Clause 19. — (Amendments as to Schedule B.)

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill. – in the House of Commons on 13th July 1922.

Alert me about debates like this

(1) The definition of the expression assessable value "in. Schedule B of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall have effect as though for the words" an amount equal to twice the annual value "there were substituted the words" an amount equal to the annual value, "and as though for the words" an amount equal to the annual value "there were substituted the words" an amount equal to one-third of the annual value."

Photo of Mr Godfrey Collins Mr Godfrey Collins , Greenock

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "value"["annual value and as though"], to insert the words: in respect of any land occupied for the purposes of husbandry the annual value of which does not exceed two hundred pounds. This Clause was modified in its relation to the farming industry in 1918, and when it was modified the fact was taken into consideration that the Income Tax was 6s., as compared with the low rate which had been in force previously for many years. It was quite apparent to the country at that time, and it has been more apparent since, that Income Tax payers would be forced to pay at the higher rate for several years. With a view, no doubt, to equalising the burden and placing the industrial classes more in line with the farming classes, the law was modified as it affects farmers in the Income Tax Act of 1918. The rate then fixed was twice the annual value, but if at any time a farmer thought that that rate was excessive under Schedule B of the Income Tax of that year, words were inserted that any person occupying land for the purpose of husbandry might elect to be assessed and charged under Schedule D if he thought he was being unfairly treated. This Amendment provides that all those who are farming and paying the rent, which does not exceed £200 a year, should remain as they are at present.

Photo of Mr Frederick Banbury Mr Frederick Banbury , City of London

On a point of Order. I wish to point out that this Clause substitutes the annual value for the purpose of the collection of the Income Tax, and now the hon. Member wishes to move an Amendment which limits that substitution to a certain class of income, thereby increasing the charge on the other classes of income. As this is the Report stage, and as the hon. Member has not got the consent of the Crown, I suggest that this Amendment is out of order.

Photo of Mr John Whitley Mr John Whitley , Halifax

I think the right hon. Baronet is right.

Photo of Mr Peter Raffan Mr Peter Raffan , Leigh

If that be so, then no Amendment modifying this Clause would be in order, because obviously any alteration in a tax increases the burden placed upon other people.

Photo of Mr John Whitley Mr John Whitley , Halifax

The other Amendments are all in the nature of reliefs, but this Amendment, it appears to me, would increase the burden.

Photo of Mr Godfrey Collins Mr Godfrey Collins , Greenock

I do not think there will be any increased burden on those farming land under £200 a year. The point is. will this Amendment place a further burden on those farming larger farms? I have pointed out that under the Income Tax Act a farmer may elect to be assessed under Schedule D, and if he does this then he is only taxed on the profits he has actually made by farming his land. I submit that this Amendment would not place any fresh burden on these particular men.

Photo of Mr John Whitley Mr John Whitley , Halifax

I do not think that affects the point. The hon. Member might have a case on this ground. Supposing the effect of this Amendment be only to mitigate the relief as against the existing position. I do not know whether that is so or not.


The object of the Clause is not to relieve any farmer from paying the Income Tax due from him. The farmer now has an option, but it is understood that the exercise of that option is to enable him to pay the right amount, and if the law as it stands would make him pay more than the right amount, then he can come under Schedule I) and pay the right amount. Therefore I contend that the limitation of this proposal to those particular farmers who are farming land at a less rental than £200 a year cannot impose any burden on the farmers who are farming land and paying more than £200 a year. If the annual value amounts to more than the farmer ought to pay, he can come under Schedule D, and it seems to me that there cannot be any burden thrown upon any farmer farming land worth more than £200, because this proposal is limited to farmers paying a rental of under £200.

Photo of Mr Frederick Banbury Mr Frederick Banbury , City of London

On a point of Order. My I state that the whole object of the. option which has been referred to was to allow farmers to pay a fixed sum. It is quite true that an option has been given, but the whole point was to allow the farmer who was unable to keep books to be charged Income Tax by the ordinary method. Now the hon. Gentleman comes along and on the Report stage of this Bill he says, "lam going to take away that privilege from certain farmers and limit it to other farmers." I contend that that would naturally mean a charge upon the farmers who pay a rental of over £200 a year.

Photo of Mr John Whitley Mr John Whitley , Halifax

I think I am now seised of the situation. The position is this. If this Amendment imposed a charge on the farmers over and above what obtained before this Bill was introduced, then the Amendment would be out of order. But the effect of the Amendment is to restrict the number of claimants for the relief proposed in this Bill. It would be competent, of course to move to leave out this Clause altogether, but I have not selected that Amendment, and, therefore, following that, it is in order to propose a diminution of the relief proposed under the Clause. That is the effect of the Amendment.

Photo of Mr Godfrey Collins Mr Godfrey Collins , Greenock

I was about to point out that under the Clause as it is drafted, farmers who are making no profits, and who to-day, before this Bill becomes law, may elect to be assessed under Schedule D, would be forced to pay on their annual value, and it might well be that if. this Amendment were carried, that would be to the advantage of the large farmer. I have endeavoured quite briefly to explain the Income Tax Law so far as it affects the farming industry to-day, and I ask the House whether this is the time to make this big change It has been argued that the farming class, from their inability to determine their annual profits, need to be assessed under a different system. That may hold good, and undoubtedly it does among large sections of small farmers, hut surely it does not hold good in regard to large farmers over £200. There can be very few of these farmers to-day who are not keeping books, and have not a very shrewd idea as to their annual profits. The Amendment would make no difference to these men in this respect, that they would still have the right of appeal to be assessed under Schedule D, and while agreeing that the concession should be granted by the Chancellor to the small farmer, I hope that the large farmer, farming land over £200 a year, will come under the scope of this Amendment.


I beg to second the Amendment.

I quite gather chat the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Banbury) is not opposing this Amendment with any idea of relieving any farmer from Income Tax that he ought to pay—that is not his position at all—that the option which at present is given to the farmers has been given with the idea that under either method they will pay the right amount, but that it is more convenient, owing to the fact that a number of farmers are not versed in bookkeeping, that they should be able to take the amount of their rent as a fixed standard for calculating their Income Tax. At the same time, I do not gather that the option is given to farmers with the idea that they can balance the thing, and say that if they come in in this way they will pay more than if they came in in that way. If that were the idea it would be directly in the teeth of the doctrine laid down by the Solicitor-General himself yesterday when the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) put forward a motion that would have given an option. The Solicitor-General then laid it down in no measured terms that it would be distinctly improper that any taxpayer should have an option of choosing between two bases, because he would, of course, choose the lower. Therefore, I take it that the option given is not with the idea that they may secure the lower basis and pay a less amount than they should do. It is given on quite other grounds, which are that it is a rough and ready way of getting justice and making men pay what they ought, without putting them to a great deal of unnecessary trouble and expense.

The position when the rate was raised west that the farmers were passing through a period of very great prosperity, and it was thought that raising it in that way would ensure that they paid their fair proportion. Then they were given the option. There is no doubt about it that farmers are not in any such position to-day. I want to put this as fairly as I can. They are not enjoying anything like the profits they were during the War—as some hon. Gentlemen remark, they are losing—and, therefore, it is not fair to maintain this double standard which would have to be resorted to by many farmers not able to keep proper accounts. I take it that what the Government is doing in bringing forward this Clause is not to relieve farmers from their proper burden, but to reduce it because they think it proper. If they did not reduce, but maintained it, that would drive the farmer to bookkeeping and the keeping of proper accounts, because otherwise, I think, he certainly would pay more than he ought if he paid on the fixed amount. From some points of view it would be a good thing if the great industry of agriculture was based on proper bookkeeping. I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite would be very glad if they could see every farmer a person of such knowledge and competence that he could keep proper accounts. The basis of all industry, and agriculture no less than any other, is cost keeping. You cannot do that in a year or so, and, therefore, I, for one, do not oppose the reduction per Se, while I think that the Amendment is one which imposes a proper limit. I think it is reasonable to assume that a man who farms land over £200 is a person who can, or ought to be, keeping proper accounts, and I would ask the Solicitor-General, who I am well aware is not only a great lawyer but a man of very great repute amongst agriculturists, and is very able to speak on this question, not only from the point of view of Income Tax Law, but from knowledge of agriculture, to consider whether the principle of this Amendment—which is not to bring all farmers, men who are paying hundreds and men who are paying thousands, within the limits of the new Clause, but is to impose some limit—is not really a sound principle. If this limit of £200 is thought to be too low, the Government might be prepared to accept some figure which would do two things, relieve the inexperienced account-keeping farmer from a possible injustice, while at the same time not relieving a man who ought to be keeping accounts and ought to be paying Income Tax on an exact figure from his liabilities.

Photo of Mr Leslie Scott Mr Leslie Scott , Liverpool Exchange

I recognise at once the very reasonable attitude taken up particularly by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes), who seconded the Amendment. May I at once deny the compliment he was good enough to pay me of having any knowledge of agriculture. I know nothing of agriculture, but I have had a good deal to do with farmers, and I know a good deal about them and their ways. The truth of the matter is, that the educational grounds advocated by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, of urging farmers to keep accounts, have much in their favour, but, after all, this is a Finance Bill and not an Education Bill. We have, I think, in a Finance Bill essentially to take facts as we find them, and to consider things from the point of view of raising taxation without unfairness to any particular body of persons. Out of the total number of persons who have agricultural holdings in this country, which, I am speaking from memory, is something between a quarter and half-a-million, there are something under 2,000 who pay under Schedule D. The fact is, that the majority of farmers, including a very large number who have farms of an annual value of £200 a year, do, in fact, pay under Schedule B and not under Schedule D. To pass here and now a taxing Clause which would, practically speaking, force all those men who are now paying under Schedule B under Schedule D would create an enormous, amount of trouble, both to the farmers and to the Inland Revenue, because that they would have to do it is assumed and is the basis of the Amendment. The Movers of the Amendment want to make them do it, and in the circumstances the reason why the Movers of the Amendment believe that that result would follow is, because they know that at the present time farmers' profits, as measured for the purpose of Schedule D, are nothing like twice the annual value of their holding as under the existing law to-day. Very few, I suspect, reach the single annual value of Schedule B as it stands in the Clause as drawn to-day.

The position is that the farming community of this country is going through the worst crisis it has known since the eighties and nineties of last century. In these circumstances, to admit a Clause which may be regarded as an educational Clause coupled with a punitive provision against farmers who do not agree to adopt the educational process, which is, I agree, in the long run desirable, is a misuse of taxing powers. Let us, proceeding on the assumption that under the existing state of affairs most farmers do pay under Schedule B and most farmers, even over £200 a year annual value, would find it difficult and very troublesome to prove their case under Schedule D, see what this Amendment proposes. It proposes to take a hard and fast arbitrary amount of £200 annual value with this result, that farmer A, with a farm worth £199 a year, will pay on the £199 as the basis of his income, while farmer B, with a farm of £201 annual value, will pay on £402 as the basis of his income, which is the kind of disparity between man and man that this House, and particularly the taxpayers, dislike. I venture very strongly to submit to the House that the broad question of agricultural, education. and the desirability of farmers keeping costing accounts and so on, is a matter not really germane to the matter in band, which is to decide the taxing system.

Photo of Mr John Lorden Mr John Lorden , St Pancras North

I cannot understand how the Movers of this Amendment can suggest that a farmer who pays a rent of £200 a year must be a big farmer. He does not want to farm many acres to pay that amount. In the old times land used to be something like 35s. to £2 an acre, but rents have had to go up, and a farmer who pays £200 a year would be quite a small farmer. If a farmer wants to adopt Schedule D, he has to give something like six to nine months' notice to the Surveyor of Taxes that he is proposing to come under Schedule D, and therefore, with this large number of farmers, there would probably be a. very large proportion of them who would be landed without being aware of what had been done. I am very glad, therefore, to hear that the Solicitor-C.eneral cannot accept the Amendment.

Photo of Mr Peter Raffan Mr Peter Raffan , Leigh

I think that the House will be very interested, after the numerous discussions that have taken place on Income Tax law, to hear the view of the Solicitor-General that it is a misuse of taxing powers to endeavour to secure that large bodies of people shall pay Income Tax on the amount of their income. That is the effect of the Solicitor-General's argument. He says, quite truly, that this is not an Education Bill. He says that it is a Finance Bill, and he says that it is a misuse of taxing powers to endeavour to secure an alteration in the law the effect of which will be that a large number of persons, who are not at present necessarily paying their Income Tax upon their incomes. shall be called upon to do so. I imagine that the. whole basis of the Income Tax is that, so far as it is possible to assess it, every person shall pay his Income Tax upon the income which he receives, and I think there is no other body of taxpayers in the whole community who are placed in this specially favoured position. I am specially interested also in the suggestion of the Solicitor-General that it is altogether wrong to make a sharp dividing line between one type of farmer and another. He appears to think that there is something extremely wrong in saying that the farmer whose rent is under £200 a year shall enjoy some privilege which is denied to the farmer whose rent is £210. The Government have, however, in this very Bill, and, indeed, in this very Clause, themselves made very sharp dividing lines. Where land is held by a farmer who farms it himself, he pays on a certain scale, but where is is held by a person who keeps it out of use, he pays on a much lower scale; and all our arguments failed to convince the Solicitor-General that this sharp dividing line should not be made.

With reference to the point which was made by the hon. Member who spoke last, what we had in mind, in framing this, Clause, was that we should exclude what are technically known as small holdings. As the hon. Member will, no doubt, be aware, under the Small Holdings Act a smallholder is technically a person who farms not more than 50 acres of land; and I think there are very few small holdings, and certainly very few statutory small holdings, where the rent of a 50-acre holding would exceed £200. I agree that any distinction of that kind must be to some extent an arbitrary one, but, in effect, what will happen will be this: There can be but a Very small number of smallholders who are earning sufficient to make them chargeable for any considerable amount of Income Tax, and when we fix the limit at £200, and allow for the exemption in the case of a married man with children, it docs mean that, speaking generally, what we are asking is that this shall operate at the point where a married man with children will become liable to Income Tax. There can be no doubt as to its being desirable that the farming community should ultimately be brought into line with the business community in regard to this matter. Surely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot contemplate going on for a long period putting one section of the community in the specially favoured position of not being required to make returns as to what their incomes are. At some period or other, surely, this change will be made.

Photo of Mr Peter Raffan Mr Peter Raffan , Leigh

I am glad to have that admission. Having secured it, may I say that in my view, as a result of the excellent work that has been done in regard to agricultural education by the present Minister of Agriculture and his predecessors, we have now reached a stage when the farming community will have been trained to keep accounts? It is one of the matters which the right hon. Gentleman has constantly kept in view, and it is a poor compliment to him to suggest that, in spite of his efforts, the farmers are still so ignorant that they cannot keep the elementary accounts which are necessary to make these returns. I hope the House will pass this Amendment, which has been described with perfect accuracy by the Solicitor-General as one which does not seek to make a sharp distinction between one man who is being assessed on one year's rent and another who is being assessed on two years' rent. It does seek to make it essential that farmers who farm comparatively largo holdings, and who, therefore, presumably, are men of education and intelligence, should be forced by stress of economic circumstances to act as other members of the community do, and make their returns.

My last point, though it is obvious that one makes it with some hesitation, is that, if you were to attempt to deal with commercial men on these linos, and were to say that the commercial man should not be compelled to make a return, but that his income should be judged by the rateable value of the office he uses, everyone would say it was perfectly obvious that a very grievous injustice would be done. There can be no doubt at all that the present system does not operate fairly as between farmer and farmer. The system is a thoroughly haphazard one. A large number of farmers pay far too little Income Tax, and it is quite likely that a considerable number pay too much. What is desirable is that each should pay the tax which should fairly fall upon him, and that no one should pay more. I hope that, if this Amendment is not accepted, or if some concession is not made, a Division will be taken on the matter, and that we shall put an end to the anomaly which has existed for so long.

Photo of Colonel Josiah Wedgwood Colonel Josiah Wedgwood , Newcastle-under-Lyme

Before a Division be taken, I should like to point out to the House that this Amendment, if carried, would give a definite advantage to smallholders, and would, therefore, encourage small-holdings in the country. That is a desirable thing to do. We on this side of the House want to give a specially advantageous position to the smallholder. Members on the other side want to give a specially advantageous position to the large farmer. It may be that our constituents are either large

farmers or small farmers, and that may dictate our vote to-day, but there can be. amongst people who want 10 benefit smallholdings and encourage them, no doubt as to how they ought to vote. The real difficulty is this: Farmers, for some reason that no one can discover, are put by this Bill in a specially advantageous position. We have been told over and over again that they are put in this advantageous position because they are unable to keep accounts, but that is not the reason. A quite sufficient reason why farmers are put in a specially advantageous position is that this Bill, which it is pretended is to the advantage of farmers, will in the long run redound solely in the interests of the landowners.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill,"

The House divided: Ayes, 34: Noes. 228.

Division No. 225.]AYES.[6.58 p.m.
Ammon, Charles GeorgeHall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)O'Connor, Thomas P.
Banton, GeorgeHallas, EldredParkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)Halls, WalterRendall, Atheistan
Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)Hayday, ArthurRichardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.Hayward, EvanSexton, James
Bramsdon, Sir ThomasHenderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)Sitch, Charles H.
Briant, FrankHirst, G. H.Spoor, B. G.
Cairns, JohnHodge, Rt. Hon. JohnSwan, J. E.
Cape, ThomasHogge, James MylesThomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)Irving, DanThomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)Kennedy, ThomasThorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.Tillett, Benjamin
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)Kenyon, BarnetWaterson, A. E.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)Kliey, James DanielWatts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
Entwistle, Major C. F.Lawson, John JamesWedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Finney, SamuelLunn, WilliamWilgnall, James
Galbraith, SamuelMaclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)Wilson, James (Dudley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)Myers, ThomasYoung, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Grundy, T. W.Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)Newbould, Alfred ErnestTELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Major Barnes and Mr. Raffan.
Adkins, Sir William Ryland DentBoscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Agg-Gardner, Sir James TynteBoyd-Carpenter, Major A.Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.Brassey, H. L. C.Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Armitage, RobertBrlttain, Sir HarryDavidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Armstrong, Henry BruceBroad, Thomas TuckerDavies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Baird, Sir John LawrenceBrown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)Davies. Thomas (Cirencester)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. StanleyBuchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William JamesEdgar, Clifford B.
Barlow, Sir MontagueBurn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)Edge, Captain Sir William
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)Casey, T. W.Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Barnston, Major HarryCecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Barrand, A. R.Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)Elveden. Viscount
Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund RobertChurchman, Sir ArthurErskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Beauchamp, Sir EdwardClay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. SpenderEvans, Ernest
Beckett. Hon. Sir GervaseClough. Sir RobertEyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)Coats, Sir StuartFaile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.Cobb, Sir CyrilFarquharson, Major A. C.
Bennett, Sir Thomas JewellCohen, Major J. BruneiFell, Sir Arthur
Betterton. Henry B.Colfox, Major Wm. PhillipsFildes. Henry
Bigland, AlfredColvin, Brig.-General Richard BealeFisher. Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Birchall, J. DearmanConway, Sir W. MartinFitzRoy. Captain Hon. Edward A.
Bird. Sir William B. M. (Chichester)Cory. Sir J. H. (Cardiff. South)Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Foot, IsaacLocker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Ford, Patrick JohnstonLorden, John WilliamRichardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Forrest, WalterLowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles TalbotMackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Fraser, Major Sir KeithMcLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Ganzonl, Sir JohnM'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Gardiner, JamesMcMicking, Major GilbertRoyds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Gardner, ErnestMacnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Gee, Captain RobertMacpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Gibbs, Colonel George AbrahamMacqulsten, F. A.Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Gilbert, James DanielMagnus, Sir PhilipSanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir JohnMaitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Glyn, Major RalphMallalieu, Frederick WilliamScott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Goff, Sir R. ParkMalone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)Seddon, J. A.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)Matthews, DavidSeely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Gregory, HolmanMeysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.Simm, M. T.
Greig, Colonel Sir James WilliamMitchell, Sir William LaneSprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Guest, Capt, Rt. Hon. Frederick E.Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred MoritzStanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.Stanton, Charles Butt
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)Morrison, HughStarkey. Captain John Ralph
Hamilton, Sir George C.Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.Steel, Major S. Strang
Hannon, Patrick Joseph HenryMunro, Rt. Hon. RobertStewart, Gershom
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)Murchison, C. K.Sturrock, J. Long
Haslam, LewisMurray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)Murray, John (Leeds, West)Sutherland, Sir William
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)Neal, ArthurThomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel FrankNewman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Hills. Major John WallerNewman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)Tryon, Major George Clement
Hinds, JohnNawson, Sir Percy WilsonTurton, Edmund Russborough
Hohler, Gerald FitzroyNicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)Wallace, J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur RichardNorman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir HenryWalters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
Holmes, J. StanleyNorris, Colonel Sir Henry G.Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Hopkins, John W. W.Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir JohnWard-Jackson, Major C. L.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)Ormsby-Gore, Hon. WilliamWarren, Sir Alfred H.
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. HacketWatson, Captain John Bertrand
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)Parker, JamesWheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Houston, Sir Robert PattersonPease, Rt. Hon. Herbert PikeWhite, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Hurd, Percy A.Pennefather, De FonblanqueWilliams, C. (Tavistock]
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)
Jesson, C.Perkins, Walter FrankWilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Jodreil, Neville PaulPerring, William GeorgeWinterton, Earl
Johnstone, JosephPhilipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)Wise, Frederick
Jones. G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest MurrayWolmer, Viscount
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. GeorgePownall, Lieut.-Colonel AsshetonWood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
Kidd, JamesPurchase, H. G.Wood. Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
King, Captain Henry DouglasRae, Sir Henry N.Worsfold. T. Cato
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir ClementRandies, Sir John ScurrahWorthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. GeorgeRaw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.Yeo, Sir Alfred William
Lane-Fox, G. R.Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)Younger, Sir George
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)Remer, J. R.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)Remnant, Sir JamesTELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Lloyd, George ButlerRenwick. Sir GeorgeColonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.