§ "In every valuation list and in the basis or standard for any county rate, and in any valuation made the council of a borough or any other council for the purpose of raising the borough or other rate—
- "(a) Where separate hereditaments are specified therein, the value of agricultural land shall be stated separately from that of any building or other hereditament; and
- "(b) In every case the total rateable value of the agricultural land in each parish shall be stated separately from the total rateable value of the buildings or other hereditaments in such parish; and whenever a copy of the total of the rateable value of any parish is required to be sent to any person, such copy shall state both the above-mentioned totals."
§ SIR W. HARCOURT
Mr. Lowther, I rise to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I am sure that anybody who has had experience of the House of Commons must feel, after the incidents that have occurred to-night, it is quite impossible that anything like calm and reasonable discussion of the Measure before the Committee can continue, especially at this hour of the morning. I cannot believe that it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that the rest of this Bill should be passed without discussion, and, therefore, I think, under the circumstances, which I need not characterise, that the best thing that can be done for the advantage and credit of this House is that now—at 4 o'clock in the morning—we should report Progress and that the House should adjourn. [Cheers and Ministerial cries of "No!"]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
, who was received with loud Ministerial cheers, said, I regret I am forced to differ both from the premisses of the right hon. Gentleman and the conclusions he has drawn from them. [Cheers.] The incidents which have recently occurred, and which, I freely admit reflect little credit upon our pro- 160 ceedings—["Hear, hear,!"]—have not, so far as I can judge, destroyed the calmness of temper which may be necessary to carry the unimportant portion of this Bill which still remains to be dealt with. Such scenes as we have to-night witnessed are not, I regret to say, absolutely unprecedented in our Parliamentary history, and my memory goes back to a period when many Members of this House were suspended, not in the comparative calm which has characterised our proceedings to-night, but in one of those storms of public excitement which, whether justified or not justified, attended the Irish struggle of the year 1881 and in the year immediately succeeding it. Sir, on that occasion, when the House was not in a calm condition, the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member thought it consistent with Parliamentary propriety to continue the work of important legislation, and I am convinced he would have thought it then, as I now think it—[Cheers]—the very worst possible example for the future of our Parliamentary institutions that the intentions of the great majority of this House should be defeated by means which it is not now necessary to characterize—that we should be rendered impotent in the face of the world by the action of three or four gentlemen on whose conduct, especially in their absence, it would be most unfitting and improper I should dwell, but whose proceedings, at all events, do not entitle them to the sympathy of this House. [Cheers.] I cannot agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. [Cheers.] I hope he will remember, in making that suggestion, that we have now been discussing this Bill in Committee for a Parliamentary week, that all the great questions of substance have been discussed over and over again, and have now been finally disposed of, and the only matters with which this Committee has still to deal, before the present stage of the Bill is brought to a conclusion, are certain questions of machinery—[Loud Opposition cries of "No!" and cheers]—upon which it cannot be pretended that any great question of principle arises or any question of such complexity that this Committee cannot deal with it even at this hour. [Cheers.]
§ MR. HALDANE
regretted the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived. He was usually a fair opponent—[Cries of "Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"]—who treated the House and the Opposition with the greatest courtesy. What did the right hon. Gentleman hope to gain by pushing the Bill through without discussion? The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if all the important Amendments to the Bill had been disposed of, but, as a matter of fact, there were Amendments down of the greatest importance, some of them emanating from his own supporters. ["Hear, hear!"] If the discussion of these questions were prevented now, the result would be a protraction of the Report stage. The course which the Government were pursuing would rouse a sense of bitterness in the Opposition—[Cheers and Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]—and was calculated to bring the proceedings of that House into disrepute and discredit.
§ MR. DALZIEL
described the scene that had taken place as the inevitable outcome of the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to drive a Bill through the House without discussion—[Loud Ministerial protests]—and of the action of hon. Members—new Members mostly—in trying deliberately to prevent Members on the Opposition side of the House from taking part in the Debate. ["Hear, hear !"] He warned hon. Members opposite that if they were going to behave in the future as they had behaved that night there would be repetitions of the scene which they had witnessed. [Interruption and cheers.] One of the chief causes of the prolongation of their proceedings was the unseemly and deliberate disorder of hon. Members opposite. [Cries of "Oh!" and cheers.] He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, after all, he did not think he would be answering the purpose of the Government better by consenting to the Motion now before the Committee than by resisting it? If he resisted it, did he hope to pass this Bill within a short time, or did he think it satisfactory that a Bill of this character should be passed at four, five, or six o'clock in the morning without discussion and after the House had been sitting for an extraordinary length of time? The right hon. Gentleman was responsible more 162 than any one else for anything that had taken place or would take place. When the Leader of the House declared that the remaining clauses of the Bill were practically machinery and did not need discussion, he was taking upon himself an authority which did not belong to him. There were clauses outside the machinery of the Bill which still remained to be discussed, and to which Amendments had been moved from the opposite side of the House. In face of that fact he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to pause before he tried to browbeat the House in this way. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and Opposition cheers.] He appealed to the Leader of the House, who, he feared, had been influenced by others, whether it was unreasonable to ask for the adjournment at half-past four in the morning? Had urgency been shown for the passage of this Bill? No suggestion of urgency had been made, because the House had been informed that its further consideration was going to be postponed until after the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill and the Committee stage of the Education Bill.
§ MR. C. J. MONK (Gloucester)
rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Ironical Opposition laughter.]
§ MR. DALZIEL
contended that no urgency having been shown, hon. Members were entitled to ask for the adjournment of the House after such a prolonged sitting.
§ *MR. A. J. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)
intervened for the first time in this Debate in order to set the First Lord of the Treasury right on a matter of fact. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was nothing remaining to be discussed in the Bill but mere machinery. He had himself been waiting in the House for thirteen hours, to bring up, in the shape of a new Clause, an Amendment (the importance of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted) which he had not been able to move the previous night owing to the Closure of the Amendments which were then on the Paper. That clause, it was his duty to his constituents to move; but there were yet three and a half pages of Amendments 163 to dispose of, and the time for calm deliberation and Debate had passed many hours ago. In what sort of spirit would the Committee be for discussing a new clause when it was reached? In the earlier part of the evening it was impossible for hon. Members on his side of the House to get a fair hearing; he had never seen Members treated worse; the proceedings were a disgrace to the House and fair Debate was altogether impossible. He, and several other hon. Members had to attend a Committee that day at 12 o'clock, and how were they to do their duty in the House and in seven and a half hours be at the Committee upstairs? It was not fair to them (and especially not fair in a matter where a Bill was simply passed in the interests of one class, and in a Measure in which hon. Members on the other side were themselves deeply interested) to force these questions through at such an hour of the morning. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of Parliamentary Debate and of calm decision to consent to the Motion to report progress and not to degrade the House and bring it into contempt by insisting on going on at a time when it was impossible for questions to be fairly discussed.
§ MR. LOUGH
said, that the remaining clauses, far from being unimportant, touched matters of the deepest interest. The principle on which the assessments would be carried out was an entirely new one, and the whole connection between the local authorities and the central authority had to be considered. There were a number of new clauses, and three Amendments standing in the name of supporters of the Government. The Bill excited a deep feeling in the Opposition and in the country. The Government would make no progress by resisting the Motion.
§ MR. BYRON REED (Bradford, E.)
rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ MR. MCKENNA
said that the next Amendment referred to the division of the assessment between the buildings and the land on which they stood. Only last year the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir E. Clarke) 164 informed the House that such a separation was an impossibility.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE
said that the arguments of the Opposition during the discussion of this Bill had not been met by the Government in a proper spirit. They felt that they had as many supporters in the country as the Government; and the Government ought to make some offer of compromise by not refusing every Amendment to the Bill as they had done.
§ Question put: "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee then divided, but Mr. James O'Connor (Wicklow, W.) remained in his place.
§ MR. JAMES O'CONNOR
Mr. Lowther, I refuse to leave the Chamber, as a protest against the manner in which this Bill is being forced through the House.
Then, under Standing Order 27, I consider the conduct of the hon. Member is disorderly, and I must request him to withdraw.
§ MR. JAMES O'CONNOR
On a point of order, Mr. Lowther, is it not the Speaker only that can order me to withdraw?
No; the Chairman of Committees has power to request a Member whose conduct is disorderly to withdraw.
I must ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to see that the hon. Member withdraws.
The Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms advanced up the Gangway to the corner of the third Bench on the Opposition side, where the hon. Member was standing, and laid his hand upon his shoulder.
§ MR. JAMES O'CONNOR
On a point of order, Mr. Lowther, must you not open the door?
165 The Hon. Member accompanied the Deputy Serjeaut-at-Arms to the door, which was unlocked, in order that he might withdraw. The door was again locked, and the Division forthwith taken.
§ The Tellers reported:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 70.—(Division List, No. 183.)
§ Question put accordingly: "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 200.—(Division List, No. 184.)
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
moved, at the end of the clause to add the words:—The separation of the valuations of land and buildings shall be made by official valuers, appointed for the purpose by the Local Government Board.This was a substantial Amendment to the Bill. The importance of having a fair valuation of the land and buildings was very evident. Seeing that the Government contributed half the rateable value of the land, it was to the interest of any parish to put the value of the land as high as possible, in order that the Government subsidies might be as high as possible.
Order, order! I understand the valuation has already been made, and therefore the proposal that the valuation should be made in this manner was clearly not applicable.
said there was one valuation for the buildings and the land, but now it was necessary to put them in two compartments. He thought it was clear that there was a new principle going to be put into operation, a separate valuation for the land and for the buildings, and that was one of the great merits of the Bill.
said the matter was certainly rather complicated, but he understood that the valuation had taken place, and therefore the Amendment would not be in order.
asked if it would be in order that the separation between the two should be made by competent 166 examiners, appointed by the Local Government Board.
said he would give notice of such an Amendment by changing the word "valuation" to "separation." There was no separate valuation.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said this Amendment was entirely without the scope of the clause. They could not alter the whole system of making valuations in this clause.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, the section dealt with the valuation lists, and these were prepared, according to law, by the Assessment Committees. The section provided that in the valuation list there should be, for the purpose of future rates, a separation between agricultural land and buildings. It would be most unreasonable and impracticable that after the Assessment Committee had prepared the valuation list, two valuators should be sent down by the Local Government Board for the one purpose of making the separation. Surely the separation should be made by those who were making the valuation.
§ MR. MCKENNA
said, there was no principle laid down in the Bill as to how the separate valuation was to be made. There was nothing to indicate to the Assessment Committees on what principle they were to act. Every Assessment Committee would act as it thought best. He believed the value of farm buildings as buildings might be separately ascertained, though he admitted the matter was one of some difficulty. Still, it was one which ought to be proceeded with on principle. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman upon what principle the Assessment Committees were to act in the matter of valuation, because, at the present time there was no general law on which such a separate assessment as suggested could be made. Under existing circumstances, for instance one Assessment Committee might assess dairy buildings not on their cost, but on what they might consider 167 the value of their suitability for the purposes to which they were applied, while another Committee might, elsewhere, assess similar buildings merely on their cost price. What he wished to elicit from the Government was some indication as to the principle on which the Committees would have to act, for it was important, whatever might be the principle laid down, that the Committees should have some guidance, and that their action in the work of valuation should be uniform. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. BUXTON
regretted that the Government had not seen their way to accept the Amendment, because, in dealing with a Government grant it was of much importance that some check on a uniform basis should be placed on the action of the Assessment Committees throughout the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The Local Government Board ought to be able to exercise some check so as to secure uniformity of valuation, and to prevent additions to assessments for the sole purpose of obtaining a greater grant than a district was equitably entitled to. He asked the Government how they proposed to secure uniformity of valuation as between different districts and to protect the minority, when there was a conflict between the interests of different ratepayers?
§ MR. T. P. WHITTAKER (Yorkshire, W.R., Spen Valley)
said, that the Amendment ought to be passed for the protection of the public. Supposing a farm were assessed now at £100, £50 representing the buildings and £50 the land, there would be nothing, as the Bill stood, to prevent the local authority from setting down £75 as the value of the land, and £25 as the value of the buildings. If that were done, the Government, instead of paying half the rate on £50 would have to pay half the rate on £75. The Government would be treated by localities as a kind of milch cow, and they ought to be represented by official valuers, who would prevent local authorities from assessing land too highly for the purpose of obtaining more of the grant than they ought to get.
§ MR. STUART
could not agree with the construction adopted by his hon. Friends. This valuation that was now to take place related to the future, and the people whom it could 168 only affect were the owners of the property other than agricultural land in the particular district in which that valuation took place. It did not affect the present Government contribution. As far as the Government contribution was concerned, they were not to be dependent upon local valuers, because it was the Local Government Board itself which was to decide, by a rough process he presumed, what was the amount it had to pay on account of the deficiency in each parish. Still, it was extremely desirable that the Amendment should be carried out. It was desirable for the future, because it was clear they were entering on a method of relieving the rates in a new way—namely, in proportion to the rateable value. If they were going to enter upon that form, it was exceedingly necessary that there should be some uniformity followed in the matter. In London they had uniformity in the matter, because they had an Assessor who sat on every Assessment Committee. They required in the country, in the course the Government was entering upon, some such Amendment as this. He wished to enter his protest against going on with this difficult question at a late hour like this. This was not an unimportant question; on the contrary, it was a very serious and grave matter.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment. It was absolutely impracticable for the Local Government Board to step in and interfere with the control of a vast number of valuations in the way proposed. He agreed with the last speaker that this was not by any means an unimportant question, but in his judgment it had already been provided for. There was a protection against bad or unfair valuations in Clause 6, where a safeguard was provided in the action of the Surveyor of Taxes.
§ MR. STUART
pointed out that the clause indicated contained a very large change in the law. It was a matter on which there was experience in London, and the matter was one of extreme complexity.
§ MR. GEORGE LAMBERT (Devon, South Molton)
maintained that the right hon. Gentleman did not realise the importance of the Amendment. How was the new valuation to be made? What 169 did the Local Government Board in London know about it? [Mr. CHAPLIN: "The Assessment Committees."] The Assessment Committees did not value the land; they took rent as the basis of valuation. The rent was now based upon land and buildings, which would have to be separated under this Hill. How would they be separated? Nobody could say that the Assessment Committee were capable of ascertaining the true relative value of the buildings as compared with the land, and though he did not say his hon. Friend's Amendment was the best one that could be adopted, he did say that something was required beyond what was contained in the Bill. Any Assessment Committee would find very considerable difficulty in being able to assess it. They might have farm buildings which were worth one-eighth, or one-tenth of the annual value.
§ MR. LAMBERT
replied that they did not separate the letting value. Upon the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's estate there was not a single case in which he had let the buildings separately from the land, and this was an entirely new and novel principle which was introduced by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to appreciate this Amendment. In the Union of Wisbech, in Cambridgeshire, the land was not lowered as the rent was lowered, because they would not reduce the rateable value in the Union. There was a case in which they did not take the rent as a basis of the assessment. How was the Assessment Committee to arrive at it? There was, obviously, a case for valuation.
§ SIR W. HARCOURT
said, that the discussion had shown, at any rate, that those who thought the remainder of the Bill to be nothing but machinery were much mistaken. The Amendment raised a most important consideration for the Exchequer and for those concerned in the Government grant. When the Committee was discussing this question on the Motion to leave out the word "buildings," the hon. Members for Basingstoke and Stroud strongly urged that it was impossible to separate the buildings from the land; and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill 170 said that there was no difficulty whatever in doing that. The hon. Member for Basingstoke, speaking of the special rate where the land was separate from the buildings, said that though legally, there never was actually a separate assessment. What was most remarkable was that the President of the Local Government Board promised to bring up an Amendment which would prevent too high a valuation from being put upon the buildings so as to do injustice to the land. Where was that Amendment? This was the most critical point of the question.
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said that he was perfectly prepared to bring up words on the Report stage. But there was an Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Basingstoke, which met the case.
§ DR. CLARK
said, that the Committee ought to lay down on what principle this new value or separation was to be made. Was the separation to be on capital value or on value to the user? How was it to be determined, and who was to determine it? Was the valuation to be made by persons interested in an unfair valuation—the Assessment Committee's valuer? The Assessment Committee, with a view to getting as much rates as was possible, would place a high valuation on the land, and a low valuation on the buildings. Who, then, should make the separation? Should it be the Assessment Committee or the Surveyor, both of whom were interested parties, or should it be some neutral person, like the Assessor in Scotland, acting on behalf of the Treasury? Under Clause 6 it was proposed that the overseers should make the separation. But were not the overseers also interested parties? Would it not be to their interest also to get as much rates as was possible? There was an appeal to the Assessment Committee. The Assessment Committee would appoint valuers to value the buildings, the appellant would also appoint valuers to value the buildings, and finally the Quarter Sessions would determine the value upon the opinion given by those technical witnesses. Such was the scheme of the Bill. It was possible, under it, to have a lawsuit in every case to determine the value of the buildings as separate from the land. He 171 therefore supported the Amendment. He thought there should be a competent set of men to make separate valuations between the land and the buildings. They might take the principle of capital value, which was strongly recommended by the present Prime Minister. There was a Royal Commission, of which the present Prime Minister was a Member, which made a Report suggesting several changes, and the Prime Minister wrote a special Report urging the American plan—
§ DR. CLARK
said he did not intend to enter into details; but the Committee had no information from the Government as to the course they would take. He had never spoken before on this Bill. [Cheers.] Now that they were laying down the law he hoped they would so lay it down as to prevent jobbery and public robbery.
§ MR. CHANNING
said, he was a member of the Town Holdings Committee, which sat for a number of years and took important evidence as to the possibility of separating two assessments. Among other experts, Mr. Fletcher Moulton said that separation could be carried out; but the Committee was unable to report in favour of it. He did not deny that separation was much more easy in the case of agricultural land and buildings than it would be in the complicated interests of town holdings. It was clear that the question was one of great complexity, which could not be properly considered in a careless and hasty way at 6 o'clock in the morning. Everyone familiar with assessment knew that there was force in the arguments advanced as to the great temptation offered by the Bill to Assessment Committees to deal with this question in a way they ought not to do; it was monstrous they should be called upon to deliberate on the subject under such circumstances.
§ *MR. WALTER HAZELL (Leicester)
wished to give the concrete case of a farm of which he was tenant. He should be glad to know how buildings on such a farm were to be valued. It was most important there should be some guidance before the Assessment Committee. If they considered the capital value of the 172 farm buildings in question, the most moderate interest would come to more than the total amount of the rent of the farm. If they asked what the house and farm buildings let for apart from the land, the answer was they would not let at all.
said the hon. Member was now going into an estimate as to the difficulty of separating the value of land and buildings. The Committee had decided that this was to be done. The only question was whether additional valuers, appointed by the Local Government Board, were to be employed for that purpose.
§ *MR. HAZELL
said, he thought he was speaking to the Amendment. He only wanted to know in what way a separate valuation could be made.
§ MR. WHITTAKER
asked whether the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing an Amendment on the subject?
§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, he thought Sub-section 2 of Clause 6 provided sufficient protection against unfair valuation; but he would bring up an Amendment on the subject.
§ MR. WHITTAKER
asked when they would have an opportunity of discussing it. They could not sit there for ever. For the last hour the discussion had been most businesslike.
§ MR. LOGAN
said, there was no more important Amendment than that under discussion from the point of view of the general taxpayer of the country and of the taxpayer of the town. The taxation of ground values, separating the land from the buildings, should be carried out in a satisfactory manner. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was correct in saying that the question of valuation did not affect the Government. For the purposes of the Government grant the assessment of last year was to be taken into account, that was to say, the assessment of the land and buildings. At the present moment they were not separated. The grant was to be half of the rates on the land exclusive of the buildings. Therefore it was absolutely necessary, before it could be allotted, that a valuation should be made. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the other side seemed to forget that this Bill was a revolution. They might honestly 173 believe that those on the Opposition side desired to obstruct it, but he could assure them that, so far as he was individually concerned, obstruction was the furthest thing from his thoughts. He had sat there that night in the hope that by moving the small Amendment that was left to him he might be able to do something for the poor men.
§ MR. LOGAN
said he would endeavour to do so. It was, he contended, monstrous injustice to the tax-payers and working men of this country that the valuation of the land and buildings should be left in the hands of the present Assessment Committee. The men who formed this Committee might be very well meaning men, but ho maintained that the farmer who rented land was not the proper man to assess the value of the land and buildings. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said just now that it was impracticable to appoint proper valuers, and other hon. Gentlemen behind him had said that it would be most unbusinesslike and inconvenient to do so. He must, however, remind the right hon. Gentleman that he could not make omelets without breaking eggs, and that if a valuation was demanded in the interests of the community it ought to be made, and to say that it would be inconvenient or costly to appoint proper valuers was a mere paltry excuse for refusing to adopt the right course. He ventured to make a last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to say now whether he thought that the remaining clauses of the Bill merely related to the machinery of the Measure. He, for one, was prepared to contest this Bill to the bitter end. He was sorry to use harsh language, but he must say that this refusal on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint proper valuers as between the landowners and the community would be regarded out of doors as nothing better than a job. For his part, he was prepared to contend that that was the case, both in and out of the House. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to force this Bill through the House by means of the gag and the guillotine.
§ MR. BROADHURST
said, that throughout this Debate he had done what he could to assist the right hon. Gentleman to arrive at a right conclusion in reference to this question. The Chairman of the Assessment Committee of one of the largest unions had told him that the effect of the Bill as it stood, would be to lower the assessments. That showed the necessity of appointing independent valuers. It was intolerable that the towns and urban districts should in future be subjected to the decisions of these assessors of agricultural property, and unless the right hon. Gentleman made some concession in regard to this matter, he would find himself in the centre of a whirlwind, for the question was being slowly but assuredly understood in the country. He would find himself in such a storm that this Government to which some had promised a lease of life of 20 years would be upset before the end of its natural life. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was speaking under great physical difficulty, as he was suffering from a want of nourishment, and if hon. Gentlemen would hear the few words he had to say it would be in the interests of the Government. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should even at the eleventh hour do something to protect the tax earning portion of the community from the inroads of these irresponsible assessors who were going to tax them in this manner in the future.
§ *MR. HARRISON
said, the Bill affected one-half of every local rate levied on agricultural land as defined in the Bill. Hitherto there had been no valuation of buildings apart from land, and the division of buildings from land was unknown to the Poor Law Assessment, although houses in occupation were separately assessed. Under the Public Health Act, 1875, there was no assessment of buildings as such apart from land, but there was a direction that lands should be rated at one-fourth of the amount of their annual value, still keeping the Poor Law Assessment rules in force.
said, the hon. Member was discussing a question which the House had disposed of. The House had decided that the valuation was to be divided, and the only question before 175 the Committee was whether that division should be made by official valuers.
§ *MR. HARRISON
, who spoke amidst cries of "Divide" and "Order," said he would confine himself strictly to that point of view. In all Imperial Taxation the Government had been protected by its own assessors, as in the instances of the Property Tax and Inhabited House Tax.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 64.—(Division List, No. 185.)
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 192.—(Division List, No. 186.)
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question, 'That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 65.—(Division List, No. 187.)
§ Question put accordingly, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 65.—(Division List, No. 188.)
§ Clause 6,—