§ It shall be a condition of every contract for the occupation of an agricultural hereditament made on or after the commencement of this Act that the relief granted by this Act to occupiers of agricultural hereditaments shall not have been taken into account in determining what rent is properly payable in respect of any such hereditament and every such contract shall state in declaratory terms that this condition has been complied with.—[Mr. E. Brown.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. E. BROWN
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The intention of this Clause is to provide that at the end of a tenancy, when a new contract of tenancy is made, the relief given to agricultural land by way of de-rating shall not he taken into account in fixing the rent for the new lease. May I call attention to the fact that the words of this Clause are already in the Bill in another connection? On page 141 of the Bill the following words occur:The relief to occupiers of agricultural hereditaments granted by this Act shall not be taken into account by an arbitrator in determining for the purposes of Section 12 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding.I am quite sure that this House does not wish that de-rating should accrue to the benefit of the landlords. If there is any use in de-rating, it should be to encourage the producer, and I cannot understand why, if for the purposes of arbitration with regard to rent it is laid down in the Schedule to the Bill that de-rating shall not be taken into consideration as an element in fixing the amount under the arbitration, we cannot then put it in the shape of a Clause, thus making quite sure that, whatever may be the rise or fall of rents in future days, what we have done by way of de-rating agricultural land in this Bill shall accrue only to the tenant farmer or the occupying owner, and not to the landlord who does not produce food. Since we have adopted in this new Clause the actual words in the Schedule to the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill—I am sure that the House as a whole would wish the relief to go wholly to the producer of food on the countryside—I hope he will see his way this time to accept the new Clause.
It appears that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is in this matter more Royalist than the King, because the farmers, who are extremely anxious to have this relief, have not thought it necessary to ask the Government to impose any such condition as that which the hon. Member seeks to include in this Clause; and I would point out that, as a matter of practical politics, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to carry it into effect. Agricultural hereditaments will not, if the Bill become law, appear in the valuation list at all, and it would be very difficult therefore on some future occasion to say exactly what the amount of the relief has been. I am very doubtful whether the proposal of the hon. Member that a declaration should be made that such relief has not been taken account of in a contract for rent would have any practical effect. It would be almost impossible to prevent the relief being taken into account whether or not a declaration to the contrary were inserted. The provision in the Schedule does net appear to be analogous at all. That is not a question of imposing statutory conditions upon two parties to a contract; it is a direction to an arbitrator, which is quite a different thing. When we consider also the fact that we have had experience of the relief of agricultural land to the extent of three-quarters of the rateable value without this question having been raised, it seems inappropriate that, when we are remitting the last quarter, this matter should be brought forward as though it were some new principle.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Health, when he suggests that merely to make a declaration will have no practical effect. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the new Clause which he moved in the Committee stage, when he declared that the intention of the Government was that, in case any new burden were imposed on local authorities, a future Government, whichever type it might be, would have to make a certain contribution towards the increased expenditure incurred by the local authorities. I remember that the 254 right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary said that merely to express in so many words the intention of the Government which passes this Bill was a sufficient guarantee to local authorities in the future that any new burden for the extension of social services would be met partly by the Government, which ever Government happened to be in office. Now the right hon. Gentleman has apparently made a complete volte face, and suggests that, because we want to declare, by the inclusion in this new Clause, that no part of the relief granted to agriculture shall filter through to the landlords for whom not a penny is intended—
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
It is the intention. If the right hon. Gentleman argues that, because we have a tremendous increase in owner occupiers, the effect of this Clause would not be quite as general in its application as it might have been before the War, when the number of owner occupiers was approximately only one-third of the number to-day, I should be inclined to agree with him. If, however, we can do so by any form of words, either the form of words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman himself in another part of the Bill, or any suitable phraseology which would have the same effect, we ought, if a declaration be of any value at all, to make that declaration, so as to ensure that in any case no part of the de-rating will find its way into the pockets of the landowners. On the Committee stage, we put down an Amendment that this benefit to agriculture should be taken into account when agricultural wages committees were dealing with wages for any future period. Unfortunately, that Amendment could not be dealt with. This I take to be another opportunity of making doubly sure that the benefits to be derived by agriculture will go first to the agriculturist, and that finally, after discussions by the wages committees, some portion at least will find its way into the pockets of the agricultural workers. Therefore, the suggested declaration by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is a fairly comprehensive one. Its intention is sound and logical, and it ought to he accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. If, as he states, these particular words 255 are not suitable and will not have the effect intended and desired, it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to give us the satisfaction of ensuring that the £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 which is going to agriculture will go to agriculturists and not to the landowners, and will in part find its way into the pockets of the workpeople, who are responsible for doing all sorts of work in agriculture.
§ Miss LAWRENCE
We are discussing, in effect, the fundamental fallacy of the Government's de-rating policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is a man of proved ingenuity in the drafting of Amendments, but he has put this new Clause down rather to draw attention to the facts than with any idea that a declaration can stop the remorseless processes of economic law. Let us look at what it is that determines the rent of agricultural land. I apologise to the House for going back to the very A.B.C. of economics, but, if there be one part of economic theory that is clear, it is the doctrine of the rent of agricultural land, that is to say, that the pressure between those who rent different sites results in the tribute which they pay for the sites being equivalent to the advantage that favourably situated land has over worse land. When a man is considering how much he will pay for the privilege of being able to farm a piece of land, rates and rent are one to him. When he pays the tribute of rates and rent, they are, from his point of view, no different, and the total amount of rates and rent is settled by the haggling of the market. If you raise rent during the occupation of a tenancy, the tenant has to pay. At the end of that time, if land goes into the market and new leases are created, or the land is sold, the whole of the additional cost of the rates falls back upon the owner. That is most clearly to be seen when you contemplate the actual sale of rated agricultural land. If you were to put up the rates of any piece of agricultural land, when the estate was sold it would sell for so much less. That is the reason why an old and settled rate is one of the very best taxes known to any Chancellor or any authority in finance, for a rate of some 70 or 80 years has already settled back upon the owner, and wherever a sale has taken place or a death has taken place, the 256 seller or the heir has been irremedially penalised and has in effect extinguished the rent.
That being the case, no declaration m an Act of Parliament can have other than the effect that when this land comes to be sold, or when a new lease comes to be fixed, the seller or the owner will reap the complete benefit of the de-rating of agricultural land. It will take a little time to settle that. For the moment the farmer will have the advantage, but irrevocably the whole of the money that Parliament has voted will fall back to the property owner. The hon. Member has manifested his customary skill in drafting a Clause which permits this matter to be discussed, but he knows, and we know, and the Minister says, that no declaration in a Statute will prevent this. He said that it is not likely to have any effect, but although the intentions of the Government are that the farmers should keep the benefit of de-rating, the Government have no possible means to suggest by which these benevolent intentions can be put into practice. We have talked about de-rating, and we are back now at the very crux of it. We have had an admission from the Minister that there is nothing that he can do, and nothing that Parliament can do, to prevent the landlord reaping the full benefit. That is an eleventh hour admission, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made it.
§ Sir BASIL PETO
The speech to which we have just listened was an excellent and clear exposition of a theory, but in this matter the facts of history have more real value. After the partial de-rating of agricultural land in 1896, there was not only no increase in the general total of the amount exacted by the landlords throughout the country, but there was a, diminution of about £1,500,000 in the total rents of the following year, while there was not even in succeeding years any addition whatever to rent. It may be argued, and possibly proved, that had there been no partial de-rating of agricultural land, there would have been a still greater drop in the rent. No one can prove it conclusively, but it is significant that after the 1896 reduction of rates on agricultural land, there was a heavy fall, and not an increase, in agricultural rents. Again, in 1923 a further reduction in the rates 257 upon agricultural land was made, and it is significant to note that, although the increased value of the products of the land, an compared with the pre-War period, was certainly not less than 50 per cent. or 60 per cent., yet after the further reduction in the rates the net rent charged for the land was only 15 per cent. above the pre-War level.
We are much safer in dealing with what has happened than in reviewing the theory that all remissions of rates inevitably go into the landlord's pocket, and we can show conclusively that when remissions of rates have been made in the past, they have not gone into the landlord's pocket, but where they were intended, that is, to the relief of agricultural production. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that the Minister was wrong in saying that this declaratory Clause would not be effective, because on some occasion during the passage of the Bill the Minister declared what was the intention of the Government. He is confusing two different things which have no relation to one another. The Clause is somewhat futile, and I think that the hon. Member for (Mr. E. Brown) thinks so too—
§ Sir B. PETO
I really regard it as an attempt to bring forward the theory which has been illustrated by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence), a theory which is one of the main sticks used by the Opposition with which to beat the Government dog. I do not think the theory will go down, because the farmers know the advantage which they have had from relief of rates in the past, and appreciate the relief which they are being given under this Measure, and I am quite convinced that they know that not only will they receive that relief but that they will be able to retain it.
§ Mr. MORRIS
The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has submitted that after the relief of rates granted to farmers by the Acts of 1896 and 1923 there was no raising of rents by the landlords, and I suppose the inference will be that there will be no raising of rents as a result of this further Measure of de-rating. If that be the ease, then there can be no harm in our 258 accepting the Clause, because it will only declare that to which the landlords are said to be only too ready to agree. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health resists this Clause on the ground that it will interfere with freedom of contract between individuals, that is, between the landlord and tenant, after the passing of this Bill. His contention all the way through in defending this Bill—and it is the contention also of the Parliamentary Secretary, and, indeed, of all the defenders of the Bill—has been that this de-rating will not tend to increase rents, but if this Clause would interfere with freedom of contract then clearly he thinks there is going to be a benefit under freedom of contract which will go to the landlord. This is the first time it has been demonstrated so clearly that there is a possibility of the benefit going to the landlord. I do not accept fully the contentions of the hon. Baronet with regard to what happened at the time of the 1896 Act and the 1923 Act, because those two Acts were passed during periods of depression—there would have been no need to pass them if there had not been that depression; and even though no de-rating had taken place at all there would, without doubt, have been an appeal by tenants in many cases for a reduction of rents. Can the hon. Baronet go as far as to show that the decreases in rents took place after the Acts of 1896 and 1923? How many instances in which rents were reduced can he bring forward? If there were no decreases, it indicates that rents were kept above the figure at which they ought to have stood. The Minister has said that we might put this proposal in as a direction to the arbitrator. It would be something if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Clause in that form. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would accept it and include it as a direction to the arbitrator in determining the rent under new leases. I should like to hear from him whether he is prepared to accept the Clause in that form?
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSON
I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government that this relief is to go into the hands of the landlord or of the tenant, but I, personally, desire to see it go to the tenant, in order that we may see more land in this country cultivated and its produce going to the people. I wish to 259 mention a ease to the Minister. If he will inquire of the National Farmers' Union I am sure he will find that already action is being taken in anticipation of the passing of this Measure. A tenant farmer became bankrupt, and his farm was to let. A new man who thought he could do better than the other inquired whether he could have the farm. "I am prepared," he said, "to take it at the rent the other farmer paid when he had it." The landlord replied, "Oh, no, I cannot agree to that. You are going to get something through this de-rating, and I shall want more rent from that farm." If that be true, it is time somebody on the part of the Government—the Minister of Agriculture or somebody else—made inquiries to see whether landlords will not get the whole of this benefit in the shape of increased rent. The Minister ought to remember, too, that round about 1921 rents were advanced abnormally because of the decreased value of money. Farmers could not continue in face of those increased rents, and at the time the 1923 Act was passed they were in need of protection if they were to carry on with the production of food for this country.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has referred to the facts of history, setting them against the only piece of economic theory which has stood the test of time. If there is one piece of economic theory which has never been destroyed, it is the theory of the economic rent; that is unescapable. If it be the case that relief from rates does not, in the long run, inure to the advantage of the landlord, that is not due to economic reasons, but is purely a matter of sentiment, because, in so far as economic causes operate, the relief would work out to the landlord's advantage. In telling us what happened the hon. Baronet has not told us all that happened, but only some of the things. He has been guilty of the very old fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is a common enough fallacy amongst hon. Members opposite. The truth about de-rating in the past is that it took place at a time of grave agricultural depression such as this country had not known for three generations, and it was as a result of that depression that rents fell. 260 It is quite true that in 1923 the remission of rates on agricultural land coincided with a fall in agricultural rents, but I think it is also true that that fall in rents had begun before the 1923 Measure was passed. It had begun as a result of economic forces. Everybody remembers the high figure which had been asked for agricultural land because of the high prices which were then obtainable for agricultural produce. It was a repetition of what took place after the Napoleonic Wars 100 years ago. With the change in economic circumstances, of course rents fell. They would have fallen whether there had been de-rating or not.
It is quite clear that agricultural rents will rise where land is held by persons other than the owners. If a farmer owns his farm, clearly no question can arise about the advantage of de-rating, because he will obtain it—not as a farmer, but as an owner; but where there is a separation of the functions of occupier and owner the ultimate effect will be that the advantage will pass to the owner. I do not think that can be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman makes no attempt to avoid it. He could avoid it by doing something which hon. Members opposite are afraid to do, that is, interfere with what is called the working of economic laws. But he is not prepared to do that, though he has done it in other parts of the Bill for other purposes. The direction that the rating relief which is given to freight transport enterprises is to be transferred to the consumers is an interference with ordinary economic laws, and the right hon. Gentleman could apply the same system, if he wished, to the case of agricultural rents, but he does not choose to do so. His one excuse is that there are going to be no more valuation lists of agricultural land. That is true; we cannot help that. During the painful days of the Committee stage we have tried to improve the Bill. We have done our best, and this new Clause, although it may not fit the actual circumstances, is an attempt to do what, I think, most people would admit ought to be done, and that is to bring the benefit of the relief to the actual producer. If a landlord is a mere owner of land, taking no part in productive processes, no measure of this de-rating relief ought to pass into his hands. Although the hon. Member 261 for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is not anxious to press this Clause very far, I hope he will do so.
At any rate the Clause has served to bring out this really important admission, and to that, of course, we shall cling. It will be worth defeat in the Lobbies to have on record the right hon. Gentleman's views with regard to the operation of de-rating in respect of agriculture land.
§ Sir K. WOOD
Both Oppositions are treading on very delicate grounds in so far as they are concerned in this proposal. When this Bill is passed into law it will completely relieve agricultural land of rates. I assume that hon. Members opposite are still opposed to granting that relief. As far as the Liberal party are concerned, I am still uncertain as to their attitude.
§ Sir K. WOOD
In so far as I am certain, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman's view is in disagreement with the policy expressed in his party's programme and in disagreement with the opinion of the two leaders, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and Sir Herbert Samuel. Therefore, I approach this Clause from the point of view that it has been moved by an hon. Member who is really uncertain as to his views, and I also assume that it is receiving the support of another party who are really opposed altogether to this relief being given.
§ Sir K. WOOD
All this will certainly be noted on future occasions. If we examine this Clause which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) said he was going to cling to—"cling to" is a good phrase—we must certainly come to the conclusion that it is an extraordinary one. It says:It shall be a condition of every contract for the occupation of an agricultural hereditament made on or after the commencement of this Act that the relief granted by this Act to occupiers of agricultural hereditaments shall not have been taken into account in determining what rent is properly payable.262 Why "this Act"? Is this the only relief which is to be taken into account? I assume that the hon. Member had full advantage of the usual legal assistance in drafting his Clause, and if he is logical, why does he confine it to relief granted by this Act? Surely he ought to say, also, that it shall include the relief granted by the two previous Acts.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The hon. Member is constantly asking me to amend and then to accept his proposals. I really must decline to associate myself with the efforts of those who have been drafting this new Clause. I would point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are clinging to the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the Clause, that, obviously, this Clause is quite impossible and nonsensical, because no one would want to bring about what the hon. Gentleman has in view, simply to confine himself to relief given by this Act. If hon. Members really want to give relief, surely they would not do it in this way. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken from the Liberal Benches is a member of the learned profession, and I am surprised that he gives his powerful assistance to this Clause. Anyone can see that this Clause would alter a contract completely. It is a different matter with regard to the declaration put in with reference to future determinations by arbitrators, because this is a declaration by Parliament, and we are entitled to say that in every such case this particular relief shall not be taken into account in determining what rent is properly payable in respect of a holding. How on earth can hon. Members say, when two parties meet together, what they would take into account when they come to make a bargain. Apparently, the House is asked to start on the assumption that the Liberal party can find out what is passing between the parties when they are making a contract of this kind. From the point of view of the Clause itself—I am sorry to criticise it so adversely, because I recognise that it is a genuine effort on the part of the hon. Member—as far as the exact terms of the Clause are concerned, I am sure that no one would desire to support it in that form.
§ Mr. MORRIS
Would the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for one moment? He has referred to my speech. What I asked him was whether a direction to this effect could be given to the arbitrator?
§ Sir K. WOOD
I think the hon. Gentleman will probably have to read my book when it is finished. He will find that on page 141 of this Bill, in paragraph 13 of Schedule 10, provision is made in that particular respect. With regard to the proposition generally, the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has also given us what we may perhaps call the Socialist theory on this particular proposal.
§ Sir K. WOOD
Then I will amend my statement. I note that the hon. Lady is quite properly following out the policy of the Labour party at present, which is not to put forward Socialism as their chief mission in life. She has put it in the background, as the Socialist party are trying to do at present. But whether this is Socialist theory or not, or whether hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to see these things kept in the background or not, none of the statements made or the theories put forward have been justified by the facts. This is not the first time that relief has been given to agricultural land. We have had experience of it over a considerable period. I have had the privilege of reading some of the Debates which took
§ place in those far-off days when relief was given, and almost the same speeches as have been made to-day by hon. Gentlemen opposite were made on that occasion. The same forebodings were advanced. According to hon. Gentlemen opposite, everything would go wrong. Rents and money were going in the landlords' pockets, and the proposal was simply a dole. That was just 20 years ago, and yet none of those prophecies has proved correct.
§ Sir K. WOOD
The facts speak for themselves. When we brought in the Clause giving relief to agriculture, hon. Gentlemen who are now supporting this Clause did not dare to go to a Division. That was a very significant fact. There were no Tellers. The hon. Member who has just intervened was not present, or I know his courage would have persuaded him to come forward as a Teller on that occasion. There were actually no Tellers against that particular Clause, and I suppose this Clause is an effort to recover themselves from the position hon. Members opposite took up on that occasion. I hope that this Motion will be pressed to a Division, which we shall welcome. This is a most fantastic and impossible Clause, and I ask the House to reject it.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 213.267
|Division No. 192.]||AYES.||[5.7 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Edge, Sir William||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Ammon, Charles George||England, Colonel A.||Kelly, W. T.|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Kennedy, T.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Gillett, George M.||Lawrence, Susan|
|Bellamy A.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lee, F.|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Greenall, T.||Lowth, T.|
|Bennett, William (Battersea, South)||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Lunn, William|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Griffith, F. Kingsley||Mackinder, W.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)|
|Briant, Frank||Grundy, T. W.||March, S.|
|Broad, F. A.||Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)||Maxton, James|
|Bromfield, William||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Montague, Frederick|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Morris, R. H.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Hardie, George D.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hayes, John Henry||Mosley, Sir Oswald|
|Clarke, A. B.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Oliver, George Harold|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hirst, G. H.||Paling, W.|
|Compton, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Cove, W. G.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Ponsonby, Arthur|
|Dalton, Florence (Bishop Auckland)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Potts, John S.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Purcell, A. A.|
|Dunnico, H.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)||Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)||Welsh, J. C.|
|Sakiatvala, Shapurji||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Thorns, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Thurtle, Ernest||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Shinwell, E.||Tinker, John Joseph||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Tomilnson, R. P.||Windsor, Walter|
|Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Viant, S. P.||Wright, W.|
|Snell, Harry||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Sutton, J. E.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney||Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Ernest Brown.|
|Taylor, R. A.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Ellis, R. G.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Albery, Irving James||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-t.-M.)||Meller, R. J.|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Apsley, Lord||Everard, W. Lindsay||Mitchell, S, (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Fermoy, Lord||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Atkinson, C.||Fielden, E. B.||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Balniel, Lord||Fraser, Captain Ian||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Frece, sir Walter de||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Beamish, Hear-Admiral T. P. H.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Beckett, sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Ganzoni, Sir John||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon||Gates, Percy||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Oakley, T.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Berry, sir George||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Bethel, A.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorke, W. R., Skipton)||Grotrian, H. Brent||Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hacking, Douglas H.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Ramsden, E.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hamilton, Sir George||Held, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Hammersley, S. S.||Rentoul, G. S.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Hanbury, C.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. u.|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ti'y)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hartington, Marquess of||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ross, R. D.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd, Henley)||Rys, F. G|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian||Salmon, Major I.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Buchan, John||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Sandon, Lord|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Savery, S. S.|
|Burman, J. B.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Shepperton, E. W.|
|Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Skelton, A. N.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hurst, Gerald B.||Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)|
|Cayzer sir C. (Chester, City)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Iveagh, Countess of||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Alton)||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. P.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Joynson-Hickt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Charterle, Brigadier-General J.||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Christie, J, A.||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Clayton, G. C.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lamb, J. Q.||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George||Litter, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Locker-Lampion, Com. O. (Handtw'th)||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Colman, N. C. D||Long, Major Eric||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell|
|Cooper, A. Dull||Looker, Herbert William||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Couper, J. B.||Lougher, Lewis||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Courthope, Colonel sir G. L.||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Lumley, L. R.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen||Waddington, R.|
|Crocks, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||McLean, Major A.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Macmillan, Captain H.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Makins, Brigadler-General E.||Watte, Sir Thomas|
|Edmondson, Major A. J||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Wells, S. R.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Margesson, Captain D.||Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)|
|Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)||Withers, John James||Wragg, Herbert|
|Wilson, sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.||Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr. F. C. Thomson.|