HC Deb 18 July 1901 vol 97 cc859-73

rose to move—

MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent)

I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in introducing in one Bill a provision to continue two Acts which have on previous occasions been brought in separately. They are Bills of a very contentious character, and one of them I wish to vote for, but to the other I am opposed.


I do not see any point of order. The right hon. Gentleman can bring in the Bill, and the hon. Member at the proper time can move to strike out a part of it.


I do not think you quite understand my point. I wish to know how it is possible for me or any other Member to vote on this Bill when we have these different opinions with regard to the two Acts.


That is a matter the hon. Member must decide for himself.


I have to ask leave to introduce a Bill which has for its object the renewal of the two Acts to which my hon. friend has just referred—namely, the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, and the Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Act, 1899—and also two Acts of Parliament which provide for the distribution of money in Scotland, and which are not similarly applicable in this country. It is not necessary for me to do more than refer in one or two words to the history of this rating question. The difficulty, which has been admitted by all, whatever may be the exact view that they take of it, has existed for a very long time, and it is a difficulty which applies to all classes of rateable property, and not alone to the two particular classes covered by the Acts. That view was taken by the Government in 1896 when they appointed a Royal Commission to inquirer into this question, and when they passed in that and the succeeding years the two measures which it is now proposed to renew by the Bill I am asking leave to introduce. The grievance in connection with rating is that the incidence of rating upon realty as compared with personalty presses with much greater weight—with, as we contend, unjust weight—upon the one class of property. The rating system as originally devised was undoubtedly intended to east the burden of payment for the objects secured by the rates upon all classes of property, whether real or personal, movable or immovable. That this was so is clearly proved by the fact that personalty was liable up to 1840. But it was found difficult to define personalty in order to make it pay its contribution to the rates, and, therefore, in the year 1840 an Act of Parliament was passed which finally released personalty from its obligation to contribute to the rates. That Act subsequently found its way into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and has been annually renewed. I am bound to say that, when faced with that fact, I do not think that those who are mainly interested in the question of personalty ought to grumble at the partial relief given under these measures, remembering that personalty has escaped altogether the burdens of which it was originally intended it should bear its share.

Many attempts have been made to deal with this question, and nobody has ever contended that those attempts have been more than very rough and ready efforts to solve partially a very difficult and complicated problem. Licence and other duties have been transferred, and the State has borne partially the burden that at one time was borne entirely locally. But the difficulty of dealing with the burden of the rates upon agricultural land and tithe rent-charge was not met by those allocations of Imperial revenue. It was still found that agricultural land and tithe rent-charge suffered under the same disabilities that affect ordinary realty as compared with personalty, and there was also the fact that the income value or ability is not so great in regard to agricultural land or tithe rent-charge as it is in the case of other classes of property. This aggravated the injustice of the burden, and led the Government in 1896 to deal with the matter by the two Acts to which I have referred, and which enact that agricultural land and tithe rent-charge not separated from the benefice should pay only half of the rates. It will be remembered that by these Acts a deficiency was created in respect of the money which had hitherto been contributed out of the rates, and which, if some special arrangement had not been made, would in fact have had to be borne by other ratepayers. In the case of the Agricultural Rates Act the Imperial Revenue contributed a sum to make up the deficit created by the Act, and in the case of the Tithe Rent-charge Act the money is taken from the Local Taxation Account. In that way, in respect of all rates up to the passing of these two Acts, the deficit created is met by these contributions—except that in the Agricultural Rates Act there are some of the smaller rates, amounting altogether to, comparatively speaking, a small sum, which are not included in the contributions made out of Imperial funds. I think I need only give three ordinary examples to satisfy the House that the injustice to which I have referred really exists. First I take the rent of a house at £400. The rateable value, roughly speaking, for assessment purposes would be £360. Assuming the house to be in an urban district, with the rates at 6s. in the £, the amount paid in rates would be £108. The income of the occupier, taking his rent to be one-tenth part of his income, would be £4,000, so that the proportion of income paid in rates would be one thirty-seventh. But if, instead of being in the town, this property was in the country, the rates would have to be taken at 3s. in the £, and the proportion would, of course, be one-seventy-fourth of the income. Then take the case of the tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice. Assume the income of the incumbent derived from tithe rent-charge to be £400, and the estimated value of the parsonage for rating purposes, say £60. The amount paid in rates at 3s. in the £ would be about one-eighth of his income as compared with one-thirty-seventh in the first case to which I referred. If I go to the occupier of agricultural land the case is still harder. Take a farm the estimated rent of which is £400. The assessable value for rating would be £360. At 3s. in the £, the amount paid in rates would be £54. Taking the estimate made by the Board of Inland Revenue for the purposes of income tax, namely, that the income of an occupier of agricultural land would be about one-third of his rent, that gives you an income of £135, and the proportion paid in rates would be considerably more than one-third.

I think those three cases illustrate the special hardship of the present rating system upon this class of property, and I may say that the relief given by these Acts does not by any means dispose of the injustice. It lessens it, but, after you have enacted that agricultural land and tithe rent-charge should pay only half the rates, you still leave the owners of such property paying a great deal more to the rates in proportion to their income than do the occupiers or owners of any other class of property. I am happy to say that the Bill is a very short one. It only consists of two clauses, the first of which renews the Agricultural Rates Act and the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, and the second and other Acts to which I referred, the Congested Districts and Burgh Land Relief (Scotland) Act, and the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act (1898), both of which were passed for the corresponding relief to Scotland. The only change now made is that, whereas in the two original Acts the time was five years, we have had to consider in this case whether a limitation of a similar kind should be reimposed, or whether a measure should bere-enacted leaving the duration to be until Parliament should otherwise determine. Now, Sir, the position is not the same as in 1896. In 1896 we were dealing with an Interim Report, and the authority of our own examination of the question. Now you have had the Report of the Royal Commission. Nobody will contend that it was not a strong Commission and an efficient one. Out of fifteen members thirteen reported that the case of agricultural land and tithe rent-charge was a strong case, and that relief should be given; but they recommended that relief should be given in a different way. It is the hope and the desire of the Government to deal with the whole question. What is the advantage of fixing a limit of time? It will not force the Government ment's hand; it will only result in the Government insisting on further time being given to the discussion. What we want to do is to deal effectually with the whole rating question; but, meanwhile, we ask the House to give us leave to introduce the Bill, which I now ask leave to do.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to continue the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899, the Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax (Scotland) Act, 1896, and the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898."—(Mr. Walter Long.)


We have long ago ceased to be at all surprised at any use which the present Government make of the forms and procedure of this House. I venture to say that there has never been a case in which those forms and that procedure have been more, as I submit, obviously misused than on this occasion. But, Mr. Speaker, this is a point on which I shall have to appeal to you before I sit down, because you are invested with a certain authority and discretion in this matter, of a very difficult and peculiar kind. I will state plainly to the House the matter as it suggests itself to me. I will lay down two propositions. The first is that this rule under which we are now acting was intended to be applied to non-contentious measures. It is quite possible that of late years that practice has been largely extended to measures which can be quoted and referred to which ought not to be described as non-contentious, but that does not interfere with the fact that the original intention and purpose of the rule was that this mode of procedure should be confined to non-contentious measures. And what do I mean by non-contentious measures? I do not mean a Bill as to which there are no two opinions in any quarter of the House. One can hardly conceive a measure which in that sense would be non-contentious. But if you have a measure on which the whole force of the Opposition is on one side and the whole force of the Government is on the other, it is a farce to say that that measure can under any circumstances be a non-contentious measure. But my second proposition is this: Is this a non-contentious measure? Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has airily disposed of it by saying that it is a continuation Bill.


I never said that it was non-contentious.


The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a fitting measure to be dealt with in this manner, because it was a continuation Bill; but what does it continue? Now we have to go back; now we are told that it is not a continuation Bill, but a Bill for making permanent these Acts which have been so strongly opposed. We all remember very well what happened on a previous occasion not so many years ago. We remember that there was a Commission sitting to inquire into the distress in agriculture. That Commission did not initiate a proposal of this kind. It was suggested to the Commission by two members of the Government who were members of the Commission, so that, although it acquired in the course of its life a sort of sanction at the hands of the Commission, it was originated and was as much a Government measure as if it had been brought in in the first place by a Minister on that side of the House.

ME. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

What is the authority for that statement?


My authority is my own recollection of what happened, refreshed not very long ago—


Allow me to say that your recollection is entirely wrong.


The right hon. Gentleman is anxious to dispose of that theory of the origin of this Bill, but he cannot altogether succeed. At all events, it came before the House and it was treated in no sense as a non-contentious measure. I will refer to the first Bill. There are other Bills which followed in its train, but we need not speak of them now. The first Bill was strenuously and determinedly opposed in a way in which Bills are seldom opposed. It gave rise to two all-night sittings, so vigorous and determined was the opposition which we entertained then and which we entertain now. We took the strongest possible objection to that measure, and this on several grounds which I need not recapitulate in detail. It seemed then and it seems now to create a great injustice as between town and country. It creates great injustice between one kind of property and another in the country. When it was put forward as a relief to agriculture, that excuse had to be dropped at an early stage. If it had been a relief given to agriculture, surely the greater part of the relief would have been given where it was most wanted, and some discrimination would have been made between those parts of the country where deep and dire distress prevailed and those parts which were very flourish and where rents were high and profits great. [Cries of "Where?"] This was in many parts of the country, and all parts in the neighbourhood of large towns, because this was pointed out to the Government in the course of the debate, and they had to abandon the theory and the plea altogether that it was a measure in relief of agriculture. ["No, no!" and cheers.] I do not say that the hon. Member who says "No" abandoned it, but I say the Government abandoned it. And we have the further objection that we urged that this relief which was alleged to be given—and possibly may have been intended by those who are blind to the inevitable consequences of such Acts to be given—to the bona fide occupiers and tenants must redound to the benefit of the landlords. I remember that this theory of it was explained by a distinguished member of the present Government in terms more clear than any of us adopt. He said that any proposal to relieve the rates of the occupying tenant would be merely robbing Peter to pay Paul, and to do so in the worst possible way, because Peter would be the landless millions of the country, and Paul would be the great landowners who were ready to shift the permanent burden on the heads of the less fortunate of their fellow-countrymen. That was the opinion of one of the most distinguished members of the Government. [AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?] The Colonial Secretary.


Who says that I ever said that? I would like to inquire whether I rightly understand what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said, as I understand him, that while I was a member of this Government—[Cries of "No, no!"]




Oh! I understood that the right hon. Gentleman said that I used the words as a member of the Government when the Act was passed.


No. What the right hon. Gentleman said—[Cries of "When?"] In 1883. [Ministerial cries of "Oh," and laughter.] What the right hon. Gentleman said was— Lord Salisbury coolly proposes to hand it (the produce of certain new duties he advocated) over indirectly, if not directly, to the landlords of the country. What does it matter from what source? In the shape of a contribution in aid of local taxes. I must say I never recollect any public man propose in a franker, I might even say in a more audacious, manner to rob Peter to pay Paul. And what makes it worse is that in this case Peter is represented by the landless millions who have no other wealth than their labour and their toil, while Paul is the great landlord with 20,000 acres who is seeking to relieve himself of his share of taxation by shifting it on to the shoulder of his less fortunate countrymen. About two years later I find that the right hon. Gentleman said again of this same proposal to give something in relief of rates on agricultural property— It may enable the landlord to extract a higher rent. There is only one thing that can benefit the farmer, and that is a fair rent fixed by an impartial tribunal. These were the old doctrines, the sound doctrines, of the right hon. Gentleman before he got into his present company. The answer that was made to us when we used this argument against the Bill was that, as a matter of political economy, this result would not take place, because the Bill was a temporary measure, and it would not reach that position of affairs in which the benefit would pass to the landlord. As far as I know, the sole argument against the theory or principle that relief given in this way to the tenant passes to the landlord, and benefits the landlord, now disappears, so that if this was a contentious matter five years ago it is infinitely more contentious now, because it is more serious. I therefore

submit to you, Sir, that this by no means exhausts the objections we have to the Bill; but I, at least, have said enough to show what the character of the discussion of the Bill must necessarily be, and with the greatest deference, as you have power to adopt either of two courses—either without further debate to put the Question on the motion for the introduction of the Bill, or the Question that the debate be now adjourned—I venture to hope that you will take the view that, in consideration of an opposition to the measure, which does not exist in my frantic imagination, but which is supported by the practical experience of five years ago, the latter course will be taken. [Cries of "Move!"] There is no such motion can be made as that the debate be adjourned, but Mr. Speaker has the power to adjourn it now if he thinks fit.


I am afraid I must decline to follow the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I have on previous occasions expressed my view of the action of the Chair on this rule. The option is given to me to put the Question that leave be given to introduce the Bill, or the Question that the debate be now adjourned. The only effect, in my experience, of the latter course is that I should be supposed—although the rule does not say it—to be in effect expressing an opinion on the motion, and immediately afterwards I should have to invite the majority to override my opinion. That is a course which I think is derogatory to the authority and dignity of the Chair, and which I do not propose to follow. I have declined to take that course on other occasions, and I decline to take it now. It must be understood, however, that in doing so I am not expressing an opinion whether the Bill has been properly introduced under Standing Order No. 16 or not.

Mr. SPEAKER put the Question in pursuance of Standing Order No. 16, that leave be given to bring in the Bill.

The House divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 176. (Division List No. 340.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F Arkwright, John Stanhope Bain, Colonel James Robert
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Baird, John George Alexander
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Balcarres, Lord
Baldwin, Alfred Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Malcolm, Ian
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Manners, Lord Cecil
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'nds Maple, Sir John Blundell
Balfour, Rt, Hn. Gerald W (Leeds Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh-
Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch Grenfell, William Henry Middlemore, John Throgmort'n
Banbury, Frederick George Groves, James Grimble Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Bartley, George C. T. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Mitchell, William
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Gunter, Sir Robert Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Guthrie, Walter Murray Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)
Beckett, Ernest William Hain, Edward Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Bignold, Arthur Hall, Edward Marshall More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Bigwood, James Halsey, Thomas Frederick Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Bill, Charles Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld G. (Midd'x Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nd'rry Morrell, George Herbert
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.
Boulnois, Edmund Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford Morrison, James Archibald
Bousfield, William Robert Harris, Frederick Leverton Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Mount, William Arthur
Brassey, Albert Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bullard, Sir Harry Heaton, John Henniker Myers, William Henry
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow Helder, Augustus Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Henderson, Alexander Nicholson, William Graham
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hermon-Hodge, Robert T. Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derby shire Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Parkes, Ebenezer
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hornby, Sir William Henry Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Horner, Frederick William Pemberton, John S. G.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Hoult, Joseph Penn, John
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham Percy, Earl
Chapman, Edward Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Perks, Robert William
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hudson, George Bickersteth Plummer, Walter R.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) Pretyman, Ernest George
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Purvis, Robert
Colston, Chas. Ewd. H. Athole Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Johnston, William (Belfast) Randles, John S.
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Rankin, Sir James
Cranborne, Viscount Kemp, George Ratcliff, R. F.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh Reid, James (Greenock)
Crossley, Sir Savile Keswick, William Remnant, James Farquharson
Dalkeith, Earl of Kimber, Henry Renshaw, Charles Bine
Dalrymple, Sir Charles King, Sir Henry Seymour Renwick, George
Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo. Knowles, Lees Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lambert, George Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield Lambton, Hon. Frederick W. Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Dorington, Sir John Edward Laurie, Lieut.-General Robinson, Brooke
Doughty, George Law, Andrew Bonar Ropner, Colonel Robert
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lawson, John Grant Royds, Clement Molyneux
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Russell, T. W.
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rutherford, John
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S. Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Llewellyn, Evan Henry Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Finch, George H. Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Lonsdale, John Brownlee Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Fisher, William Hayes Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Fison, Frederick William Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent) Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynesd.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Loyd, Archie Kirkman Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Soares, Ernest J.
Fletcher, Sir Henry Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Spear, John Ward
Flower, Ernest Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Foster, Phillips S. (Warwick, S W Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G Ellison Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond. Macdona, John Cumming Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick MacIver, David (Liverpool) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn Maconochie, A. W. Stroyan, John
Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlets M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Thornton, Percy M. Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Tollemache, Henry James White, Luke (York, E. R.) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray Whitmore, Charles Algernon Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Tritton, Charles Ernest Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) Wylie, Alexander
Valentia, Viscount Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell (Birm. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Wanklyn, James Leslie Wills, Sir Frederick Younger, William
Warr, Augustus Frederick Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Wilson, John (Falkirk) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Webb, Col. William George Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Weir, James Galloway Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Furness, Sir Christopher O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud) Galloway, William Johnson O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Ambrose, Robert Gilhooly, James O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Asher, Alexander Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Grant, Corrie O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) O'Dowd, John
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Harrington, Timothy O'Kelley, J. (Roscommon, N.)
Bell, Richard Harwood, George O'Malley, William
Blake, Edward Hayden, John Patrick O'Mara, James
Boland, John Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Healy, Timothy Michael O'Shee, James John
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Palmer Sir Chas. M. (Durham
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) Partington, Oswald
Burke, E. Haviland- Holland, William Henry Paulton, James Mellor
Burt, Thomas Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.) Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Caine, William Sproston Horniman, Frederick John Power, Patrick Joseph
Caldwell, James Jacoby, James Alfred Priestley, Arthur
Cameron, Robert Jones, David Brynmor (Swan sea Rea, Russell
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Reddy, M.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cawley, Frederick Kennedy, Patrick James Redmond, William (Clare)
Channing, Francis Allston Kinloch Sir John George Smyth Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Clancy, John Joseph Kitson, Sir James Rigg, Richard
Cogan, Denis J. Labouchere, Henry Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Langley, Batty Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Layland-Barrett, Francis Robson, William Snowdon
Craig, Robert Hunter Leamy, Edmund Roe, Sir Thomas
Crean, Eugene Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Crombie, John William Levy, Maurice Schwann, Charles E.
Cullinan, J. Lewis, John Herbert Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Cust, Henry John C. Lloyd-George, David Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Dalziel, James Henry Lough, Thomaa Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lundon, W. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Delany, William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Denny, Colonel M'Cann, James Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Dermot, Patrick Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants)
Dillon, John M'Kenna, Reginald Sullivan, Donal
Donelan, Captain A. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Doogan, P. C. M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Tennant, Harold John
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Duffy, William J. Mather, William Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Duncan, J. Hastings. Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Dunn, Sir William Mooney, John J. Thomas, J. A. (Glamorgan, Gower
Elibank, Master of Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Thompson, Dr. E. C. (Monagh'n, N
Emmott, Alfred Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Murphy, J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Nannetti, Joseph P. Tully, Jasper
Fenwick, Charles Newnes, Sir George Wallace, Robert
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Ffrench, Peter Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Nussey, Thomas Willans White, George (Norfolk)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Flynn, James Christopher O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Fowler, Rt. Hon, Sir Henry O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Whittaker, Thomas Palmer Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.
Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W. Young, Samuel
Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) Yoxall, James Henry
Wilson, J. W. (Worcesters. N.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long, Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Grant Lawson.