that, first in the form of capital appreciation and then by investment and re-investment to produce larger and larger sums for the owners of the capital, I think there is some immorality about it. Whereas the hard-working doctor or professional man can only increase his earned income by £100 and £200 a year, however many hours of work he puts in, these owners of large blocks of capital can increase their income by leaving it to the ordinary process of capital accretion. There is one other form of unearned income in which the Chancellor used to take a personal interest and which used to be called "unearned increment." We have heard how it is possible for fortunes to be made by sales of land.
§ Mr. Bellenger
I thought, Mr. Speaker, you might take that view, and I only mentioned that case in passing. What I was about to point out was that it is those sources of unearned income which we have in mind, and which prompted my right hon. Friend to put down this Clause. We do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to make this concession if it is going to cost £8,500,000. We realise that, at this stage, that is probably too much to ask, but I suggest that a case has been put which ought to persuade the right hon. Gentleman or his successor—perhaps his right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary if he should occupy that position later—to grant this concession to those possessors of small earned incomes who work very hard for what they get, and who are entitled to more consideration than the possessors of unearned incomes.
§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence
I do not wish to go into this question in any detail, but I would like to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Radford). He said he intervened in the Debate only to point out how hard it would be on the doctor who had saved his money, if this Clause were carried.
§ Mr. Radford
I did not suggest that at all. I only said that the right of that doctor to the income which his self-denial and economy had produced for him, 2093 should not be called in question. That was my point. I entirely agree that the Clause is an additional relief to the doctor in that case.
§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence
I am glad to have that explanation. I was just about to point out that if a doctor has been in practice for, say, 40 years and then has a period of retirement, and if there was an adjustment as between earned and invested income in the matter of Income Tax, the man who had been able to save during all his professional life
§ would be far better off under this Amendment, even if, in the years of retirement he had a slightly heavier burden to bear owing to the shift over on to the invested income. However, as the hon. Member disclaims any intention of opposing the Clause, I hope we shall see him with us in the Lobby.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House Divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 236.2095
|Division No. 230.]||AYES.||[4.41 p.m.|
|Adams, D, (Consett)||Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Pearson, A.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Adamson, W. M.||Groves, T. E.||Price, M. P.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Richards, R. (Wrexham)|
|Banfield, J. W.||Hardie, Agnes||Ridley, G.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Harris, Sir P. A.||Riley, B.|
|Barr, J||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Ritson, J.|
|Bartlett, C. V. O.||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Batey, J.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Beaumont, H. (Batley)||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Seely, Sir H. M.|
|Benson, G.||Hopkin, D.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Bevan, A.||Jagger, J.||Shinwell, E.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Silverman, S. S.|
|Buchanan, G.||John, W.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Burke, W. A.||Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Cape, T.||Jones, A. C. (Shipley)||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Charlaton, H. C.||Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Kirkwood, D.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Collindridge, F,||Lawson, J. J.||Stephen, C.|
|Cove, W. G.||Leach, W.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford||Lee, F.||Stokes, R. R.|
|Daggar, G.||Leonard, W.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)||Leslie, J. R.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Logan, D. G.||Thorne, W.|
|Dobbie, W.||Lunn, W.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Tomlinson, G.|
|Ede, J. C.||McEntee, V. La T.||Viant, S. P.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||McGhee, H. G.||Walker, J.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||McGovern, J.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilty)||MacLaren, A.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)||Maclean, N.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Westwood, J.|
|Foot, D. M.||Marshall, F.||White, H. Graham|
|Gallacher, W.||Maxton, J,||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Gardner, B. W.||Montague, F.||Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Garro Jones, G. M.||Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Naylor, T. E.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Noel-Baker, P. J.||Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Owen, Major G.|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Paling, W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Parkinson, J. A.||Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Brooklebank, Sir Edmund|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Beauchamp, Sir B. C.||Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Beit, Sir A. L.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)|
|Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)||Bennett, Sir E. N.||Bullock, Capt. M.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)||Blair, Sir R.||Burgin, Rt. Hon. E, L.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Boothby, R. J. G.||Burton, Col. H. W.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Bessom, A. C.||Butcher, H. W.|
|Assheton, R.||Boulton, W. W.||Cartland, J. R. H.|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Boyce, H. Leslie||Carver, Major W. H.|
|Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.||Bracken, B.||Carver, Sir C. W, (City of Chester)|
|Balniel, Lord||Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)|
|Barrie, Sir C. C.||Brass, Sir W.||Channon, H.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Broadbridge, Sir G. T.||Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)|
|Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Rosbotham, Sir T.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hunloke, H. P.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Hunter, T.||Rowlands, G.|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Clydesdale, Marquess of||Jones, L. (Swansea W.)||Huggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.|
|Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Keeling, E. H.||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Calfox, Major Sir W. P.||Kellett, Major E. O.||Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)|
|Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Karr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)||Salt, E. W.|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)||Samuel, M. R. A.|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)||Sandeman, Sir N. S.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)||Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.||Sahuster, Sir G. E.|
|Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Kimball, L.||Scott, Lord William|
|Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Leech, Sir J. W.||Shepperson, Sir E, W.|
|Cross, R. H.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.|
|Crossley, A. C.||Levy, T.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.|
|Crowder, J. F. E.||Liddall, W. S.||Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)|
|Culverwell, C. T.||Lipson, D. L.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Da la Bère, R.||Llewellin, Colonel J. J,||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lloyd, G. W.||Snadden, W. McN.|
|Danville, Alfred||Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.||Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)|
|Doland, G. F.||Loftus, P. C.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.||MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Drewe, C.||McCorquodale, M. S.||Spent, W. P.|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Duggan, H. J.||McKie, J. H.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Duncan, J. A. L.||Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.||Staurton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Magnay, T.||Strauss. H. G. (Norwich)|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Ellis, Sir G.||Manningham-Buller, Sir M.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Elliston, Capt. G. S.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hen, H. D. R.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Emmett, C. E. G. C.||Markham, S. F.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Marsden, Commander A.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Maxwell, Hon. S. A||Tate, Mavis C.|
|Errington, E.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P.|
|Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Fildes, Sir H.||Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.||Touche, G. C.|
|Fleming, E. L.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Train, Sir J.|
|Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Morris-Jones, Sir Henry||Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C|
|Fremantle, Sir F. E.||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Munro, P.||Turton, R. H.|
|Gluckitein, L. H.||Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.||Wakefield, W. W.|
|Goldie, N. B.||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Graham, Captain A. C. (Wlrral)||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Warrender, Sir V.|
|Granville, E. L.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Wayland, Sir W. A.|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||Palmer, G. E. H.||Wedderburn, H. J. S.|
|Grigg, Sir E. W. M.||Peake, O.||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Peat, C. U.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||Peters, Dr. S. J.||Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.||Pilkington, R.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Harbond, Sir A.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)|
|Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Porritt, R. W.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Has lam, Sir J. (Botton)||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hely-Hutchison, M. R.||Procter, Major H. A.||Wise, A. R.|
|Henaage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Radford, E. A.||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Raikes, H. V. A. M.||Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.|
|Hepworth, J.||Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.||York, C.|
|Higgs, W. F.||Rawon, Sir Cooper||Young, A. s. L. (Partisk)|
|Holdsworth, H.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)|
|Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Renter, J. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)||Mr. Grimston and Lieut.-Colonel|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)||Ropner, Colonel L.||Harvie Watt.|