HC Deb 09 August 1907 vol 180 cc645-76

As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.

New clause:— A defendant in an action for infringement of a patent, if entitled to present a petition to the Court for the revocation of the patent, may, without presenting such a petition, apply in accordance with the rules of the Supreme Court by way of counterclaim in the action for the revocation of the patent."—(Mr. Lloyd-George).

Brought up and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause:— Rules may be made under the principal Act for regulating the matters dealt with in subsections two and three of section forty-seven, and in section forty-eight of the principal Act, which relate to the form and manner in which applications for the registration of designs are to be made, and on the coming into operation of any such rules the said enactment" shall be repealed."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Brought up, and read the first time and second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

in moving a new clause (Procedure on Petitions for Extension of Term of Patent) said that he submitted it to the House in redemption of a pledge which he had given in Committee to the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth. It did not go quite as far as the clause proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in Committee, but it went as far as they could safely do at present.

New clause:— The following section shall be substituted for section twenty-live of the principal Act:—(1) A patentee may, after advertising in manner provided by rules of the Supreme Court his intention to do so, present a petition to the Court praying that his patent may be extended for a further term, but such petition must be presented at least six months before the time limited for the expiration of the patent; (2) Any person may give notice to the Court of objection to the extension; (3) On the hearing of any petition under this section the patentee and any person who has given such notice of objection shall be made parties to the proceeding, and the comptroller shall be entitled to appear and be heard, and shall appear if so directed by the Court; (4) The Court, in considering its decision, shall have regard to the nature and merits of the invention in relation to the public, to the profits made by the patentee as such, and to all the circumstances of the case; (5) If it appears to the Court that the patentee has been inadequately remunerated by his patent, the Court may by order extend the term of the patent for a further term not exceeding seven, or, in exceptional cases, fourteen years, or may order the grant of a new patent for such term as may be specified in the order and containing any restriction, conditions, and provisions the Court may think fit."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Brought up, and read a first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Staffordshire, Handsworth)

said that in rising to speak on this new clause he wished first of all to acknowledge the ability and courtesy displayed by the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this question. On the first occasion on which he called the attention of the House to the necessity of reducing the cost and increasing the facilities for the extension of the period of protection in the case of small patentees, the President of the Board of Trade immediately and very courteously adopted the suggestion and declared his intention of embodying a clause in the Bill to cover what he advocated. Afterwards, when in Committee, he brought forward his new clause, the President of the Board of Trade gave the matter his most careful consideration, and eventually he brought in the clause as it now stood, to which he would give his cordial support. Naturally, he would have preferred the new clause in its original form as he introduced it, namely, that the authority who was to deal with the extension of the period of protection should be the Comptroller of the Patent Office, since his object was especially to reduce the cost of and to simplify the process of extension which he honestly thought would be best accomplished by the clause as it stood in his name on the Paper. Briefly the case was as follows. At present an application by a patentee for an extension of the period of protection must come before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a process which costs the patentee at least £500 and frequently a much larger sum. This put it quite out of the reach of the small patentee. By this new clause he proposed that the Comptroller of the Patent Office, who originally caused the patent to be granted, and who might if he thought fit, refer the application to the President of the Board of Trade, should have power to grant an extension of the period of protection. This would be a very simple and inexpensive process. In the new clause adopted by the President of the Board of Trade the authority to grant the extension should be a Judge of the Supreme Court instead of the Comptroller of the Patent Office. This, he thought, would be more expensive than his own proposal. Still, being convinced that the President had done his level best for this new clause, and as he understood from him that under this clause the cost would be reduced from £500 to something like £50, or possibly £25, he thought that a very substantial boon would be conferred upon a large class of working men who were eminently deserving of their encouragement and support. These were the class of men who lent dignity to labour, who instead of merely trying to got through their day's work with as little trouble as possible threw themselves heart and soul into their employment; who studied how they could improve the machinery with which they daily worked; spent their leisure hours in trying to develop such small improvements; and applied for a patent to protect the result of their energy and ingenuity. Surely these people were deserving of help, and it was with the object of making it easier for them to reap their just reward that he had put forward his new clause. They all thought that their geese were swans, but in this case he preferred to compare his new clause to the ugly duckling of the fable who grew up into a swan, and he hoped that now that the ugly duckling had struggled through its earlier and most dangerous period of existence under the genial and generous support of the President of the Board of Trade, and was now fledged, it might accomplish the object that they had in view, namely, to bring increased profit and pleasure to many who were entitled to all the assistance which they had it in their power to give them. He therefore thanked the President for his adoption of the clause, and had great pleasure in supporting the proposed clause and withdrawing his own, which had been so generously met by the clause the right hon. Gentleman had now introduced.

MR. STAVELEY-HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

said he had read with care the clause which the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth had proposed in Committee, and agreed with every particular in it; but he thought they ought to fall in with the clause now suggested by the President of the Board of Trade. He wanted to know, however, whether they were assured that the procedure proposed under the new clause would be removed from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the Supreme Court.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said it would be removed to the Supreme Court and the case would be considered by specially-appointed Judges.

Question put, and agreed to, and clause added to the Bill.

MR. J. D. WHITE,

in moving a clause (Exemption of innocent infringer from liability for damages) said that his object was to give the public some protection. As things at present stood, a patentee was under no obligation whatever to notify the public that there was a patent for the article, and the object of the Amendment was that even if the article was marked "patent" it should not be deemed to constitute notice of the existing patent unless the word was accompanied by the year and number of the patent. If a patentee wished to secure damages for the infringement of his patent, the first thing he should do was to communicate with the infringer. It seemed to him to be an abuse of the system to mark an article with the word "patent" so as to prevent competition, after the patent had really expired. Of course the Amendment provided that nothing in the new section should affect any proceedings for an injunction. He would like to make two small Amendments in the clause which had been suggested to him. In the first line after the word "damages" to insert "in respect of any infringement," and in the third line to strike out the second "the," and substitute "such."

New clause:— A patentee shall not be entitled to recover any damages in an action for infringement commenced after the commencement of this Act from any defendant who proves that at the date of the infringement he was not aware of the existence of the patent, and the marking of an article with the word 'patent,' 'patented,' or any word or words expressing or implying that a patent has been obtained for the article, stamped, engraved, impressed on, or otherwise applied to the article, shall not be deemed to constitute notice of the existence of the patent unless the word or words are accompanied by the year and number of the patent. Provided that nothing in this section shall affect any proceedings for an injunction."—(Mr. J. D. White.)

Brought up, and read a first time

Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."

LORD R. CECIL

said he could not believe that the Government would accept such a provision. In the case of saccharine and other chemical patented articles which were now imported into this country: how on earth were they to mark them as proposed by the clause? A common defence was that the infringer of a patent did not know that the imported article was imported, or was a breach of a patent, or that he thought that it was made in such a way that it did not infringe the patent. It was no defence for taking away another man's property to say that it was taken in ignorance. Surely it would be a monstrous proposition that under no circumstances was a patentee to be able to recover damages under this clause for infringement of the patent of any chemical material, because such material could not be stamped.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,

in accepting the new clause, pointed out that the matter was discussed very fully and at very great length upstairs, and he recognised at that time the difficulty of the question. The general, if not the unanimous, feeling of the Committee was in favour of something of this kind being inserted in the Bill. The object was to secure that every patented article should contain some notification, not only of the fact that it was patented, but of the date on which the patent was granted. The Government, therefore, accepted a clause dealing with the question. At the time they accepted it they were satisfied that it met the exigencies of the case; what they meant to deal with was this, that at present there was no doubt that the patentee could go on manufacturing a patented article and selling it as patented long after the patent had expired, say sixty or seventy years after. He thought they ought to take the American precedent and mark the product, but of course if they could not, as in the case of chemicals, mark the product, they must mark the bag.

LORD R. CECIL

said the bulk in the bag was split up and the product sold retail in small quantities.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

admitted that of course that might be done, but said he was not satisfied with the clause of the Bill as it passed away from the Committee, and he thought after consulting his advisers that this proposed new clause was the fairest way of carrying out the intention he had.

MR. ASTBURY (Lancashire, Southport)

asked the right hon. Gentleman to make three alterations in the clause, otherwise he thought it would be wholly unworkable. First of all, it ought to be limited to patents granted after the passing of this Act. It was not fair that people who already possessed and were working patents should have their trade interfered with retrospectively. Secondly, he suggested that after the word "aware" in line 4 of the Amendment the words "or could not with reasonable diligence have become aware" should be inserted, and thirdly, that after the words" marking I of an article" in the same line the words "or the case of or covering in which the article is contained" should be inserted. If these changes were made he thought the clause would be much more operative and valid than it was at present.

MR. CAVE

said that this was an entirely new departure in the patent law-of this country and would seriously affect a great many people.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said it was not-a departure from the practice which prevailed in other countries.

MR. CAVE

said the effect of the clause was this. A patentee might get an, injunction against infringement, but he could not get damages unless he proved that the infringer knew of the existence of the patent. That opened a do or to fraud, because a man who had knowledge might go on infringing, and when the action came on he might say he did not know of the patent. It was sometimes very difficult to prove knowledge though knowledge existed. The profits from an infringement might be very large, and yet if the infringer chose to say that he was not aware that he was infringing the patent and was-doing so innocently, he was to keep the profits he had made and deprive the patentee of them. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was hasty in accepting the clause, which was not of such a nature that it should be adopted at short notice.

* MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the chambers of commerce had asked for this. [Cries of "No!"]

MR. CAVE

said another point was that there were certain patents, such as patents for chemical processes, on which a mark could not be put as suggested by the clause. He knew the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to do what was fair, but he did not think he should accept this clause.

* MR. NAPIER (Kent, Faversham)

objected to the Amendment. As to the infringer not knowing whether he was infringing a patent or not, he often did not know because he did not choose to know. If this Amendment was carried it would distinctly encourage the multiplying of that class of person who made articles and made them purposely without inquiring whether there was any patent which would hinder him from making that article. This was, in his opinion, a very dangerous clause.

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

said he sympathised with his hon. friend in the desire he had embodied in this clause, and he thought they wanted it in a different form; something more drastic, but, at the same time, something workable. There were a good many things which could not be marked, such as chemicals, which could only be marked on the bags. Flour was another article which could not be marked except in the bulk, either with the word "patent" or "patented," or with the date of the granting of the patent. As soon as the article was sold retail that safeguard went. He thought the object of the clause was good, and was not surprised that the chambers of commerce should desire something of this sort.

SIR F. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E)

thought the danger of the patentee suffering from this clause was illusory. If a notification were placed on an article or upon the case containing it it would be a warning against infringement and the best possible protection to the patentee,

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

hoped the President of the Board of Trade would reconsider his decision on the subject. It was to secure a monopoly that a patent was granted by the State, and it was important that it should be duly carried out, and the patentees should be able to carry out their patent rights on reasonable terms. This clause, however, might involve great hardship to an inventor. A person might become rich and make a large sum out "of the invention of another, and they ought not, he thought, to prevent an inventor from recovering damages When use was made of his invention Without any licence from him. The onus was put upon the patentee, and he thought that the possible result would

be that the patentee would be subjected to great hardship. The result of the clause might very often be that the man who could more easily afford to lose would make a profit to which he was not entitled, at the expense of the man who ought to make the profit.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said he could not believe that the President of the Board of Trade was going to press this clause, which must press most hardly on the great majority of patentees. The great majority of patentees at the present time were not working in accordance with this section. That was to say, they did not mark the patent with the date of patent and the number. If this clause were passed every one of the patents now in existence would be at the mercy of anyone who chose to infringe them. If the person did not know or it could not be proved that he knew that he was infringing a patent, he thought it would be a most improper thing to proceed with a clause like this with so attenuated a House. The right hon. Gentlemen could not really have contemplated the results of this clause, and, therefore, under the circumstances, he hoped he would give more time to its consideration with the view to safeguarding existing patents.

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said he could not see any means by which the purchaser of an infringement of a patent could know that it was an infringement, and if this clause were accepted he would be allowed to go scot free until the patentee had found him out. He suggested that the right hon. Gentlemen ought not to open the door to frauds of that kind.

MR. BERRIDGE (Warwick and Leamington)

said that if the clause was passed in its present form the very remarkable result would follow that a premium would be given to people to go about infringing patents without caring whether they were doing so or not.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 34. (Division List No. 399.)

AYES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Barnes, G. N.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Barran, Rowland Hirst
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Beale, W. P. Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Bell, Richard Henry, Charles S. Ridsdale, E. A.
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Holden, E. Hopkinson Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Horniman, Emslie John Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Black, Arthur W. Idris, T. H. W. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Bowerman, C. W. Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Brace, William Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Rowlands, J.
Branch, James Kearley, Hudson E. Russell, T. W.
Brigg, John Kekewich, Sir George Seddon, J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Sherwell, Arthur James
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Laidlaw, Robert Shipman, Dr. John G.
Byles, William Pollard Lambert, George Silcock, Thomas Ball
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Lamont, Norman Simon, John Allsebrook
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Lehmann, R. C. Snowden, P.
Cheetham, John Frederick Levy, Sir Maurice Stanger, H. Y.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Lewis, John Herbert Strauss, E. A. Abingdon)
Clynes, J. R. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Sutherland, J. E.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Lupton, Arnold Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) Torrance, Sir A. M.
Cowan, W. H. Maclean, Donald Ure, Alexander
Cox, Harold Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Verney, F. W.
Crooks, William MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Dalziel, James Henry M'Callum, John M. Walters, John Tudor
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Duckworth, James M'Killop, W. Waring, Walter
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Waterlow, D. S.
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Maddison, Frederick White, George (Norfolk)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Markham, Arthur Basil White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Elibank, Master of Massie, J. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Erskine, David C. Micklem, Nathaniel Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Essex, R. W Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Fenwick, Charles Morley, Rt. Hon. John Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn
Ffreneh, Peter Morrell, Philip Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Fuller, John Michael F. Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough).
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Nicholls, George Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.).
Gooch, George Peabody Nolan, Joseph Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Yoxall, James Henry
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. O'Grady, J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Hazleton, Richard Rainy, A. Rolland
NOES.
Astbury, John Meir Fell, Arthur Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord Forster, Henry William Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Gordon, J. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Berridge, T. H. D. Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Bowles, G. Stewart Hunt, Rowland Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Boyle, Sir Edward Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Valentia, Viscount
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. Moore, William Younger, George
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Morpeth, Viscount
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc Napier, T. B. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Cave.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Nicholson, W. G. (Petersfield)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Nield, Herbert
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Radford, G. H.

Question, "That those words be here inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

said that he desired to amend the clause by inserting after the word "infringement" the words "of a patent granted after the passing of this Act," the object being to exclude patents now in existence.

Amendment proposed to the proposed clause— In line 1, after the word 'infringement,' do insert the words 'of a patent granted after the passing of this Act,'"—(Mr. Rawlinson),

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

I accept that.

MR. RAWLINSON said he had a further Amendment, the object of which was to get over the difficulty which was present in all infringement cases showing that a man had knowledge of the fact that he was infringing a patent. The object of the Amendment was perfectly simple. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the proposed clause— In line 4, after the words 'where he is not aware,' to insert the words 'or had reasonable means of making himself aware.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he could not accept these words as he was not quite sure that the form of words was the best that could be found for the purpose, but he would accept the Amendment in substance and would either accept these words or find alternative words which effected the same purpose.

Proposed clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

The following Amendments were proposed and agreed to without discussion. In page 1, line 15, after, the word 'devolve,' to insert the words 'on his personal representatives.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.) In page 2, line 8, to leave out from the word 'the' to the word 'principal,' in line 10."—(Mr. Cave.) In page 2, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'required by the Comptroller' and to insert the words 'in any particular case the Comptroller considers it desirable so to require.' In page 2, line 16, to leave out the words 'applicants have,' and to insert the words 'applicant has.' In page 2, line 18, to leave out the word 'have' and to insert the word 'has.' In page 2, line 20, after the word 'inventions,' to insert the words 'are such as to constitute a single invention and.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.) In page 2, line 32, after the word 'on,' to insert the words 'or modification of.'"—(Mr. Astbury.) In page 3, line 14, after the word 'an,' to insert the word 'extended.' In page 3, line 30, after the word 'wholly,' to insert the words 'and specifically.' In page 3, line 36, to leave out the words 'or described.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.) In page 4, line 28, to leave out the word 'for' and to insert the words 'after.' In page 4, line 30, to leave out the word 'substituted' and to insert the word 'added.' In page 4, line 30, after the word 'words,' to insert the word 'or.' In page 4, line 31, to leave out the words 'described or' and to insert the words 'wholly and specifically.'"—(Mr. Cave.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 33, after the word opposed,' to insert being a specification deposited pursuant to an application made fifty years or less before the date of the application for such last-mentioned patent, or has been described in any such specification published before the date of the application.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. CAVE

thought there had been some oversight in connection with this Amendment. He had had the advantage of a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman, and he understood him to drop entirely the power of the controller to deal with the position of patents thus described.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said it was an oversight. He was quite willing his Amendment should end with the words "last-mentioned patent."

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

hoped the right hon. Gentleman was not going to give away the whole purport of the Bill in order to get it through that afternoon. These matters were very fully discussed in detail in Committee, and he was surprised to find that things agreed to were now in the final stages being abandoned. It looked to him as though they were losing the best part of the Bill.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

assured the hon. Member there was nothing vital in the words he was omitting.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, and agreed to without discussion— In page 4, line 33, after the word 'opposed,' to insert the words 'by a specification deposited pursuant to an application made fifty years or less before the date of the application for such last-mentioned patent.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.) In page 4, line 33, after the word 'opposed, to insert the words' or described in any specification which has been published before the date of such application.'"—(Mr. Astbury.) In page 4, line 33, to leave out from the word 'opposed' to the word 'or' in line 35."—(Mr. Cave.) In page 4, line 39, to leave out subsection (2)."—(Mr. Cave.) In page 5, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'eight or section nine of the principal Act,' and to insert the words 'three of the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Amendment Act, 1885. In page 5, line 24, to leave out the words 'or the comptroller.'"—(Mr. Lloyd George.)

Amendment proposed to the Bill. In page 5, line 25, to leave out the words 'or the comptroller.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-Gorge.)

MR. J. WARD

said he must protest against striking out the words "o the comptroller." He remembered that in Committee there was a discussion of nearly three hours on these very words.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said this was not the clause to which the hon. Member was referring, and when they reached that clause he would adhere to the words relating to the Comptroller. In this instance the omission of the words was purely a drafting matter. He was told by the draftsman that to retain the words would make interpretation of the clause difficult, and it was necessary to leave them out.

MR. J. WARD

I hope I can trust you.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CAVE moved to leave out Clause 14, which, he said, operated very hardly on a patentee who, having got capital and plant together, and having a fair prospect of getting some profit out of his patent, might find himself, at any time within four years, in the position of having to defend his patent at very great expense indeed. Of course, if the opponent lost he might have to pay the costs, but in many cases the patentee was not a wealthy man, and would rather surrender his patent and climb down, possibly on terms, than run the risk of very heavy litigation. He did not think that was right or wise. He thought it far better to act on the English principle that a patent once granted was good unless it was held bad in an action specially framed for that purpose, and that this important power of revocation should be exercised, not by the Comptroller, but only by a Court of law. Questions of patents-raised points of very great technical difficulty which taxed the capacity of even the Judges for the High Court; and, with the greatest respect, he thought the duty of revocation ought not to be left to the Comptroller. The House ought to be very careful about interference with the rules designed for the protection of inventors, on whom a great part of the industries of the country depended.

MR. STAVELEY-HILL

seconded the Amendment.

* MR. SPEAKER

I will first of all put the question to omit the first line and a half of the clause, and if both sides agree upon that, then I will put the whole clause.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 39, to leave out from the beginning to the word 'any' in line 40.'

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 40, to leave out from the word 'any' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. Cave.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said this was a matter which had been very carefully considered, the clause having no doubt met with opposition from some quarters. Out of about 17,000 patents granted, a very small percentage really became operative, and a large number were retained on the register simply for the purpose of blocking other perfectly bona fide inventions, thoroughly practical, which would serve an excellent purpose if they were patented. What the clause proposed was that there should be a simple procedure for getting rid of these blocking patents, and there were thousands of them simply cumbering the register at present. He was prepared, however, to assent to one or two modifications of the clause, recognising that they must introduce some security into the life of a patent. If a considerable sum of money was spent on buildings and developments, it might be thought rather hard that the patent should be upset simply by a decision of the Comptroller. But anyone who seriously wanted to upset a patent of that kind would not go to the Comptroller under this section, for the simple reason that the ground would be very limited. Any man who wanted to upset a patent would put about twenty or thirty counts into his petition, and would not risk the whole thing on the very narrow ground stated in the section. He was perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Launceston, cutting down the four years to two years. If the hon. Gentleman felt that there was any real danger as to security he did not mind going beyond the Court of First Instance. That would ensure complete protection. He would cut down the limit of time from four years to two, and allow the petitioner to carry an appeal from the Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. These modifications could not be made now, but they might be made in another place.

LORD R. CECIL

feared the procedure proposed would very much increase the cost of proceedings in patent actions. He could not himself see the advantage of approaching the matter by way of the Comptroller instead of the Court. Under the present procedure, once they obtained the fiat of the Attorney-General, they could go to the Court and then to the House of Lords.

* MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

admitted that this might be the case if the patent was a genuine one, but the object there was to get at patents which were not bona fide. In those cases there would be an Application before the Comptroller, and there would hardly be any defence at all.

LORD R. CECIL

thought that when the parties concerned were rich and foreign pirates, whose object was to ruin their competitors, they would probably carry the case to the highest Court of Appeal. His experience was that these attempts to meet hard cases always put weapons into the hands of the rich, which they used against the poor. He trusted the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

hoped the President of the Board of Trade would not concede another point in regard to the clause. A poor patentee if he had a useful patent ought to be able to secure it, although he might not have the financial resources necessary to work it. A rich syndicate might come along and take out a patent for precisely the same mechanism.

LORD R. CECIL

They could not do it.

MR. J. WARD

said the Bill pre-sup-posed that such a thing could be done.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments proposed— In page 6, lines 4 and 5, to leave out the words 'a patent may be opposed,' and insert the words 'the patent might have been opposed.' In page 6, line 5, at end, to insert the words 'Provided that when an action for infringement or proceedings for the revocation of the patent are pending in any court, an application under this section shall not be made except with the leave of the Court.' In page 6, line 10, after the word 'application,' to insert the words 'bat the Comptroller shall not make an order revoking the patent unless the circumstances are such as would have justified him in refusing to grant the patent had the proceedings been proceedings in an opposition to the grant of a patent.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 10, at end to insert the words '(3) On the hearing of such petition the Comptroller and Court shall have the same powers of requiring amendment of specification, and shall be guided in their decision by the same principle as in the case of an opposition to the grant of a patent.'"—(Mr. Radford.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

assured the hon. Member that the words he suggested were not necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD R. CECIL moved to leave out Clause 15. The proposal in this clause with relation to the revocation of patents worked outside the United Kingdom was really a crude form of protection, affording no help to the poor patentee. It would have no advantage at all, except that it would be to some extent protective in its action. He believed the inevitable result would be what always happened when protective measures were resorted to; it would hit those by whom it was imposed. The clause provided— At any time not less than four years after the date of a patent any person may apply to the Comptroller for the revocation of the patent on the ground that the patented article or process is manufactured or carried on exclusively or mainly outside the United Kingdom. In other words, the patentee was to be compelled in the first four years of the patent to make a substantial use of it in the United Kingdom. They were told on the First and Second Reading of the Bill that this clause was directed against the "rich pirate," but he believed that it was the poor man who would be hit, the man who had patented a meritorious invention, and then had difficulty in collecting enough money to start manufacture within the prescribed time. He begged to move.

MR. NAPIER

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 5, line 19, to leave out Clause 15."—(Lord R. Cecil.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'At any time not less than four years after the date of a patent,' stand part of the Bill."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the clause was the pith of the Bill. He pointed out that in many instances the privilege granted by the Crown in respect of patent rights, instead of being used to start British industries, was used to prevent other persons from establishing industries in the United Kingdom, causing thereby an increased cost in the production. This clause, indeed, was purely in the interests of free trade, freedom of commerce, and industrial freedom.

MR. BOWLES

expressed the hope that what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman would have the effect of converting some of his own friends to join-in the opposition to a clause which restricted to one country in the world the-operations of a man who had secured a patent. [Cries of "No."] That was his interpretation of the clause. The-right hon. Gentleman had the courage to tell the House that, instead of restricting, it increased a man's freedom. It was quite clear that the effect of the clause, so far as it had any effect at all, would be protective. There were other objections to the clause, but for that one alone he thought it ought to be rejected.

LORD R. CECIL

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 20, after the word 'patent, to insert the words' granted after the commencement of this Act, and in case of a patent previously granted at any time not less than four years after the date of such patent and two years after the commencement of this Act.'"—(Mr. Astbury.)

*MR. G. CROYDON MARKS (Cornwall, Launceston) moved to add to the clause the words, "for meeting or supplying a continuous demand existing for such patented article or process in the United Kingdom." The object of the Amendment was to protect a patentee who might manufacture the article in America or Germany when there was a demand for it there, though during the first four years of the patent there might be no demand for the article in this country. Was a man to lose his rights in the patent in this country because he did not manufacture the article here at a time when there was no demand for it? He held that it would not be fair to the patentee to deprive him of his rights in that way. Germany was about to alter her laws in regard to compulsory working of the patent in Germany and France also was going to take the step of not compelling the working of a patented article in Prance. But why should we cut off the patentee's right in his patent after four years, because there was no demand for the patented article or process in the United Kingdom? Let them take the case of machinery for operating on fibre, such as jute. At present that process was carried on in India, but why should a patentee lose his patent at the end of four years because there was no continuous demand for the article here? A new fibre might be discovered in this country, such as from cabbage leaves, which might be treated with the patent machinery hero, but a man should not be compelled to manufacture it until there was a known demand for it. He begged to move.

LORD BALCARRES

seconded the Amendment. He said he was very much interested in those processes which would be seriously affected by the Bill as it stood, and representations had been made to him by manufacturers against the clause. Under the clause as it stood, wealthy foreign syndicates would have a right to keep their patents alive here. The Comptroller had got to decide whether a process was mainly carried out inside or outside the United Kingdom; but there might be some articles, such as those made of steel, which involved twenty or thirty different patented processes. The duties imposed on the Comptroller were already extremely difficult without his having to decide whether there was a continuous demand for a certain patented article or process in this country. The scheme of the Amendment was one which ought to receive attention.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 23, after the word 'Kingdom,' to insert the word" 'for meeting or supplying a continuous demand existing for such patented article or process in the United Kingdom.'"—(Mr. Croydon Marks.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that it had been asked why if there was no demand in this country for a certain patented article, should anyone go to the expense of setting up workshops for the manufacture-of the article? But, after all, this was a great exporting country, and it was our interest to manufacture for the whole-world, and a patent might be wanted here for some article which was used for I export purposes. From any point of view he could not accept the Amendment.

* MR. BARNES

said that if the right hon. Gentleman considered this matter, he would see that it really cut to the root of the question, and defeated the object for which the Bill had been introduced. The hon. Member for Launceston had mentioned the jute industry, but that industry was started in this country, and a large number of manufacturers who had exploited the industry here now took advantage of the cheap labour in India, and manufactured the jute there.

* MR. G. CROYDON MARKS

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RAWLINSON moved to insert at the end of Clause 15 the words 'or His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas.'" He took it that the object of the Bill was to prevent a man taking out a patent in. England and then manufacturing that article in France or Germany because he could get cheaper labour there. He put it that if the patent were to be kept alive in England it should be worked in England for the benefit of British, workmen; and he thought that a similar advantage should be extended to the Colonies so as to give the Colonies a certain preference. With that object he ventured to press this Amendment upon the House. It did not establish protection or Colonial preference, but it gave the Colonies some sort of preference.

MR. NAPIER

seconded the Amendment on the ground that it would, he thought, not give a preference at all, but would slightly limit the protectionist character of the clause. It would, at all events, enlarge the area from which the people of this country would be entitled, possibly, to buy patented articles.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 6, line 23, at the end, to insert the words 'or His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)

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

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

expressed his utter amazement that the hon. and learned Gentleman should play so absolutely into the hands of his foes. Did he realise that this would give immunity to American patents? All that would have to be done would be to set up a factory across the border, in Canada, and every American industry would instantly be contracted out of the clause. Did he also know that in Canada there was a compulsory working law? That operated against the British patent and the American patent, and the Americans were obliged to set up factories in Canada, and they had done it. He could not conceive anything more dangerous than the inclusion of this Amendment, which would cut out instantly every American patent. The acceptance of the Amendment would make the clause absolutely futile. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would strengthen his hands by withdrawing his Amendment.

LORD R. CECIL

said the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman was too striking for him not to say a word or two in reply. The right hon. Gentleman was an advocate of free trade, and he as one who was in favour of promoting the free exchange of commodities practically said to his hon. friend if he pressed the Amendment it would destroy the whole protective effect of this clause. The House would observe how the right hon. Gentleman adopted the whole of his friend's argument. As to the argument against cheap labour, it was rather an old friend, and was directed against unfair competition. They did not want protection to bolster up industries, but it was needed to prevent unfair competition. He should support this Amendment.

MR. J. WARD

said he fancied he had heard all these speeches before. He had heard them in the Committee, and he thought they were dealt with very effectively then. He did not understand that there was any protection in the policy proposed. What was suggested was that when we were creating a monopoly and when the article was manufactured the products of the monopoly should not be protected in this country under the patent laws. If the article could be produced more cheaply in other countries, then it would not be produced in this country, but they wished to provide that our fellow countrymen would not be prevented from competing if it could be produced here. They were not applying a protective tax, but it was an extension of free trade, as it gave our people the opportunity of making these things if they could make them. If they could not the modification of the Patent Law would not affect the matter.

MR. HILLS (Durham)

supported the proposal of the Board of Trade. The Amendment looked attractive at first sight, but we could not treat the Empire as one until it was one in reality. The objection to cheap labour was a very important one, and, although at first sight he was inclined to look with favour on the Amendment, he thought on consideration it was a bad one.

MR. RAWLINSON

said that after the very able speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the sound principles which he had enunciaated, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, as he felt the country was safe in the right hon. Gentleman's hands on this point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendments were proposed and agreed to without discussion— In page 7, line 25, after the word 'manufacture,' to insert the words 'and supply."—(Sir M. Levy.) In page 7, line 25, after the word 'article,' to insert the word? 'or any parts thereof which are necessary for its efficient working on reasonable terms.'"—(Sir M. Levy.) In page 7, line 26, after the word 'extent,' to insert the words 'in the United Kingdom,'"—(Mr. Astbury.) In page 7, line 27, after the word 'existing,' to insert the words 'trade or." "—(Mr. Astbury.) In page 7, line 28, after the word 'new,' to insert the words 'trade or.'"—(Mr. Astbury.)

MR. CAVE moved an Amendment to prevent Sub section (b) of Clause 16 being retrospective. This sub-section provided that the reasonable requirements of the country shall not be deemed to have been satisfied if any trade or industry in the United Kingdom is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached to the purchase, hire, or use of the patented article or to using or working the patented process by virtue of any contract with the patentee "whether" made before "or after" the passing of the Act. The hon. Member said he also intended to move to leave out the words "or after" so as to restrict the sub-section to a contract made before the passing of the Bill. Unless this were done, they would make a man pay a penalty for something which was perfectly legal before the passing of this measure.

LORD R. CECIL

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 7, line 38, to leave out the word whether,'"—(Mr. Cave.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Bill."

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment, as full provision was made for compensation later on in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page it, line 13, to leave out from the first word 'and,' and to insert the words 'After the expiration of the prescribed period the comptroller.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, line 14, to leave out the words 'law officer,' and to insert the word 'Court.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'law officer' stand part of the Bill."

MR. RAWLINSON

asked whether if they carried this it would affect the discussion of the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper to leave out Sub-section 1 of Clause 26.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he was told that it would not affect such a discussion.

LORD R. CECIL

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to go any further to-night having regard: to the fact that they were now approaching the discussion of Clause 23, which was a most contentious clause, or whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed when this Amendment was agreed to to defer the discussion of Clause 23 to another day.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said it was not late, and there were many Members now in the House who desired to discuss Clause 23 who might not be present on another occasion, and he-therefore thought they might be allowed to go on.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 9, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'of the Comptroller.'"—(Mr. Astbury.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CAVE moved the omission of Clause 23, which, he said, avoided certain conditions which were now freely entered into between patentees and business men. The boot trade was quoted as a burning example in favour of this claim, and it was said that there were cases when the right to use a patent corrected with the manufacture of boots had been refused except upon conditions that the licensee should use it for all boots which he might manufacture. But he believed that in spite of this condition the licensee had in fact made substantial profits. He knew it was said that the right had been abused. But where business men had found this particular mode of dealing most convenient—both parties to the bargain entering into it with knowledge of what they were about—it was a great mistake for Parliament to intervene and say it should be void. Apart from that, the clause was retrospective and avoided-existing contracts. There was a compensation provision, but no compensation would make up for the avoidance of a contract entered into in the ordinary course of business and upon the faith of which important arrangements might have been made. By Subsection (5) the insertion by the patentee in a contract made after the passing of this Act of any condition which by virtue of the clause was null and void was made a ground on which the patent might be revoked. Even if the principle of the clause was assumed to be right, it was wrong to go so far as to say that if a man, by inadvertence, inserted one of these conditions in a contract with A he should be unable to sue B for some flagrant infringement of the patent. That was a monstrous penalty to impose on a contractor. The purpose of the clause was to a great extent already met by Clause 16. The whole of Clause 23 was very objectionable, and he strongly held the view that there should be no attempt to deal with the mischief which was said to exist in the drastic way proposed.

MR. STAVELEY-HILL

seconded the Amendment. He trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would look at this clause in the light in which it was regarded by many in the country. In the legal profession there was a common saying that "hard cases made bad law." He thought, although this clause was directed to meeting hard cases, it would establish a very bad principle in English law. If it remained in the Bill it would constitute an interference with the freedom of contract between people who were quite able to conduct their business in their own way. They were not here legislating for children or minors but for grown persons who knew their own mind and were able to conduct their own affairs. Not only would it interfere with freedom of contract but in some trade? would bring about a state of things which would inflict great injustice on patentees. It would also act "in restraint of trade." Therefore he hoped if the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to acept the Motion of his hon. friend he would at least consider whether the clause could not be modified.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 9, line 21, to leave out Clause 23."—(Mr. Cave.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'any,' in page 2, line 22, stand part of the Bill."

MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)

said he would not have asked the 'Government to pass a general law affecting the commercial interests of the country merely because the existing law pressed hardly upon a small industry, but they must judge of the necessity for a change in the law by the magnitude of the industry if it were so affected from the consequences of it, whether they were serious or not. There was a trade with which he was connected and which had grave complaint against the existing law. It was a large industry, and so far as machinery was concerned was practically in the hands of a syndicate which had attained its power in a way which would be prevented in the future if this clause was retained in the Bill and became law. Seven or eight years ago the machinery of this trade was largely supplied by the United Machinery Company. That company was bought up by an American syndicate, and in addition to buying the machines which the company provided, it took care to buy up also such other machines as it conceived were absolutely necessary to the carrying on of the business. Consequently it became possessed of a monopoly, and upon the basis of that monopoly altered the conditions upon which the machinery could be obtained by this industry and made them of a very restrictive and tyrannical nature. A large part of the trade were not free agents in the matter at all. He himself was free from these contracts, because the firm with which he was connected obtained the bulk of its machines before the American syndicate established its monopoly. These leases extended the term of the patent to twenty years, and so got round the Patent Act, and they made additions to the machines, each addition extending the term of the lease, and thus the whole thing became a perpetual burden on the manufacturer. Three-fourths of the boot manufacturers of the country were unable to take up any other machines than those supplied by the syndicate. Very grave injustice was thus done to the whole industry and it would be largely removed by the passing of this clause.

LORD R. CECIL

said that the fundamental idea of the patent laws was to give the inventor a monopoly, in order to encourage inventions. A patentee might exact any terms he liked Anyone might reject his machines, but no one did, because even with the restrictions placed by him on their use it was more profitable to use them. It was argued that the contracts of the syndicate referred to by the last speaker involved a restraint of trade which was against public policy; but that doctrine had been so relaxed that it was now almost impossible to frame a contract which would be pronunced against public policy on that ground. It was held now that it was more in the interest of public policy that grown free men should be allowed to make what contracts they chose amongst themselves. That was the danger which attached to this clause. It was extremely widely drawn; it was devised to deal with one particular case, and one case only, for he did not know of any other case of a like nature. Under this clause if there were put into an agreement any provision that the purchaser was only to use the patentee's article the agreement was void. One could see at once how very hardly that might bear in particular cases. A man might have acquired a reputation far a particular kind of goods produced by a particular kind of machinery, and he might sell his machine to a comparatively ignorant user on the terms that he should use it and none other. He could imagine many cases in which a perfectly reasonable provision of that kind might be made which would do no harm to anyone, even in the view of the hon. Member for Norfolk, and to say in the particular terms which this clause laid down that all such conditions and agreements were to be void was a somewhat dangerous form of legislation. Here was a hard case, and something must be done to settle it, and they did the something, and found out afterwards that it in itself was something very hard. He was satisfied that this clause, if accepted, would do the greatest possible injury to the industries of this country, and he, therefore, asked the President of the Board of Trade not to insist upon it.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he did not propose to enter very fully into this question, not because it was late in the session or late in the evening, but because they had dealt with it twice already very exhaustively. There had been a very considerable discussion on it on Second Reading, and he specially drew attention to this clause when he introduced the Bill. There was also a full discussion upstairs, where two days were entirely devoted to the clause. The noble Lord was not present on the first occasion, but he did not make that a cause of complaint, though he must be excused from again entering extensively into the question. His hon. friend had gone a little further by explaining one special case which had lately precipitated the action of the Legislature in this matter. IE a privilege were abused, surely the Legislature which granted that privilege had a right to come in and say the limits which were allowed when the monopoly was granted were being exceeded. This was a case in which for the first time they saw in their sheer nakedness the methods of the American trusts. The noble Lord had argued a good deal about general principles as to trade, and he did not disagree with the principles he had laid down. He absolutely agreed with the noble Lord about the fulfilling of contracts and as to men of mature judgment exercising caution. That was the only way to develop a manly action. But this was not a case in which they had two traders on equal terms to begin with. This was a case in which one man had a monopoly which the community had given him, and the other man was left without any defence at all. The boot industry in this country was practically compelled to take a certain machine. Those engaged in the industry were good business men and well able to hold their own in competition, but they were really obliged to sign a contract, and a more monstrous contract had never been submitted to an industry. Did the noble Lord realise the extent of one of the clauses which was inserted in the contract? It compelled the use of this particular machine and no other. Supposing there was another patent, either British or foreign, which revolutionised the trade as completely as this one did, and which it was just as necessary for the boot industry to utilise, nine-tenths of the industry would not be able to use the new machine for twenty years to begin with. That was not all. If an improvement of the invention for which a contract had been entered into was taken up at the end of nineteen years, the trade was bound to take the improvement and the lease was renewed for another twenty years. At the end of another nineteen years there might be another improvement and the boot industry would have to take that up for a further period. There was nothing in the contract to prevent a series of slight improvements which might be invented, enabling an equal number of extensions of the lease of its exclusive use to be made, conceivably obliging the boot trade to continue using the same machine for 300 years. The industry could not survive it, and the Legislature was, therefore, bound to interfere in the general interest, not to protect individual bootmakers who had entered into a bad bargain, but in order to protect a very powerful industry, and to say that this country really could not

Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

stand the use of a privilege conferred by the Crown for the purpose of hampering a whole trade. The American Legislature had found it necessary to introduce a provision of this kind, and he knew of no country under the sun which would tolerate this kind of thing. In Canada, he believed, it had been held by the judges to be a contract in restraint of trade. The Judges, no doubt, here held it was not in the ordinary sense such a contract; but, at any rate, the Legislature ought to come in and say that it was very prejudicial to the trade of the country. He therefore proposed this clause. There were one or two modifications which would be proposed later on.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 79;, Noes, 13. (Division List No. 400.)

AYES.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Findlay, Alexander Rowlands, J.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Fuller, John Michael F. Russell, T. W.
Barnes, G. N. Gooch, George Peabody Sherwell, Arthur James
Bell, Richard Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Simon, John Allsebrook
Berridge, T. H. D. Hazleton, Richard Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Bowerman, C. W. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Snowden, P.
Branch, James Henry, Charles S. Stanger, H. Y.
Brigg, John Idris, T. H. W. Torrance, Sir A. M.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Verney, F. W.
Burt, Bt. Hon. Thomas Kearley, Hudson E. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Byles, William Pollard Kekewich, Sir George Walters, John Tudor
Carr-Gomm. H. W. King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Lambert, George Waring, Walter
Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Lehmann, R. C. Waterlow, D. S.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David White, George (Norfolk)
Cowan, W. H. Lupton, Arnold White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Cremer, Sir William Randal MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. White, Patrick (Meath, Norths
Crooks, William M'Callum, John M. Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Wills, Arthurf Walters
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Nolan, Joseph
Elibank, Master of Norton, Capt. Cecil William TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Essex, R. W. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Fenwick, Charles Ridsdale, E. A.
Ffrench, Peter Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
NOES.
Astbury, John Meir Gordon, J. Rawlinson, Jn. Frederick Peel
Bowles, G. Stewart Harrison-Broadley, H. B.
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Cave and Mr. Staveley-Hill.
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Napier, T. B.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Nield, Herbert
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Radford, G. H.
Forward to