§ Mr. MARJORIBANKS
I beg to move, in page 20, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:Provided that no increase of assessment shall take effect in any one year by more than five per cent. in excess of the previous assessment.The purpose of this Amendment is very far-reaching. I think everybody in the country will realise that beneath these formal phrases lies one of the most lucrative parts of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget. I am told that it is anticipated that at least £10,000,000 will be realised as a result of this increase of assessment. If the House will forgive me, I will explain very shortly what lies behind this increased assessment. The annual value of real property is an asset both for local and national taxation throughout England, but there is a great distinction between local and national taxation, because the object of the former, the taxation which comes from rates, is to raise a fixed sum for a limited area every year, and therefore it does not very much matter if the rating of property goes up, because the poundage will go down, whereas, on the other hand, in national taxation, which is raised by my right hon. Friend, if the assessment of any property goes up, the effect is immediate. That is the fundamental difference between local and national taxation.
The rating of property has been left largely to the whim and caprice of the local authorities, and over a great area of this country there has been no reassessment for rates for very many years indeed. On the other hand, for Income Tax purposes, there has lately been in practice a re-assessment every five years, but almost invariably, or at any rate in very many cases, the local taxing authorities followed the assessment of the rating authorities, thereby in practice agreeing to the principle of a single valuation. The consequence is that after 1966 the assessments have been raised for rates, as they were by the new valuation, when there comes the new valuation under Schedule A brought forward in this Bill, assessments will immediately go up, sometimes to a very great extent indeed.
There is one misrepresentation which I should like to contradict at the very outset, which was raised by the Press and by some of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They complimented the right hon. Gentleman in front of me and myself as being exponents of the class war and standing up for the interests of our class. We do not appreciate that sort of compliment on this side of the House. We are not standing up for any particular class, and I shall be able to show that this provision, although it is in principle absolutely right, will, by its sudden imposition, affect not only property owners, Income Taxpayers, and Super-taxpayers, but almost everybody in this country who enters into a contract of landlord and tenant. That can be shown to demonstration, and the only object of this Amendment is to act as a buffer, to prevent immediate injustices arising out of a sudden change.
In the Committee stage I pleaded particularly the case of the owner-occupier with a fixed income who has bought a property and planned his life with the purpose of remaining in one home which he has purchased, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite swept that consideration aside. He said, "After all, he can always sell his home; he can realise his property and move elsewhere." The right hon. Gentleman did not realise that there is a considerable number of people who do not wish to move from their homes and who are prepared to make many sacrifices to remain in their homes; and my plea for the owner-occupier remains unchanged. I put that one instance, but, of course, there are many other considerations.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his view. When he thinks he is merely putting on a tax and that there is an end of it, he does not know that the result of his tax reverberates throughout the whole community. An increased assessment coming suddenly will, of course, affect the person who pays Income Tax, and that, of course, is a small class, whom the right hon. Gentleman does not usually consider. 1967 He regards them as cows to be milked, as proper prey, and I can understand his particular point of view. It is a well-known Socialist argument, and he has no reason to be afraid of Income Taxpayers and Super-taxpayers at the poll. He will, however, by this increase of assessment, bring into the Income Tax class and the Super-tax class people who were never in before, and therefore he will have just a little more reason to be afraid as regards the votes of the people who will be affected by this sudden change.
Then, at the other extreme end of the scale, there is the holder of the old age pension under the original Act with a means qualification. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are people who have served their masters faithfully in the past who, under an old system of morals perhaps, an old system of generosity, have been given houses to live in for nothing, or at any rate rent free, or it may be that these houses are their own. They will be re-assessed, so as to bring them outside the old property qualification, and they will be deprived, unless the right hon. Gentleman makes any particular provision to the contrary, of their old age pension under the original Act. If the right hon. Gentleman has an answer to that point, I shall be glad to hear it.
Again, there will be much greater results than mere direct results from this change, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider the case of the ordinary tenancy of house property. The landlord in almost every case throws upon the tenant the burden of assessment beyond the rent that he pays, and so, if he has an increased assessment, every tenant in this country will have to pay under Schedule A to his landlord, or, if he does not, he will have to pay an increased rent. The right hon. Gentleman may be very unwilling to believe it, but there are many large landlords who build properties for the benefit of the working classes and gain practically no profit whatever for themselves—there was a notable instance only a week ago, in the close neighbourhood of this House—and the result is that if there is an increased assessment, those properties will not be able to be run on the old lines. These large working-class tenement houses will have either to be run at a loss to the landlord, which 1968 is not likely, or he will raise his rents, and so this very considerable class of people throughout England will be affected. Working people in working-class tenements will have to pay increased rents, and they will, perhaps, thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing this provision.
I have shown, I think, that this will have very far-reaching effects on tenants, and not only so, but that the increased taxation will destroy or affect the value of property which has been acquired by purchase. Every single owner of real property will be affected by this change. In the new Doomsday Book of 1875 it was proved that there were 1,000,000 owners of real property in this country. The ownership of real property in this country is not confined, as many hon. Members opposite think, to a few large property owners who draw upon the strength and wealth of the working classes. The real property of this country, owing to the spread of the building society movement, is owned by millions of people, and they will all be affected by this sudden change.
I would only ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some effect to the principle which I have expressed in this Amendment, and make the change gradual. It is, after all, a principle which has been applied where local authorities have taken in larger areas. They do not put the increased rates upon the new area at once; they impose a system of graduation, and, therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the very far-reaching effects next year of this new Clause. I ask him to safeguard the interests of property owners and persons who dwell in houses in this country, and if I could produce no other argument to urge upon him, I would urge upon him the unpopularity which will inevitably come upon his head and upon the Government if he does not give effect to the principle contained in this Amendment.
§ Mr. ATKINSON
I beg to second the Amendment.
It is always a hardship suddenly to be called upon to pay an increase of taxation, especially when that hardship is only falling upon a few and not upon all alike. The whole idea behind this Clause is that there is to be a really substantial increase of taxation upon 1969 property owners, and in a great many cases that may work extreme hardship. It will in most cases be an increase not accompanied by any increase of income, because where there has been an increase of income, the assessments have been raised in the past. The cases here that will be hard hit will be cases where there is no increased income to meet the increased taxation, and therefore there will necessarily be a great many cases of hardship. When a change of that kind is being made, I think it is only right that the increase should be graduated in the way suggeested in the Amendment.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden)
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks), who moved this Amendment, succeeded very well in making a mountain out of something much less titan a molehill. It will be remembered that we discussed this question at some length in Committee on a similar Amendment, which the Committee rejected overwhelmingly. One would have imagined, from what the hon. Member said, that some proposal was being introduced, for the first time, of a revolutionary character, a proposal of confiscation that was going to bring hundreds of millions out of the pockets of the poor property owners of this country. The hon. Gentleman made a statement about £10,000,000 but I think he had in his mind 10,000,000 assessments. There are 10,000,000 assessments, and it is estimated that these new assessments for the provinces and for the Metropolis will raise less than £1,000,000, or an average of less than 2s. per assessment, so that the hon. Gentleman has used all his eloquence upon a very small thing. There is nothing in this proposal except that we are assimilating the procedure in London in regard to valuation to that which has been working very satisfactorily in the provinces for many years. That is all that there is in this proposal. It is proposed to ascertain whether any change has occurred in the value of property during the preceding five years, and in many cases, no doubt, there will be a reduction in the assessment while in some cases there will be an increase.
Speaking during the Committee stage, the hon. Member said that in his own constituency there are cases where property has doubled in its annual value during the period of five years. He instanced cases where property had gone up 1970 from £100 to £200 a year. Let us get down to the Amendment of the hon. Member, because a great deal of what he said was of a general character, denouncing the whole system of assessment upon property for Income Tax purposes. He is proposing that there shall not be an increase of more than 5 per cent. in the valuation when the quinquennial valuation takes place. That is perfectly absurd. The purpose of the quinquennial valuation is to ascertain what the value of property is. The hon. Gentleman says that if property is increased by 100 per cent., to take his own illustration, if it is increased from £100 to £200, only £105 shall be taken as the value. Therefore, the property owner is to be relieved of assessment of £95 at the expense of the other taxpayers. I am quite sure that the House will reject this Amendment, just as it rejected the Amendment when it was discussed in Committee. There is not one shadow of justification for such a proposal, and I could never think of accepting it.
§ Major ELLIOT
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his customary vehemence, dealt summarily with the Amendment. Let me recall what he said in Committee when this proposal was being discussed. My hon. Friend raised the point, which is a very germane point, that if local assessments are wrong, it does not matter very much, because the rate in the £ is the same for all. He said that if the assessable value be low, the poundage rate would be so much higher, and he went on to say that that was not the case with the Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman said:But is it not? He says that if we raise the assessment we get a larger return and that is quite true, but just as the amount of money needed by the local authority is a fixed sum, so the amount which the Exchequer wants from Income Tax is also a fixed sum.We join issue with him wholly and completely upon that point. He went on to say:If the assessments under Schedule A were increased, the yield would be greater and, then, just as in the case of the revenue of the local authority, unless the needs of the national Exchequer were increased there would be provision in that increased yield from Schedule A for a reduction in the general rate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1930; col. 718, Vol. 240.]1971 He tries to escape from the horns of his dilemma by saying, "unless the needs of the national Exchequer were increased." In the case of the rates of a locality, where you are practically dealing with a single tax, if the basis upon which the rates are levied is low, the rate will be high, and vice versa. In the case, however, of multiple taxes, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer raises, any particular class of taxpayer does not get any reduction unless the Chancellor chooses to make a reduction in the tax. The Chancellor says that we are making a mountain out of a molehill, and that an increase of only £1,000,000 is involved. Let me point out how much that strengthens the argument which we are bringing forward. This £1,000,000 is to be raised from 10,000,000 assessments, and 50 per cent., by the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, is to be levied on 800,000 assessments alone. That is a very considerable mountain to the 800,000 assessments out of which more than half of the new impost is to be raised. Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that in the case of the annexation of London by the provinces, Londoners are only asking for the same proposals as in the case of the annexation of a wealthy region in local government should be applied in the case of the annexation of a wealthy region in national government. The points are precisely similar. Step by step the increase which is granted in the case of local government could reasonably be granted in the case of national government also.
The £500,000 increase which is to be thrown at a single blow upon 800,000 assessments will be a very marked increase, and it will have an injurious effect not only upon the owners, but eventually upon the occupiers in these regions. My hon. Friend's Amendment has been brought forward from the point of view of ordinary reasonable fairness in administration, and in order to graduate the burden when a sudden change in legislation has to be introduced. It is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman to dismiss it so summarily, and to suggest that it is merely a molehill. It is necessary for us to test the sense of the House once more on this matter. We may have been defeated in Committee, and we may again be defeated on Report, but, sooner 1972 or later it will be evident to the sense of the country, and certainly, I am sure, to the sense of the Metropolis, that we are right in the proposal that we are now making.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
As time goes on the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer become quainter and quainter. Very rarely has he given his case away so absolutely as he has done this afternoon He said that he could not possibly accept the Amendment. He poured a certain amount of his well-known scorn on my hon. Friend's Amendment; then, having done that, he as usual completely gave his case away. He generally does it sooner or later, but it was curious how he did it this afternoon. He proceeded to say that my hon. Friend has mistaken £10,000,000 for 10,000,000 assessments. He then had his own nice little sum worked out according to his opinion that the amount gained by the Treasury would be about only 2s. a head. If he takes that 2s. and considers it in proportion to the total amount which will come in to Income Tax under the whole of the assessments, he will see that he has given away entirely his case against this Amendment, because what the Amendment does is to ask that it shall not be raised in any one year by more than 5 per cent.; so that if his arguments are right, obviously, as far as the 5 per cent. which we are asking is concerned, he is being given very much more than he would get under the Bill as it stands.
He knows perfectly well that he is not getting £1,000,000. That is an estimate put forward for the sake of argument, and he hopes that he has some means whereby he can get a considerable increase in the total amount. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this Amendment once more, because there are a large number of people who will find in the course of the next few years a considerable burden imposed on them in this way. It will particularly hit a large number of people who have that quality of thrift which the Chancellor has praised when it suits him. On this occasion it does not suit him. He has shown once again that he is not using this Budget merely as a means of collecting revenue, but for the deliberate purpose of injuring a certain section of the community. I am certain that he will hit a great many more people than he imagines, and when the repercussions come back on to his 1973 head, he will find that he has done something the meaning of which he did not realise when he started it. This is the action not so much of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as of the collecting revenue authority in their determination to grind more and more out of the taxpayers.
§ Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL
Not only will there be the tax to be collected, which I understand will be £500,000 for London alone, but there is the cost of the valuation, which the country should realise will not be a small amount. It has emerged that there will be 800,000 assessments in London alone, and the amount to be raised by the change will be £500,000. I have had some experience of municipal work, and I know that the assessment of different types of property in the Administrative County of London will be no easy task.
§ Mr. SAMUEL
It will include the valuation of London, for we shall be taking in London a second method of assessment instead of relying on the municipal assessment as has hitherto been the case. We shall have to assess 800,000 properties, and I was told by the Financial Secretary that the cost will be £15,000. I have never accepted the accuracy of that figure. I want to put on record my protest against expenditure for re-assessing by a second system the whole of these assessments, because I believe that beyond raising the £500,000, as the Chancellor has told us, there will be every five years henceforth a much larger sum falling on the taxpayer than has been estimated simply arising out of the additional and unnecessary process of assessment under this Clause.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 253.1977
|Division No. 445.]||AYES.||[4.44 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Ferguson, Sir John||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive|
|Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles||Fermoy, Lord||Muirhead, A. J.|
|Albery, Irving James||Fielden, E. B.||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Ford, Sir P. J.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Atkinson, C.||Ganzoni, Sir John||O'Neill, Sir H.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Berry Sir George||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Gower, Sir Robert||Penny, Sir George|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Power, Sir John Cecil|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Hammersley, S. S.||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Haslam, Henry C.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Butler, R. A.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Ross, Major Ronald D.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Savery, S. S.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birnt., W.)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)|
|Christie, J. A.||Hurd, Percy A.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Iveagh, Countess of||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Long, Major Hon. Eric||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Macquisten, F. A.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Dugdale, Capt. T. L.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)||Womersley, W. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley||Captain Sir George Bowyer and|
|Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.||Captain Wallace.|
|Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Muff, G.|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.||Hayday, Arthur||Murnin, Hugh|
|Alpass, J. H.||Hayes, John Henry||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Arnott, John||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Oldfield, J. R.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Herriotts, J.||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Hoffman, P. C.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Hollins, A.||Owen, H. F. (Hereford)|
|Barr, James||Hopkin, Daniel||Palin, John Henry|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Paling, Wilfrid|
|Bellamy, Albert||Horrabin, J. F.||Palmer, E. T.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Benson, G.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Perry, S. F.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Isaacs, George||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Phillips, Dr. Marion|
|Bowen, J. W.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Potts, John S.|
|Brooke, W.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Brothers, M.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Kelly, W. T.||Raynes, W. R.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Kennedy, Thomas||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Kinley, J.||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Buchanan, G.||Kirkwood, D.||Ritson, J.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Knight, Holford||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)|
|Burton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Lang, Gordon||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Rowson, Guy|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Lathan, G.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Charleton, H. C.||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Chater, Daniel||Lawrence, Susan||Sanders, W. S.|
|Church, Major A. G.||Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)||Sandham, E.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawson, John James||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour-||Leach, W.||Sexton, James|
|Compton, Joseph||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Cove, William G.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Cowan, D. M.||Lees, J.||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Daggar, George||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Shield, George William|
|Dallas, George||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Dalton, Hugh||Logan, David Gilbert||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Longbottom, A. W.||Shinwell, E.|
|Day, Harry||Longden, F.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Dukes, C.||Lowth, Thomas||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Duncan, Charles||Lunn, William||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Ede, James Chuter||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Sinkinson, George|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Egan, W. H.||McElwee, A.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Elmley, Viscount||McEntee, V. L.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|England, Colonel A.||McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Freeman, Peter||MacLaren, Andrew||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||McShane, John James||Smith, W. R. (Norwich)|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Snell, Harry|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Mansfield, W.||Sorensen, R.|
|Gill, T. H.||March, S.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Gillett, George M.||Marcus, M.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Glassey, A. E.||Markham, S. F.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Gossling, A. G.||Marley, J.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Marshall, Fred||Strauss, G. R.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Mathers, George||Sullivan, J.|
|Granville, E.||Matters, L. W.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Gray, Milner||Messer, Fred||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)||Middleton, G.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Millar, J. D.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Mills, J. E.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Montague, Frederick||Tillett, Ben|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Morley, Ralph||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Townend, A. E.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Walker, J.|
|Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)||Mort, D. L.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Moses, J. J. H.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)||Watkins, F. C.|
|Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah||Williams, David (Swansea, East)||Wright, W. (Rutherglen)|
|Wellock, Wilfred||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Welsh, James (Paisley)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|West, F. R.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|White, H. G.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)||William Whiteley.|
|Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|