SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.

HC Deb 05 August 1903 vol 126 cc1653-709

(Considered in Committee.)

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clause 1.

MR. KEARLEY,

on a point of order, submitted that an Amendment standing in his name, which had been ruled out, was in order.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not think it could be for the reason that Article X of the Convention provided that the Convention should come into force on the 1st of September, 1903, and the three months' notice desired by the Amendment would carry it over the date when the Convention was to come into force.

MR. KEARLEY

said his Amendment only applied to the case where a prohibition order was issued. An Order in Council might be issued at a later stage owing to one of the contracting Powers contravening the Convention, and he desired to raise the question as to what would happen when such an Order was issued in Council.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said he thought the Amendment, as drawn by the hon. Member, was drawn too wide. If it were accepted it would prevent a prohibition order being issued for a term of three months, and assuming that a prohibition order was issued within a few days of this Bill becoming an Act, that prohibition order would not come into force until a period of three months had elapsed, which would carry it over the date fixed for the Convention to come into force.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

submitted that the terms of the Convention would be complied with by the issue of the order. All that the Convention required was that the order should be issued.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said that was not so, the words in the Convention were "Come into force."

MR. LOUGH

submitted that the Amendment was a very necessary Amendment, because in the event of an order being issued it was very necessary that notice should be given to this country. He had no doubt that if the Amendment was too wide that his hon. friend would be willing to add any words that were necessary to bring it into order. He thought it was absolutely necessary for the commerce of this country that some notice should be given, and that the Convention would be effectively carried out if notice were given that after three months no more sugar would be allowed to come into this country from any particular part.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said he thought as at present drafted the Amendment was not in order, though the hon. Member might find words to meet his objection.

MR. KEARLEY

said he understood that he should not by not moving it now lose his opportunity of moving it later in a modified form at the end of the clause. It seemed to him that in this sub-section the opportunity occurred, and it might not occur again. He asked that his opportunity might be preserved to him.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said he could not go so far as that, all he could say was that the hon. Member was not in a worse position by not moving his Amendment now.

MR. URE

moved the omission of the words— Subject to any provision, which may be made by Parliament in lieu of such prohibition, to impose a special duty on such sugar in accordance with the Convention. The Convention made the most serious inroad ever made within the memory of any Member of the House upon the rights of Parliament, because it devolved upon a body of foreign officials the right to intervene in the fiscal arrangements of the United Kingdom; but the Convention did not go so far as to say that having adopted the method of prohibition we should be for ever debarred from adopting the method of countervailing duties. The proviso in the Bill suggested that having adopted one method we were restricted to that method, and by striking out these words in the clause he wished to leave Parliament free to deal with bounty-fed sugar in the future as the circumstances of the time and the changes that might occur would dictate. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 19, to leave out from the word 'Kingdom,' to the end of line 21."—(Mr. ure.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said he had listened with great attention to the argument of the hon. Gentleman, but had failed to find out what his objection to these words was. There were two alternatives in this matter. One was to penalise sugar by countervailing duties, and the other was prohibition. He could not see that any reason had been adduced for omitting this proviso. The object of the proviso was to indicate to all whom it might concern that this country, whilst adopting by preference the plan of prohibition, still regarded it as a perfectly open question whether in certain circumstances it should not have recourse to the remedy of imposing countervailing duties.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

objected to the words as simple surplusage. It was bad drafting to introduce into a Bill words that were unnecessary. The Chairman had indicated that nothing was to be introduced into the Bill that was outside the scope of the Convention, and if that was a good ruling it should tell both ways. These words were entirely beyond the scope of the Convention. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was an indication or suggestion that this country might take a different action if it became necessary. It was not the business of the British Parliament to make suggestions to foreigners or anybody else, and to introduce a suggestion of this sort into a Bill of this kind was derogatory to British institutions.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said he could not agree that these words were mere surplusage. They had considerable effect in certain eventualities. In certain eventualities only was His Majesty allowed to do certain things. His. Majesty was to sit mute and do nothing until a Commission of foreigners reported. Then His Majesty assembled his Privy Council and issued an order prohibiting the importation of certain sugar, though not against the articles made from it. That was what was suggested, but it was all make-believe. What really happened was that a clerk drew up in his own phrases an order which was submitted to one or two members of the Privy Council, who were members of the Ministry, and, if approved by them, a new law was forever fixed upon the country. No provision for the second alternative could be made by Parliament without the-sanction of the Ministers of the Crown, who were the same persons as those who sanctioned the Order in Council, who would have to propose it. This was one of the amusing features of the Bill, His Majesty could prohibit the importation of sugar, but the very much milder course of imposing countervailing duties would require the whole machinery of Parliament, because such action would partake of the nature of a duty imposed on the people. These words, therefore, were not surplusage from the point of view of Parliament, though they were from the point of view of the Government. The Government had announced over and over again that their policy was prohibition pure and simple, and these words were put into this section merely in order to throw dust in the eyes of Parliament. The Government wanted to persuade the House that, under certain circumstances, they would come down and propose not prohibition but some lighter penalty on the offending sugar. Under what circumstances would the Government propose to come down to the House and say, "We propose to abandon prohibition and adopt some other measure?" It was not as if this section gave to the King power to impose countervailing duties, which would, perhaps, be a more reasonable tiring than giving him the power of prohibition. Once having adopted the principle of prohibition it would be rather remarkable for the Government to come down and propose to repeal it. This was one of the great defects of this Bill, as hon. Members would see if they only read the last finding of the permanent Commission, which provided that the Commission should ponder and weigh arid decide the exact amount of the bounty.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR,

on a point of order, submitted that this matter had already been discussed and decided.

* THE CHAIRMAN

said he hardly thought it was Out of order. The ground was gone over several times on previous nights, and he hoped the hon. Member would bear that in mind.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

It seemed to him that it the right hon. Gentleman desired to take that course he ought to come to Parliament for a new Act. His contention was that the whole thing was contrary to the spirit of the Convention, which was to equalise competition, whereas this dis-equalised competition. The Bill was very badly drawn. He believed that the draftsman desired to carry out the Convention, but he did riot get over the difficulties in his way by this proviso. In fact, the proviso amounted to nothing at all. It seemed to him that there was a very wide difference between Executive and Parliamentary action, and that there were objections of every kind, practical and constitutional, to the words proposed to be left out. He was strongly of opinion that these words ought to be left out.

MR. LOUGH

said lie could not agree with his hon. friend the Member for

King's Lynn that the right of imposing countervailing dirties should be given to the King in Council. His hon. friend suggested that these words were surplusage; he would complete the argument and say that they were merely nonsense.

MR. BRYCE

said that the word "subject" was not happy. What conceivable use could there be of putting in a phrase like that, which had absolutely no meaning. The proviso practically amounted to a statement that if Parliament should legislate hereafter on this subject, its legislation would take effect, notwithstanding any Order in Council. Was it not ridiculous that Parliament should be asked to state that it had power to legislate. not withstanding such an Order? Why. it had power to legislate, notwithstanding previous statutes. What possible use could there be in keeping in these words?

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that the proviso effected more than the right hon Gentleman had indicated. The Government wished, in drafting this Bill, to give due notice to the various countries concerned, that while they adopted the principle of prohibition so far as the rough and ready powers given to the Privy Council were concerned, they still did not exclude from their minds the probability or possibility of employing another remedy.

MR. BRYCE

said that ex hypothesi the remedy of countervailing dirties was less violent and less dangerous than that of prohibition, and, therefore, he could not appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If they wanted to give notice to foreign Powers they could do so by a diplomatic note or protocol.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 114 Noes, 54. (Division List No. 217.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner James Tynte	Atkinson, Right Hon. John	Balfour, Rt. Hu. G. W. (Leeds
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bailey, James (Walworth)	Banbury, Sir Frederiek (George
Arnold-Foster. Hugh O.	Balfour, Rt. Ho. A. J. (Man'r	Bhownaggree, sir M. M.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Randles, John S.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs	Reid, James (Greenock)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Groves, James Grimble	Remnant, Jas. Farquharson
Butcher, John George	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Campbell. J.H M.(Dublin Univ	Hall, Edward Marshall	Renwick, George
Cavelolish, V.C. W.(Derbyshire	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Ritchie, Rt. flu. C. Thomson
Charrington, Spencer	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H.A.E.	Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney).
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Heath, James(Staffords., N.W.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Hogg, Lindsay	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge	Houston, Robert Paterson	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cripps, Charles Alfred	Howard, J. (Midd. Tott'ham	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Crossley, Sir Savile	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Smith. Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dickson, Charles Scott	Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred	Spear, John Ward
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. O.	Johnstone, Heywood	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Doughty, George	Keswick, William	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Stroyan, John
Duke, Henry Edward	Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Dinning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)	Talbot, Lord E. (Chiebester)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Faber, George Denison (York)	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Valentia, Viscount
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lowther, C. (Cuamb.,Eskdale	Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r	Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Webb, Col. William George
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lvttelton, Hon. Alfred	Williams Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Fisher, William Hayes	Macdona, John Cumming	Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Milvain, Thomas	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Flower, Ernest	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Forster, Henry William	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bule	Wylie, Alexander
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, SW.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Gardner, Ernest	Percy, Earl
Gibbs, Hn A.G.H(City of Lond	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	Plummer, Walter R.	Sir Alexander Acland-
Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & N'rn	Pretyman, Ernest George	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Pryce-.Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir T. Eldon	Purvis, Robert
NOES.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale	Runciman, Walter
Bell, Richard	Henderson, Arthur (Durham,	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Horniman, Frederick John	Shackleton, David James
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn. Regis	Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Brigg, John	Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fred k.	Spencer, Nt. Hn. CR.(Northants
Broadhurst, Henry	Jones, William(Cornarv'n shire	Sullivan, Donal
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Kearley, Hudson E.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Thomas, Freeman (Hastings)
Burt, Thomas	Levy, Maurice	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Lewis, John Herbert	Tomkinson, James
Caldwell, James	Mansfield, Horace Reudall	Toumin, George
Causton, Richard Knight	Markham, Arthur Basil	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Cawley, Frederick	Moss, Samuel	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Cremer, William Randal	Price, Robert John	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Crooks, William	Rigg, Richard	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles	Roberts, John Bryon (Eifion)	Yoxall, James Henry
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Fenwick, Charles	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Robson, William Snowdon	Mr. Ure and Mr. Lough.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said that the Bill made no provision for the discontinuance of an order except by special revocations. The Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper made the continuance of an order dependent upon the continuance of the circumstances which had brought it into existence. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman that this was a very serious thing for our trade. This strong penal clause ought to be strictly guarded and limited. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page I, line 21, after the word ' Convention,' to insert the words and such order shall he in force until the permanent Commission reports that such bounty is no longer granted in such foreign country.'"—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

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

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said that in his opinion the Amendment amounted to an absurdity. When the reason for an order had expired the order would be revoked.

MR. LOUGH

said that what was wanted was to have a business conclusion to these transactions. None of the other Powers had any interest under this clause except this country. We were the only importing Power, and, therefore, we wanted to provide a machinery to have an end put to these transactions at some time.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said he did not know what sort of methods might sway future Governments, but this Bill placed the whole fiscal system of this country at the discretion of the Government for the time being, so far as the' prohibition of sugar was concerned. The right hon Gentleman had said that was not exactly what was proposed, but his (Mr. Bowles) opinion was that the order should be revoked when the permanent Commission reported that the bounty had ceased to be granted. It seemed to him to be only reasonable that when they made a provision for the prohibition of sugar they should also allow for the cessation of the order.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he did not like the words because they gave too much power to the permanent Commission. He would give some discretion to the Executive Government, and he thought something was to be said for putting in some word so that when the permanent Commission reported that the bounty was to be taken off, it should not be in the power of the Government to continue the duty. Circumstances might easily arise in which there might be sonic delay or reason whereby the prohibition was not taken off, and he failed to understand why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept some Amendment to settle the matter.

MR. LAWSON WALTON

said it was important that inasmuch as the publication of the order was made in such a way that the traders had notice of it, so the revocation of the order ought to be published with the same formalities, and its effect made known over an equally wide area. His objection to the Amendment was that time moment the Commission sitting in Brussels came to report that the bounty had ceased to be given, then, ipso facto, the operation of the order of the Council in this country came to an end. But how was the world at large to know the precise moment at which the Commission in Brussels came. to the conclusion to publish a report that the bounty had ceased? It was. necessary, therefore, that the order formally issued should be as formally withdrawn by the same authority, with the-same publicity, and with the same sanction, Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognised that when the justification of the order had been withdrawn the obligation would be cast upon the Government. to formally withdraw the order.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

did not propose to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, arid asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, at the same-time suggesting that when Clause 3 came to be considered the point could be dealt with by the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KEARLEY

said he wished to propose an Amendment. that was not upon the Paper. It was clearly laid down in the Convention what would happen under certain conditions, but the sugar traders were not supposed to know what the Convention contained, and this Bill, which was going to enact so much, did not contain what would be. the penalties to be imposed, under certain conditions, at a later date. His object was to make clear in the Bill the liability of the merchants to the States with whom they had forward contracts.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said the-effect of this Amendment would be to prolong the time which was fixed by the Act at two months.

MR. LOUGH

said he thought that a country legislating, as they were that night, should fix when the new duties should come into operation He suggested that they should fix the time at one month.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said he thought they must fix it at two months.

MR. BRYCE

asked the meaning of the words, "to take effect in two months' time."

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said they meant that the contracting States must prohibit countervailing duties within that time.

MR. REARLEY

said his Amendment contemplated the position in the event of the bounty existing after this Convention ca me into force. He wanted it clearly put in this Bill so that the merchants and traders in this country would know the limit of time in which they could clear their contracts. Otherwise the buyer would find that he had sugar on which he was liable in this country, whilst he would have no claim upon people outside this country. It was monstrous that a Merchant should be put in such a position. He begged to move to add at the end of Sub-section 1 the words "provided that any prohibition order issued against any non-signatory State found to be giving a bounty after the Convention collies into force, shall take effect in two months from the date of issue of such order."

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 21, at end, to insert the words 'provided that any prohibition order issued against any non-signatory State found to he giving a bounty after the Convention tunes into force shall take effect in two months from the date of issue of such order.'"—(Mr.kearley)

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

Mr. LOUGH

said he understood it would happen that when the permanent Commissioners had the matter brought to their notice, and had reason to suppose that any bounty was given by any particular non-signatory State they would report, and, within two months of the date of that report, the contracting State in order to comply with the Convention must either issue a prohibition order or impose countervailing duties. If the hon. Member's Amendment were to be inserted it would give two months from the making of the order, and would carry it on beyond the date provided for in the Convention. He would suggest that the date should be shortened to one month.

MR. KEARLEY

said he would act upon the suggestion and alter the date from two months to one month in order that the Commissioners need not he called together under a month, and having come to a decision they need not put that decision into force for two months. He imagined that the signatory States would be in a much better position than the non-signatory States. His object was that merchants or brokers in this country, who had entered into contracts with States who put themselves out of order at a later period by giving a bounty, might know how long they had to clear their contracts, He was endeavouring not to put anything in the Bill that was not in accordance with the terms of the Convention, but only to protect the interests of the British trader.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said the hon. Member had said he moved the Amendment in the interest of the British trader, but he could not understand how the shortening of the period from two months to one month would promote that interest.

Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH

moved to omit Subsection 2 of Clause 1 He said that in Sub-section 1 it was clearly put that if sugar came from any countries and prohibition orders should be issued against those countries, the effect would be that sugar from those countries could not he landed here. Sub-section 2 went a great deal further, and said that, when a prohibition order was in force, the laws relating to Customs should apply as if sugar were specified in the table of prohibitions and restrictions contained in Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. The members of the Committee would not know what that meant, but he would tell them. ft dealt with a number of artic'es which no one could bring into this country without committing a crime. These articles were books copyrighted in this country, false coins or silver of the realm not of the established weight, indecent or obscene prints, articles of foreign manufacture bearing an English name, watches or clocks having on them the name of an English maker, and finally it dealt with infected cattle or sheep, that, on purely sanitary grounds must be excluded. It gave the Customs authorities drastic powers of dealing with these prohibited articles. He proposed to omit that sub-section because any one of those articles might be rightly forfeited or destroyed, hut there was no cause to destroy sugar sent to this country from Russia or Egypt, or any other country which might by chance be condemned by this Commission. There was no relevancy between t his Act and the provision necessary to be made with regard to sugar. The truth was that the Government were in a difficulty. They had no precedent for prohibition, and did not know how to find means for disposing of the prohibited goods. It was, he contended, not right to give the Customs Commissioners power to destroy or dispose of this property. The provision had been hastily incorporated in the Bill and was not a necessary part of it. The Convention told them in Article ill what they ought to do; it did not say that it could be destroyed, and he could not imagine the slightest use for this subsection, as it simply applied to sugar. He begged to move to omit Sub-section 2 of Clause I.

Amendment proposed— In page 1.line 22, to leave out Sub-section (2)—(Mr. Louyh.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

* MR. RITCHIE

said that was a very simple one. Some kind of machinery was needed to deal with prohibited goods, and the machinery which had been provided in the case of prohibited sugar It was, however, an entire mistake to suppose the there would be a destruction of the sugar. In practice the goods were not allowed to be landed, but the Customs authorities might allow the sugar to be taken away to some port where a similar prohibition did not exist. The provision here was in the interest of those who brought in the prohibited cargo, and though the owner was not allowed to land it he could take it away under conditions laid down by the Customs. If this machinery was not adopted it would be impossible to deal with prohibited goods and make effective the prohibition provided by the clause Instead of setting up new machinery, the Government had thought it better to adopt the machinery which already existed in the Act of 1876.

Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that Section 42 of the Act of 1876 prescribed that certain goods should be forfeited.

* Mk. RITCHIE

Or otherwise disposed of.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

No, it specified that certain goods should be forfeited, and that, after being forfeited, they might be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the Commissioners of Customs might direct. Under that Act the Customs officers would not be entitled to order the owner of a cargo to take it away. He failed to understand why the right hon. Gentleman had interpreted the section as he had done.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said the hon. Member for Poplar had misapprehended Section 42. It was true goods might be forfeited, but in effect they were given back on payment of a fine. He remembered that on one occasion he was threatened with the forfeiture of ins yacht, because some of his crew had smuggled tobacco, but he was told that if he paid a fine of £15 10s., he could have it back. He objected to embodying the section in the Bill, because it gave too much latitude to the Customs officials.

MR. BRYCE

asked what instructions would be given to meet a case of the kind under this Bill.

* MR. RITCHIE

said that the instructions would certainly not contemplate anything like destruction of the sugar. The phrase "forfeited" in the Act of 1876 was a mere technical phrase as applied to the present Bill. Whether a fine would be inflicted or not, would of course depend on the circumstances of the case, but undoubtedly the sugar would he allowed to leave. There would not in any case be any question of destruction.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

said that forfeiture implied a loss of property, and the sugar would consequently become the property of the Crown, who would allow the owner to buy it back for a specified sum.

MR. ROBSON

thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a most excellent speech in favour of the Amendment, and had entirely justified it. Sub-section 2 was simply a provision which added certain penalties to prohibition. If the sub-section were omitted, we should have prohibition without further penalty. That was a reasonable course to adopt. There was nothing wrong in bringing sugar from a bounty-giving country to this country, especially if the cargo were on its way to some other place. Section 42 of the Customs Act, however, would cover this latter case, and the cargo would become subject to forfeiture. It had been suggested that forfeiture was merely a technical term. But the section of the Customs Act said that the cargo should be forfeited, arid might be destroyed or disposed of as the Commissioners thought fit. In these circumstances, if the Commissioners restored the cargo, lie thought a Court of law would take the view that they were refusing to perform the obligation which the section cast upon them.

* MR. RITCHIE

It is done every day.

MR. ROBSON

said that in that case it was done wrongly every day. He urged that they should confine their action to simple prohibition. They ought not to place sugar in the same category as indecent literature, and he would remind the Committee that the Convention did not pledge us to impose any penalties of this kind.

MR. KEARLEY

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained that these goods would be forfeited temporarily, but the objection was to honest goods being forfeited at all. There was no justification for their being so treated. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman be satisfied with refusing the goods access? Lower on the Paper he (the hon. Member) had placed a proposal to add the words "provided that such sugar should not be forfeited or destroyed." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to hasten the proceedings of the Committee he had only to intimate his willingness to accept that Amendment. Unless such an intimation was given they could only consider the matter as it stood in the Bill, and that was that the goods should be forfeited or destroyed.

* MR. RITCHIE

said he could not accept the Amendment to whcih the hon. Member referred. Circumstances could be conceived under which the forfeit must be a very real one. The powers of the Customs under the Act to which reference had been made, would be more. clearly understood if he read Section 209. (The right hon. Gentleman read the section.) It would thus be seen that the Customs had full power to deal with a cargo of this kind in the way he. had suggested. Section 42 was governed by Section 209.

MR. LAWSON WALTON

said he fully appreciated the point of view of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the administration of these powers was in the hands of the right hon Gentleman they would doubtless be exercised with great consideration. But it had to be remembered that the Government and Customs, officials, to whom the discharge of this, duty under the system would be entrusted, would be subjected to all kinds of pressure. In some cases it would be indicated that an example ought to be made, and a forfeiture, followed by a remission on a nominal payment, would not meet the demands of persons interested in maintaining the position which those engaged in the trade occupied under this legislation. In such cases a very invidious duty would be cast upon the Custom House officials if they were given the stringent powers conferred by this section. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether powers of a far less drastic character would not meet the necessities of the case. Where cattle were imported in an infected condition the mere fact that their condition was a danger to the health of the port entitled the Customs official to have the cattle destroyed, but where cattle were shipped from an infected port there were powers simply to refuse permission for them to be landed. Surely a similar power would be quite sufficient in this case. The section applied in the Bill was applicable to owners of property who were infringing what they knew to be the law, and every one of the cases referred to was a clear infringement of either the statute or the common law. The Government were now proposing to apply to an innocent person the power of forfeiture, which under the section incorporated, was applicable only to guilty owners who were seeking to evade the law. Such drastic powers were quite unnecessary, and he suggested it would be perfectly sufficient to say that any cargo arriving at a British port while an order, was in operation, would be refused the ordinary rights of landing, and the ship-owner ordered to take the cargo elsewhere.

MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)

said that apparently the Customs officials were to have an open mind and hold an inquiry into each special case as the ship came in. He could understand the Government sympathising with that attitude, but he desired to ask whether in the event of the Customs officials giving a harsh verdict, making an example, and insisting on the ship being forfeited. and imposing a heavy fine, there would be any appeal from their decision. Would the owner have any opportunity of placing his case before any other tribunal? If not, he thought this was a very hard provision. In many cases mere prohibition of landing would be quite sufficient.

MR. RUNCIMAN (Dew-bury)

instanced the case of a ship entering Liverpool with a part cargo, the remainder of which was to be discharged at another part, and asked whether such a vessel, coming say from the River Plate with a part cargo to be discharged in Copenhagen, and landing the first portion in an English port, would be subject to seizure in the same way as if she brought a cargo of sugar to an English port. It was a most important pint, and one which did not arise in the case of cattle. He hoped, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make some statement in relation to the subject.

* MR. RITCHIE

was understood to say that not being a lawyer he could not give an opinion on the point of law, but, what he imagined would happen in such a case as that referred to, was that although liable to forfeiture, it would be dealt with, without any fine or penalty of any kind, under Section 209, and would not be interfered with in any way.

MR. BRYCE

instanced the case of a cargo for the Argentine and another for this country. Technically, it would be brought into the United Kingdom and become subject to the order, although it was never intended to be landed here. He asked whether that was not a matter to be dealt with by instructions to the Customs officials. If the regulations were such as to prevent the part cargo being discharged and the vessel allowed to continue her voyage to the other port, the operations of merchants would be seriously interfered with. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could state that no obstacle would be put in the way of such a vessel coming into a British port so long as she did not attempt to land her cargo, it would relieve the difficulty.

* MR. RITCHIE

said that if such a case occurred, so far as his power was concerned, he would endeavour to secure that it was dealt with without inconvenience to the ship concerned.

MR. LOUGH

recognised the disposition of the right hon. Gentleman to make a genial arrangement, but the great principle raised by the Amendment had not been met in the least degree. The Government were inaugurating a system of protection, in which this measure was the first step, and there ought to be fair protective laws. Recourse ought not to be had to a law passed twenty-five years ago in the era of free trade which did not contemplate present circumstances at all. He was sorry to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was believed to be a free trader, lending the support of his good name to such a bad system. This sugar ought not to be forfeited, as no offence had been committed. Instead of such a stigma being thrown upon an importer, he should be told, "We have made new regulations, and you must go away." This was the easiest Amendment. the Opposition had suggested, and if there was any disposition to do so the Government could very well meet them.

Sin JOHN GORST

said the president of the Board of Trade had declared that the Bill was not to go one inch beyond the Convention. But this proposal distinctly went beyond the Convention,

because, whereas the Convention contemplated only countervailing duties or prohibition, this provision contemplated forfeiture in addition.

* MR. RITCHIE

said he was really astonished at his right hon. friend, a lawyer, assuming that they could enact a law prohibiting the entry of certain goods without providing means for carrying the law into force. Such a position was totally indefensible. With regard to goods in transit, he desired to correct his previous statement. He did not think any regulation would be necessary, because the Act would not apply to goods in transit.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 76. (Division List, No. 218.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Dalkeith, Earl of	Houston, Robert Paterson
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Dickson, Charles Scott	Howard. J. (Midd., Tott'ham
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. O.	Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Doughty, George	Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Johnstone, Heywood
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r	Duke, Henry Edward	Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Keswick, William
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N.R
Bigwood, James	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J.(Manc'r	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Bill, Charles	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Fisher, William Hayes	Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis	Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Flower, Ernest	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Forster, Henry William	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)
Bull, William James	Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.	Lowe, Francis William
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Fyler, John Arthur	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Butcher, John George	Gardner, Ernest	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Campbell J. H. M(Dublin Univ.	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H(City of Lond)	Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsmouth)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Godson, Sir Angustus Frederiek	Lyttelton. Hon. Alfred
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)	Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin&Nairn	Macdona, John Cumming
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	M`Arthur, Charles (Liever pool)
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby- (Salop	Melville, Beresford Valentine
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Wore.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Milvain, Thomas
Charrington, Spencer	Greene, W. Raymond (Combs	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.
Churchill. Winston Spencer	Groves, James Grimble	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hall, Edward Marshall	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Midx	Mount, William Arthur
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Haslett, Sir James Horner	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Percy, Earl
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)	Pierpoint, Robert
Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge	Heaton, John Henniker	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.	Hermon-Hodge. Sir Robert T.	Plummer, Walter R.
Cripps, Charles Alfred.	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Pretyman, Ernest George
Crossley, Sir Savile	Hogg, Lindsay	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Purvis, Robert	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Randles, John S.	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Rnefrew	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Rankin, Sir James	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Webb, Col. William George
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm,
Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Reid, James (Greenock)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H (Yorks)
Remnant, James Farquharson	Spear, John Ward	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine	Spencer, Sir E. (W.Bromwich)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Renwick, George	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)	Wylie, Alexander
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Stroyan, John	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Sir Alexander Acland-
Round, Rt. Hon. James	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Hood and Mr. Austruther.
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford	Thornton, Percy M
Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles	Valentia, Viscount
NOES.
Asher, Alexander	Harwood, George	Rigg, Richard
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas Scale-	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt Hy	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Hemderson, Arthur (Durham)	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee
Bell, Richard	Horniman, Frederick John	Robson, William Snowdon
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Brigg, John	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles, Fredk.	Rose, Chares Day
Broadhurst, Henry	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James,	Jacoby, James Alfred	Shackleton, David James
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Jones. Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burt, Thomas	Kearley, Hudson E.	Spencer, RtHn C. R. (Northan's
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Kilbride, Denis	Sullivan, Donal
Caldwell, James	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cornwall)	Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Causton, Richard Knight	Levy, Maurice	Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastigs
Cawley, Frederick	Lewis, John Herbert	Tomkinson, James
Cremer, William Randal	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Toulmin, George
Crooks, William	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Ure, Alexander
Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles	Markham, Arthur Basil	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Doogan, P. C.	Moss, Samuel	Warner Thos. Courtenay T.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Nussey, Thomas Willans	White, Luke (York. E. R.)
Elibank, Master of	Partington, Oswald	Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Emmott, Alfred	Paulton, James Mellor	Whitley, J. H. (Holifax)
Fenwick, Charles	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.	Price, Robert John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Priestley, Arthur	Mr. Lough and Mr.
Griffith, Ellis J.	Rea, Russell	Runciman
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Rickett, J. Compton

MR. LOUGH

said he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Loughborough. To him it did not seem to be necessary to make all those costly inquiries with regard to sugar which was only in transit. This question affected this country more than any other country, for England had been called the carrying nation of the world. He did not think they ought to go one single step further in the imposition of restrictions on the shipping trade than was absolutely necessary. It would have been much better if the Government had been satisfied with confirming the present law, which would have been sufficient for all purposes. Sugar in transit should be free from all restrictions. He wished to know if a barge came down the Elbe with 1,000 tons of sugar, some from Austria and some from Germany, consigned to one hundred different people in the United Kingdom, would there have to be one hundred certificates of origin, and would the sugar have to be traced to all the places from whence it came? At present a bill of lading, say from Hamburg to Hull, was all that was necessary, and that ought to be sufficient He begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words whether in transit or otherwise,' and insert the words except sugar in transit.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

opposed the Amendment on the ground that it was necessary to take this power of requiring certificates of origin to carry out the provisions of Article VIII. of the Convention. For that reason he should resist the Amendment.

SIR CHARLES DILKE

said the answer of the President of the Board of Trade, with which he was disposed to agree, showed the enormous danger this new system would expose the trade to. He believed that under this Bill they were bound to introduce some system of tins kind and apply it to all goods in transit. This showed that we should have to resuscitate our old Customs system in all its horrors, as a consequence of interference with British trade.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said the second Article, concerning the certificates of origin, in the findings of the permanent Commission, said that bounty-fed sugar might be admitted in transit. This had been translated "shall be" admitted. There did not seem to be anyone in the Foreign Office who could translate French. There were no fewer than seven articles specifying in the most minute detail the sort of certificate of origin that would be required. There was thus set up a system of certificates of origin which had failed all over the world, and wherever it had been tried it had always been given up as a failure. It was notorious that under a similar system a very large quantity of timber from Canada had been grown in Norway, sent over to Canada, and afterwards re shipped to this country. Again, the certificate of origin was a document of an extremely complicated character, and the Government had not yet decided what form the certificate should take. This was a very serious matter to those engaged in trade.

MR. BRYCE

also called attention to the extreme minuteness of these Articles. As he understood the view of the Government, it was t hat whatever this permanent Commission chose to say must be done, in order to carry out Article VIII, we were bound to do. They might impose a very heavy burden upon this country. He could not see the necessity for this elaborate provision. The system was bound to cause an immense amount of trouble. It would be a sample of what this country would have to undergo if there was any departure from its system of free trade.

MR. RUNCIMAN

asked the President of the Board of Trade to give some reason why it was necessary to demand certificates of origin when sugar was passing through open ports for purposes of transhipment. The right hon. Gentleman had referred them to Article VIII of the Convention, which provided that— The high contracting parties engage, for themselves and for their colonies or possessions, exception being made in the case of the self-governing colonies of Great Britain and the British East Indies, to take the necessary measures to prevent bounty-fed sugar, which has passed in transit through the territory of a contracting state, from enjoying the benefits of the Convention in the market to which it is being sent. He failed to see what could be the use of demanding certificates of origin merely for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of that Article, which did not throw any responsibility upon this country to prevent bounty- fed sugar from entering any of our ports. The right hon. Gentleman apparently did not fully realise how important were the transhipments in the United Kingdom. They ran to an enormous tonnage. Cargoes were brought in large ships for transhipment into a great fleet of smaller vessels, and the cargoes were delivered all over the world. The right hon. Gentleman was throwing obstacles in the way of transhipments, and was going to put a premium upon fraud. If the Bill went through in its present form, the certificate of origin would not be worth the paper on which it was printed. The right hon. Gentleman would throw every obstacle in the way of distributing goods from the ports of this country, which would amount to a restraint of English trade, and would add to the disadvantages under which the country would labour through this Convention.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said they were bound by the findings mentioned on page 12. Certificates of origin must accompany all sugar, although a certain discretion was left as to the form of the certificate. The whole transhipment must take place under the eye of the Customs authorities, and this country was bound by this arrangement to that objectionable system.

MR LAWSON WALTON

said that as he read the provisions of the Convention on page 12 they did not seem to apply at all except to sugar which entered the United Kingdom. Not only so, but they were limited to sugar for certain specified purposes. He thought there would be no difficulty in dealing with that large class of sugar to which reference had been made, which was brought into British ports on vessels merely calling for orders and on their way to European ports.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR.

repeated that it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said the Commission had decided that certificates of origin must accompany all sugar imported into the contracting States, and rules had been laid down in regard to this matter.

MR. LOUGH

said the President of the Board of Trade had mixed up the findings of the permanent Commission with the Convention itself. If the permanent Commission went further in their findings than the Convention required, they had no authority, and he had no respect for them whatever. Judging by the findings it seemed to him that they had left undone those things which they ought to have done, and done those things which they ought not to have done. The first duty they had to perform was to give information with regard to the sugar trade of the world and the bounty-fed sugar of various countries, but they had not given a scrap of information. The Foreign Office had supplied the bit of information given at the end of the findings. The duties of the Commission were set out in Article VII, and there was nothing there authorising them to fix the laws under which sugar should be sent in transit through this or any other country. The Commission were really not a judicial body as they ought to be. They were a cartel of protectionists who were trying to set up a system which would destroy the free-trade institutions of this country.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said the Committee were in a very difficult position. He thought they might appeal to the law officers of the Crown to give some light on the matter. There was great difference of legal opinion on the matter and he did not think it was treating the Committee rightly to leave the interpretation of the clause to the right hon. Gentleman. They were entitled to have an opinion from the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. It was perfectly clear from the wording of the Article that there was very great confusion as to its meaning. If our transport and transit trade was to be jeopardised by the findings of the Commission, the right hon. Gentleman should bring the facts and particulars before them and show how our trade would be injured.

MR. ROBSON

said it was difficult to see from the Convention itself how there was any necessity for such a sub-section being imposed on any of the contracting States. It enacted that sugar passing in transit should produce a certificate of origin. He turned to the Convention to see where any provision of that nature was made.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said the Convention enabled regulations to be made.

MR. ROBSON

said he took that correction, if it was a correction, but it did not affect the substance of his argument at all. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman referred to Article VII, but it imposed no such obligation on the Government. It said— The high contracting parties engage, for themselves and for their colonies or possessions, exception being made in the ease of the self-governing colonies of Great Britain and the British East Indies, to take the necessary measures to prevent bounty-fed sugar, which has passed in transit through the territory of a contracting State, from enjoying the benefits of the Convention in the market to which it is being sent. The permanent Commission shall make the necessary proposals with regard to this matter. He should like an explanation of what was meant by "the benefits of the Convention in the market to which it is being sent." It appeared to him that it was meaningless so far as England was concerned. It might have some remote connection with the benefit of the surtax, or something of that kind, in other countries. The President of the Board of Trade did not seem to be able to point out what it meant. How could they carry out the object of that Article by saying to an importer of bounty-fed sugar, "Where do you come from?" and then, when he told them, allowing him to pass on. They did not, by putting that question, prevent his sugar from enjoying the benefits of the market to which it was being sent. Whoever drafted the Bill ought to be able to explain in what way he meant this subsection to carry out that Article. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who had not taken a very active or aggressive part in the debate, might he permitted by his official superiors to give some explanation of the Bill, and to state how the object of the article could he carried out by this sub-section.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said it seemed to him impossible to carry out the article without having certificates of origin.

MR. RUNCIMAN

asked whether certificates of origin were necessary for goods in course of transhipment. The question was of the utmost importance.

MR. WHITLEY

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could give an estimate of the cost which would be involved in supervising these ques-tiens at all the ports in the United Kingdom. He was informed that thousands of men would have to be

added to the staff of the Customs to carry out this provision.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said one of the greatest grievances which our traders had against the laws of France had been the Sur-tax d'entrepot, which was an additional tax on sea-borne goods that passed through a foreign country on their way to France. This Bill would virtually impose that tax on goods which passed by this country on their way to foreign countries.

MR. BRYCE

appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to reply. He said this Bill would make the Convention part of the law of England, and they were entitled to know what the Convention meant.

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

said he had expressed his opinion more than once on this subject. Under Article VIII certain obligations were placed on the contracting Powers, and in respect of those obligations the permanent Commission were to make the necessary proposals. They had made those proposals, and the effect of them appeared to him, and also to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, to make it necessary for us, in. certain contingencies at all events, to require certificates of origin in the case of sugar in transit. Even if this country was not absolutely bound by the proposals of the permanent Commission, those proposals must be taken into serious consideration, and, whether these powers were ultimately exercised or not, it was necessary to take them in order to enable us to carry out those proposals.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 168; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 219.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Burdett-Coutts, W.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bigwood, James	Butcher, John George
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Bill, Charles	Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r	Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)	Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Brotherton, Edward Allen	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Bull, William James	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A(Worc)
Charrington, Spencer	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Rankin, Sir James
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Hogg, Lindsay	Reid, James (Greenock)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Remnant, James Farquharson
Collings, Rt Hn. Jesse	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine
Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready	Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred	Renwick, George
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Johnstone, Heywood	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg)	Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North	Keswick, William	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Crossley, Sir Savile	Lawrenue, Sir Joseph (Monm'th	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Dickson, Charles Scott	Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks.N. R.	Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Seely, Maj. J.E. B. (Isle of Wight
Doughty, George	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew
Douglas, Rt. Ron. A. Akers	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Duke, Henry Edward	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Spear, John Ward
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Brmwich)
Faber, George Denison (York)	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward	Lowe, Francis William	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Mane'r	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Stroyan, John
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Fisher, William Hayes	Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth	Stunt, Hon. Hamphry Napier
Flower, Ernest	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Forster, Henry William	Maedona, John Cumming	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Thornton, Percy M.
Fyler, John Arthur	M'Killcip, W. (Sligo, North)	Valentia, Viscount
Galloway, William Johnson	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Walker, Col. William Hall
Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. [Cityof Lond.	Milvain, Thomas	Walrond Rt. Hn. Sir Wm H
Godson, Sir Augnstus Frederick	Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Webb, Colonel William George
Gordon, Maj. Evans(Tr.H'ml'ts	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Williams, Rt Hn Powell(Birm
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Mount, William Arthur	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Greene, W. Raymod(Cambs.	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute	Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R(Bath
Groves, James Grimble	Nicholson, William Graham	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Gunest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Wylie, Alexander
Hall, Edward Marshall	Palmer, Waiter (Salisbury)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld.G(Midi x	Percy, Earl	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Pierpoint, Robert
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Plummer, Walter R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.	Pretyman, Ernest George	Sir Alexander Acland-
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Heath, James (Staffords. N. W	Purvis, Robert
Heaton, John Henniker	Handles, John S.
NOES.
Asher, Alexander	Fenwick, Charles	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt.Hy.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	M`Kenna, Reginald
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Griffith, Ellis J.	Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Bell, Richard	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Markham, Arthur Basil
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Harwood, George	Moss, Samuel
Brigg, John	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Broadhurst, Henry	Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	Partington, Oswald
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Horniman, Frederick John	Paulton, James Mellor
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Hutchinson, Dr.CharlesFredk.	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Price, Robert John
Caldwell, James	Jacoby, James Alfred	Priestley, Arthur
Causton, Richard Knight	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Rea, Russell
Cawley, Frederick	Kearlev, Hudson E.	Rickett, J. Compton
Cremer, William Randal	Kilbride, Denis	Rigg, Richard
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Roherts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Doogan, P. C.	Levy, Maurice	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanar k	Lewis, John Herbert	Robson, William Snowdon
Elibank, Master of	Lough, Thomas	Roe, Sir Thomas
Emmott, Alfred	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Rose, Charles Day

Runciman, Walter	Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings	Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)	Tomkinson, James
Shackleton, David James	Toulmin, George	TELLERS. FOR THE NOES—
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Ure, Alexander	Mr. Warner and Mr.
Spencer, Rt Hn C.R(Northants	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)	Whitley.
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	White, Luke (York, E R.)

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill' be now put"

Question put

"That the Question 'That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill' be now put"

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 220.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South	Percy, Earl
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr H'ml'ts	Piatt-Higgins, Frederick
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Gore, Hn. G.R.C.Ormsby(Salop	Plummer, Walter R.
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Greene, W. Raymond (Combs	Pretyman, Ernest George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Mauch' r	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Groves, James Grimble	Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Handles, John S.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hall, Edward Marshall	Rankin, Sir James
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Hamilton, Rt Hn. Ld.G (Midd'x	Rasch, Major Frederic Came
Bigwood, James	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Reid, James (Greenock)
Bill, Charles	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Remnant, Jas. Farquharson
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo	Renwick, Georga
Boseawen, Arthur Griffith	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Heaton, John Henniker	Robertson, Hertert (Hackney
Bull, William James	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Butcher, John George	Hogg, Lindsay	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Campbell, J.H.M(Dublin, Univ	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.	Seely, Maj J.E.B.(Isle of Wiyht
Cavendish,V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Keswick, William	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor	Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. A.J(Worc	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm' th	Spear, John Ward
Charrington, Spencer	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Cochrane, He. Thos. H. A. E.	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Stroyan, John
Colomb,Sir John Charles Ready	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg)	Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Taylor, Austin (Eest Toxteth)
Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S	Thornton, Percy M.
Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Valentia, Viscount
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Lowe, Francis William	Walker, Col. William Hall
Dickson, Charles Scott	Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)	Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Doughty, George	Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth	Webb, Col. William George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Wiliiams, Rt. Hn J Powell(Birm
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Macdona, John Cumming	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks
Faber, Edmund B. (Heats., W.	M Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Faber, George Denison (York	Milvain, Thomas	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward	Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Wylie, Alexander
Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Finch, Rt. Ho. George H.	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Fisher, William Hayes	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Forster, Henry William	Mount, William Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick,S. W	Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute	Sir Alexander Acland
Fyler, John Arthur	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Galloway, William Johnson	Nicholson, William Graham
Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lond	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
NOES.
Asher, Alexander	Jones, William (Garnarvonsh.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.	Kearley, Hudson E.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire	Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George	Robson, William Snowdon
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Kilbride, Denis	Roe, Sir Thomas
Brigg, John	Lawson Sir Wilfrid (Cronwall	Rose, Charles Day
Broadhurst, Henry	Levy, Maurice	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Lewis, John Herbert	Shackleton, David James
Caldwell, James	Lough, Thomas	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Causton, Richard Knight	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R(Northants
Churchill, Winston Spencer	M`Kenna, Reginald	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Cremer, William Randal	M`Killop, W. (Sligo, North)	Thomas, E. Freemai(Hastings)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Tonikinson, James
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Toulmin, George
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Moss, Samuel	Ure, Alexander
Elibank, Master of	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.
Emmott, Alfred	Partington, Oswald	Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Eenwick, Charles	Paulton, James Mellor	White, Luke (York. E. R.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Price, Robert, John	Whitley, J. B. (Halifax)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale	Priestley, Arthur
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	Rea, Russell	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Horniman, Frederick John	Itickett. J. Compton	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Hutton. Alfred E. (Morley)	Rigg, Richard	Mr. William McArthur.

Question put accordingly, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 221.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Leveson-Gower, Erederick. N.S
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fellowes,Hon.Ailwyn Edward	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir.I.(Manc'r.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J(Manch'r.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds	Fisher, William Hayes	Lowe, Prancis William
Balfour, Kenneth E. (Christch	Forster, Henry William	Lowther, C. (Comb. Eskdale)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Eyler, John Arthur	Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth
Bigwood, James	Galloway, William Johnson	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Bill, Charles	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H(City of Lond.	Macdona, John Cumming
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South	M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh w
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr.H'ml ts	Milvain, Thomas
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Gore, Hn G.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop	Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Bull, William James	Greene, W. Raymond. Cambs	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Morgan, David J(Welthamstow
Butcher, John George	Groves, James Grimble	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Campbell, J. H.M.(Dublin Univ,	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Mount, William Arthur
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Hall, Edward Marshall	Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute,
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Msdx	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Nicholson, William Graham
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Honor)	Harris, Frederick Leverton	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.(Birm.	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A(Wore.	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Percy, Earl
Charrington, Spencer	Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Heaton, John Henniker	Plummer, Walter R.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Pretyman, Ernest George
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Hogg, Lindsay	Purvis, Robert
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)	Randles, John S.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Rankin, Sir James
Corbett, T. L. (Dowa North)	Jeffreys, Ht. Hon. Arthur Fred.	Reid, James (Greenock)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Keswick, William	Remnant, James Farquharson
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S	Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Renwick, George
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow	Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson
Dickson, Charles Scott	Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Doughty, George	Lawson, john Grant(Yorks. NR	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Douglas, Ht. Hon. A. Akers-	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead.	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Hound, Ht. Hon. James
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford	Stull, Bon. Humphry Napier	Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.
Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath
Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)	Thornton, Percy M.	Wylie, Alexander
smith, Hon. W F. D. (Strand)	Valentia, Viscount	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George.
Spear, John Ward	Walker, Col. William Hall	Wyndham- Quin, Major W. H
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)	Walrond, Rt Hon Sir William H
Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset	Wanle, Colonel C. E.	TELLEES FOR THE AYES—Sir
Stanley, Lord (Lancs.	Webb, Colonel William George	Alexander Acland-Hood
Stroyan, John	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm	and Mr. Anstruther.
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley	Willox, Sir John Archibald
NOES.
Asher, Alexander	Jones, William(Cornarc'nshire	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Asquith. Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy	Kearley, Hudson E.	Robson, William Snowdon
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George	Roe, Sir Thomas
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Kilbride, Denis	Rose, Charles Day
Brigg, John	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Runciman, Walter
Broadhurst, Henry	Levy, Maurice	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Bryce, Et. Hon. James	Lewis, John Herbert	Shackleton, David James
Caldwell, James	Lough, Thomas	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Causton, Richard Knight	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R (Northants
Churchill, Winston Spencer	M`Kenna, Reginald	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Cromer, William Randal	Mansfield, Horace Kendall	Thomas, F.Freeman (Hastings
Dalkeith, Earl of	Markham, Arthur Basil	Tomkinson, James
Devlin, Joseph (Kikenny, N.)	Moss, Samuel	Toulmin, George
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Ure, Alexander
Elibank, Master of	Partington, Oswald	Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Emmott, Alfred	Paulton, James -Mellor	Warner Thomas Courtenay T.
Fenwick, Charles	Pearson Sir Weetman D.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Price, Robert John	Whiteley, J.H. (Halifax)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Priestley, Arthur	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale	Rea, Russell
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Rickets, J. Compton	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Horniman, Frederick John	Riga, Richard	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Mr. William M'Arthur.

Clause 2.

* THE CHAIRMAN

All the Amendments to Clause 2 are out of order, as they suggest conditions outside the Convention, except the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington, "In line 40 to leave out 'fifty ' and insert five hundred.'"

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

moved to omit the words "in the United Kingdom" front line 3, in order to ask what would be the position of the Isle of Man under this Bill. Foreign nations usually, and even our own re-presentatives frequently, forgot the extraordinarily anomalous position of countries in the neigh bourhood of the United Kingdom. Jersey and Guernsey were independent kingdoms, bound to this country simply by a personal union; they had a fiscal system of their own, over which we had no control whatever; they could grant bounties as they pleased and were entirely outside the scope of this Bill. The Isle of Man was not in that position. It was not a part of the United Kingdom, but yet we bound it and were bound for it. On the Order Paper was a Customs Bill applying the sugar duty of this year to the Isle of Man, and he took it that a similar course of introducing a separate Bill would have to be introduced with regard to this Sugar Convention. Ho asked whether that matter had been considered by the Government, whether it was proposed to follow the present Bill by a similar statute, arid what would happen with regard to the Isle of Man until that second Nil was passed. In order to raise the point he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page2, line 3, to leave out the words 'in the United Kingdom.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

SIR EDWARD CARSON

had no hesitation in saying that the words "United Kingdom" did not include the Isle of Man.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said his point was that the words "United Kingdom" never included the Isle of Man for any purpose whatever, and that in connection with all matters of this kind a special Bill had to be passed for the Isle of Man. That being so, he desired to know whether the Government intended to introduce another Bill in this case.

* MR. RITCHIE

said he was not certain whether it would be necessary, and, as the Amendment bad not been placed on the Paper, he had had no opportunity of considering it. He had not the slightest doubt, however, that whatever obligations were placed on the United Kingdom by the Bill would be applied also to the Isle of Man.

SIR CHARLES DILKE

Then it will require a statute.

* MR. RITCHIE

If a statute is required it will be brought before the House, but I am not certain that one will be required.

* SIR CHARLES DILKE

said there was no doubt that the words did not cover the Isle of Man, and that with regard to ordinary legislation it had always been necessary to pass a separate Act for the Isle of Man. He submitted that a similar course would have to be followed in this case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WHITLEY

asked whether the Committee were not entitled to ask on what grounds all the Amendments save one to the second clause had been ruled out of order.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. JEFFREYS, Hampshire, N.)

, who was now in the Chair, said the matter could not now be raised as the ruling had been given and business proceeded with.

MR. BRYCE

said it would be a convenience to the Committee for future guidance if they were told on what grounds the Amendments had been ruled out of order. Many of the Amendments primâ facie appeared to be in order. He had no doubt the Chairman of Committees had good reasons for his decision, but it would enlighten the Committee to know what they were.

* MR. RITCHIE

said they could not discuss the reasons which had actuated the Chairman of Committees in giving his decision, but for his own part he conceived that the reason the Amendments were ruled out of order was that they were contrary to the Convention.

MR. LOUGH

moved to substitute "500" for "5O" in line 40. The clause provided that the maximum penalty for breach of the rues for carrying on the business of sugar refining should be £50. He thought the amount mentioned in his Amendment would be a more adequate penalty.

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 40, to leave out the word 'fifty' and insert the words 'five hundred.'" —(Mr. Lough.)

* MR. RITCHIE

said he did not think it was wise to have an excessive amount. He had consulted the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and they stated that they were satisfied that £50 was quite sufficient.

* MR. LOUGH

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH

said he could quite understand why sugar factories on the Continent should be placed in bond because sugar factories abroad stood much in the same position as distilleries in this country. But in this country there was no production of sugar, and it seemed to him that there had been great negligence on the part of their representatives abroad in not making an arrangement, more suitable to the requirements of the United Kingdom, than that which had been embodied in this clause. Surely they might have had some arrangement which would have been less expensive, for they already had a very heavy duty on sugar.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well have continued to take his revenue at the port. This was a point in this miserable business which showed how the interests of this country had been entirely neglected by the representatives of this country. He did not see the slightest necessity for any such arrangement, and no case whatever had been made out for the bonding of sugar factories in this country. It was unfortunate that the representatives of this country did not make some arrangement that would have been less expensive. He contended that our interests had not been properly guarded in so readily accepting these onerous arrangements, and he hoped they would express their feelings upon this matter by taking a division.

MR. ROBSON

said there seemed no reason why English sugar refiners' factories should be placed in bond at all. He could understand why this was necessary in the case of Germany or France where drawbacks were given on exportation, but nothing of that kind happened in this country. This clause contained a costly and irritating provision which was quite foreign to the habits of English trade, and it was also contrary to the general line of English legislation.

* MR. RITCHIE

said that the Convention could not be carried out without this clause. Whether rightly or wrongly, we were bound to carry out the Convention, and one of the terms of the Convention was that sugar-refining should be carried on in bond. As a matter of fact there were no sugar factories in this country, but there were on the Continent. In the new condition of things the duty would not be collected on the raw sugar, but on the refined sugar as it came out of the factory. One of the conditions was that the duty should be levied on the refined sugar so that there could be no question at all of any bounty. It was perfectly true that but for this Convention they might have gone on without supervision, but so far as the sugar refiners themselves were concerned, he did not understand that there was the least complaint as to the conditions under which they would in the future have to carry on their work.

MR. BRYCE

said that no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a valid reason why what had been agreed to in the Convention should be embodied in the Bill, but surely it would have been only proper for our negotiator to have had a provision inserted to meet the case of England, instead of imposing conditions which were annoying and vexatious to them.

MR. MANSFIELD (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

said that after the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he did not feel so strongly on the subject. Penalties of the kind proposed were more suitable for anarchists than for people carrying on a lawful trade. He thought the sugar refiners ought to have had some opportunity of giving their views before such clauses, which went so far to revolutionise the existing state of things, were introduced.

MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough)

said it seemed to him that the rules proposed were too drastic. If a man wanted to continue, or to start, in the trade he would have to go to the Commissioners and ask to be allowed to do so. He did not think people should have to do this in order to carry on what was a legitimate trade. It was especially hard that they should be called upon to do so in this country, where raw sugar was not produced. In his opinion there was absolutely no justification for putting on this embargo.

MR. WHITLEY

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed them that this clause was imposed by the Convention. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman meant the permanent Commission. He thought it would have been very much more proper if, instead of starting the clause "His Majesty may by Order in Council" do so and so, the words had been "When instructed by the permanent Commission in Brussels, His Majesty shall" do so and so, for that was the real state of the case. He really thought the House should adjourn after passing a vote of thanks to the permanent Commission in Brussels for doing their legislation for them. It would be for their convenience if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain whether the words in italics would interfere with the power of himself or his successor to propose a remission of the existing sugar duties.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

said the clause made further restrictions on our trade. In drawing attention to Sub-section C, in which provision was made for the processes of manufacture to be open to the officers of the Commission, he said he could quite conceive that the processes of manufacture might in the immediate future be very much improved, and it might not be possible for the refiner to patent the process. Secrecy would be impossible to him under the sub-section, since the officers of the Commission might see the process, and take all particulars of it, and such

secrecy as the manufacturer had been able to obtain in the past would be-entirely gone. As to the last sub-section of the clause, which dealt not only with heavy penalties in the event of the Act being infringed, but also provided for the forfeiture of the articles used in the process of manufacture, he declared that from beginning to end the penalties were so drastic as to be almost absurd. The refineries would also be open to the inspection of the representatives of the Home Office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the refiners did not object to these regulations. He could well understand that, for they were getting a particularly good bargain out of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 222.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir.J(Manc'r	Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Bristol,S.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Fisher, William Hayes	Lowe, Francis William
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Forster, Henry William	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r	Foster, P.S. (Warwick, S. W.	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Balfour, Rt Hn. GeraldW(Leeds	Fyler, John Arthur	Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christh.)	Galloway, William Johnson	Macdona, John Cumming
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Gibbs, Hn A.G.H(City of Lond	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Bill, Charles	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	M'Iver Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South	Milvain, Thomas
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts	Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Gore, Hn G.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Bull, William James	Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs	Morgan, David J.(Walth'mstow
Butcher, John George	Grevilie, Hon. Ronald	Mount, William Arthur
Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ	Groves, James Grimble	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hall, Edward Marshall	Nicholson, William Graham
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'.	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hare, Thomas Leigh	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Harris, Frederick Leventon	Percy, Earl
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A(Worc.	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Charrington, Spencer	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Plummer, Walter R.
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Heath, James(Staffords., N.W.	Pretyman, Ernest George
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Heaton, John Henniker	Pryce-Jones. Lt.-Col. Edward
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Purvis, Robert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Hoare, Sir Samuel	Randles, John S.
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Rankin, Sir James
Compton, Lord Alywne	Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George	Reid, James (Greenock)
Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgour)	Keswick, William	Remnant, James Farquharson
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Renwick, George
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Crossley, Sir Savile	Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Dickson, Charles Scott	Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Doughty, George	Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Seely, Maj. J.E.B(Isle of Wight
Faber, George Denison (York)	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)	Thornton, Percy M.	Wylie, Alexander
Spear, John Ward	Valentia, Viscount	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)	Walker, Col. William Hall	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)	Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H
Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Warde, Colonel C. E.	TELLERS FOR THE AVES—
Stroyan, John	Webb, Colonel William George	Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm	and Mr. Anstruther.
Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)	Wodehouse, t. Hn. E.R.(Bath
NOES.
Asher, Alexander	Jones. Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Rooson, William Snowdon
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Roe, Sir Thomas
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Kilbride, Denis	Rose, Charles Day
Broadhurst, Henry	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Runciman, Walter
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Lewis, John Herbert	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
Caldwell, James	Lougth, Thomas	Shackleton, David James
Causton, Richard Knight	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Cremer, William Randal	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants
Dalkeith, Earl of	M'Kenna, Reginald	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, F. Freeman(Hastings)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Moss, Samuel	Tomkinson, James
Doogan, P. C.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Toulmin, George
Elibank, Master of	Partington, Oswald	Ure, Alexander
Emmott, Alfred	Paulton, James Mellor	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Fenwick, Charles	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Price, Robert John	Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Priestley, Arthur	Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Rea, Russell
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Rickett, J. Compton	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Horniman, Frederick John	Rigs, Richard	Mr. Levy and Mr. Mansfield.
Hutton. Alfred E. (Morley)	Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

Clause 3.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough on page 37 are out of order.

MR. ROBSON

asked what there was in the Convention to alter this. It was a very serious matter if it was held that the discussion of this important question could not take place.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The House might not be sitting at the time.

MR. ROBSON

said he could not see how that affected the fact of the Amendments being out of order. It might be an objection, but surely it could not make the Amendments of his hon. friend out of order.

MR. LOUGH

said he was afraid that the ruling which had just been given might prevent him moving the new clause he had put down.

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot discuss his new clause now.

MR. ROBSON

said he thought that when this Bill was laid before the House it was laid before them for the purpose of being discussed in order that the House might modify or alter the measure if it thought fit. It seemed now that all further discussion was out of order, and modification was also not in order. They were bound to accept the rulings of the Chair, but he thought they were entitled to protest against the way the House of Commons and the country had been treated in this matter. What was the meaning of putting a Bill before the House?

THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That question is certainly out of order upon the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

MR. ROBSON

said he was confining his observations to Clause 3. What avail was it to them to propose Amendments to Clause 3 when the Government had made up their mind that no Amendment would be accepted. The whole discussion was ridiculous from beginning to end, and it was nothing less than a discredit to the House of Commons, and it was not respectful either to the House of Commons or the country. It was not only discreditable but it was insulting the House of Commons that they should be called upon to discuss this Bill for the ostensible purpose of amending it when, as a matter of fact, it was a mere farce and pretence, because the Government had made up their mind to avoid subsequent proceedings and to admit no Amendments whatever. Such a proceeding was not respectful or fair to the House of Commons, or the country, or the mercantile classes whose interests were so seriously involved. If any kind of measure required full discussion it was a trade Bill, and that was just the kind of Bill which the Government had determined should not have the ordinary stages of discussion in the House of Commons. He thought the House ought to register its protest against such conduct in the Division Lobby.

MR. LOUGH

said there was the strongest reason why they should take a. division upon this clause, because it contained precisely the same policy

which his hon. friend had denounced. It stated that this Act might be altered, revoked, or added to by an Order in Council. Why should machinery be set up to do that? They might abolish by one of those Orders all that Parliament had done. That was another of the indignities thrown upon the House of Commons by t his Bill. The Government had shown the utmost contempt for the House of Commons. By an Order in Council, which the country and the House did not understand, the Government took the right to set aside this law or make, additions to it, and to do exactly what they pleased. If a Government should happen to be returned more anxious to preserve the interests of the country than the present Government, this clause would give them an opportunity of revoking this measure.

MR BROADHURST (Leicester)

asked why glucose was exempted. Was it because the brewers were interested in it?

* MR. RITCHIE

said that glucose did not fall under the term of sugar.

Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 135; Noes 50. (See Division List No. 223.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Hall, Edward Marshall
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Atkinson, Right Hon. John	Dalkeith, Earl of	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Dickson, Charles Scott	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Man'r	Doughty, George	Heath James (Staffords, N. W
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers	Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Kemp, Lieut-Colonel George
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Keswick, William
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Faber, George Denison (York..)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow
Bull, William James	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)
Camphell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.	Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Mad'r	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N.R
Cavendish, R. F.(N. Lancs.)	Fisher, William Hayes	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.	Forster, Henry William	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.	Fyler, John Arthur	Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Wore	Galloway, William Johnson	Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A.R.
Charrington, Spencer	Gibbs, Hn A. G. H.(City of Lond.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Churchill Winston Spencer	Godson, Sir Augustus Erederick	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'rH'mlets	Lowe, Francis William
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Groves, James Grimble	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Macdona, John Cumming
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Remnant, Jas. Farquharson	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'rgh, W	Renwick, George	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Milvain, Thomas	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Thornton, Percy M.
Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Valentia, Viscount
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Robertson, H. (Hackney)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Mount, William Arthur	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Warde, Colonel C. E
Murray, Rt Hn. AGraham(Bute	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford	Webb, Col. William George
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Nicholson, William Graham	Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight	Willox, Sir John Archibald
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)	Wylie, Alexander
Percy Earl	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Spear, John Ward	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Pretyman, Ernest George	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich
Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Purvis, Robert	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Sir Alexander Acland
Randles, John S.	Stroyan, John	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Rankin, Sir James	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Reid, James (Greenock)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
NOES.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Rickett, J. Compton
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Kearley, Hudson, E.	Rigg, Richard
Broadhurst, Henry	Kilbride, Denis	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bryce, Right Hon. James	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Caldwell, James	Levy, Maurice	Runciman, Walter
Causton, Richard Knight	Lewis, John Herbert	Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Cremer, William Randal	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Shackleton, David James
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)
Doogan, P. C.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Toulmin, George
Elibank, Master of	Moss, Samuel	Ure, Alexander
Fenwick, Charles	Nussey, Thomas Winans	Warner, Thomas Conrtenay T.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Partington, Oswald	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Paulton, James Mellor	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-	Pearson Sir Weetman D.
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Price Robert John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Horniman, Frederick John	Priestley, Arthur	Mr. Lough and Mr.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Rea, Russell	Robson.

Clause 4.

MR. RUNCIMAN

said he would like to move to insert the word "dear" before "sugar," in line 11, Clause 4. His object was to draw attention to the true character of the Bill, and the transactions which had led up to it.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot really accept that Amendment. The Act is one to bring in force the Sugar Convention, and not the "Dear Sugar" Convention. The Amendment is only tendered in mockery.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

May I remind you, Sir, that in connection with the Home Rule Bill introduced into this House the preamble set forth that it was a Bill for the better Government of Ireland, and an Amendment was moved which resulted in a long discussion to leave out the word "better," on the ground that it was an attempt to foist sham loyalty into a Bill He should be happy to support the-Amendment of the hon. Member for Dewsbury if it were in order.

* THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot accept the Amendment.

MR.WINSTON CHURCHILL

It is suggested only in the interests of accuracy. The object of the Bill is in fact to increase the price of sugar, and therefore the measure would be much more accurately described as the Dear Sugar Convention Bill.

* THE CHAIRMAN

That is a matter for the Commission

MR. RUNCIMAN

said his object was to draw attention to the fact that this Bill referred not to any previous or succeeding Convention, but to the Dear Sugar Convention which they had been discussing during the last few weeks. On that ground he submitted that his Amendment was in order.

* THE CHAIRMAN

thought the Amendment was moved in a spirit of mockery.

MR. BROADHURST

asked whether he was in order in moving to substitute 'prohibition" for "convention."

* THE CHAIRMAN

said there was nothing about sugar being prohibited. The short title was, "An Act to make provision for giving effect to the Convention signed on March 5th, 1902."

MR. BROADHURST

then asked whether he might move to substitute "sugar supply limitation," for "Sugar Convention."

MR. BRYCE

asked whether, according to Parliamentary usage it was not within the power of the House itself to determine the title to be given to an Act. If it was thought that a particular description was more apt or suitable to the character of the measure, might not the House express its own opinion?

* THE CHAIRMAN

I will not contradict the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. BRYCE

submitted that in that case the Amendment of his hon. friend was in order.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The words proposed are—?

MR. BROADHURST

To substitute "supply limitation" for "Convention."

Amendment proposed— In page 3, line 11, to leave out the word 'Convention,' and insert the words 'supply limitation.'"—(Mr. Broadhurst.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Convention' stand part of the clause."

MR. RUNCINIAN

submitted that the description of his Amendment as having been moved in a spirit of mockery ought not to have been applied. Not even a Chairman of Committees was entitled inaccurately to impute motives. He asked whether his Amendment was ruled out of order as being contrary to Parliamentary practice.

* THE CHAIRMAN

Yes, for the reason I have given—that this Act is to bring into force the Sugar Convention. There is nothing about dear sugar in that Convention.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 224.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S	Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G.(Mid'x
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Dickson, Charles Scott	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Doughty, George	Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Keswick, William
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glassgow)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r	Lawson, John Grant(Yorks NR
Bull, William James	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ	Fisher, William Hayes	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Forster, Henry William	Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)	Fyler, John Arthur	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Galloway. William Johnson	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm	Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of Lond	Lonsdale,.John Brownlee
Chamherlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Lowe, Francis William
Charrington, Spencer	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Clive, Captain Percy A.	Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Green, W. Raymond (Combs	Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmonth
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Greville, Hon. Ronald	Macdona, John Cumming
Compton, Lord Alwyne	Groves, James Grimble	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)	Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Hall, Edward Marshall	Milvain, Thomas
Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Thornton, Percy M.
Morgan, David J (Walthamstow	Robertson, H. (Hackney)	Valentia, Viscount
Mount, William Arthur	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Walker, Col. William Hall
Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford-	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Nicholson, William Graham	Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles	Webb, Col. William George
O'Neill, Hon. Robers Torrens	Seely, Maj. J. E.B. (Isle of Wight	Williams, Rt HnJ Powell(Birm
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Skewes-Cox. Thomas	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Percy, Earl	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Pretyman, Ernest George	Spear, John Ward	Wylie, Alexander
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Purvis, Robert	Stanley, EdWard Jas. (Somerset)	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Randles John S.	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Rankin, Sir James	Stroyan, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Reid, James (Greenock.)	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley	Sir Alexander Acland-
Remnant, Jas. Farquharson	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Renwick, George	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
NOES.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Kilbride, Denis	Robson, William Snowdon
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Lawson Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Roe, Sir Thomas
Caldwell, James	Levy, Manrice	Runciman, Walter
Causton, Richard Knight	Lewis, John Herbert	Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Lough, Thomas	Shackleton, David James
Cremer, William Randal	MacVreagh, Jeremiah	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Toulmin, George
Doogan, P. C.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Ure, Alexander
Elibank, Master of	Moss, Samuel	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Emmott, Alfred	Nussey, Thomas Willans	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Partington, Oswald	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Pearson Sir Weetman D.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale	Price, Robert John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.	Priestley, Arthur	Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.
Horniman, Frederick John	Rea, Russell	Fenwick.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Rickett, J. Compton
Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Rigg, Richard

MR. MANSFIELD

asked if it would be in order to move to add the words the Sugar Convention price raising Bill."

* THE CHAIRMAN

Is that a true description of the Bill?

Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 50. (Division List No. 25.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Charrington, Spencer	Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Churchill, Winston Spencer	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Clive, Captain Percy A.	Fisher, William Hayes
Atkinson, Right Hon. John	Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Forster, Henry William
Bailey, Janie, (Walworth)	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Fyler, John Arthur
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds	Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow	Galloway, William Johnson
Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H(City of Lond.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.	Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Dalkeith, Earl of	Gordon, Maj Evans(T'r H'mlets
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Dickson, Charles Scott	Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.
Bull, William James	Doughty, George	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Campbell, J. H. M(Dublin Univ	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Groves, James Grimble
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Guest. Hon. Ivor Churchill
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Hall, Edward Marshall
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor.	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J. (Birm)	Faber, George Denison (York)	Hare, Thomas Leigh
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A (Worc,	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Mount, William Arthur	Spear, John Ward
Heath, James(Staffords, N.W.	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bule	Spencer, Sir E (W. Bromwich
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.	Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Keswick, William	Nicholson, William Graham	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Stroyan, John
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Palner, Walter (Salisbury)	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Lawrenee, Sir Joesph(Monm'th	Percy, Earl	Sturt, Hon. Hummphry Napier
Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester
Lawson, John Grant(Yorks,. NR	Pretyman, Ernest George	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Thornton, Percy M.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Purvis, Robert	Valentia, Viscount
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Randles, John S.	Walker, Col. William Hall
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Rankin, Sir James	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Reid, James (Greenock)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S	Remnant, James Farquharson	Webb, Colonel William George
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Renwick, George	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell(Birm
Lowe, Francis William	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Wodehonse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Robertson, H. (Hackney)	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.	Wylie, Alexander
Macdona, John Cumming	Repner, Colonel Sir Robert	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W	Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles
M'Ivain, Thomas	Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Sir Alexander Acland
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Smith,. James Parker (Lanerks	Hood and Mr, Anstruther.
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
NOES
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Rickett, J. Compton
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Kearley, Hudson, E.	Rigg, Richard
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Kilbride, Denis	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Caldwell, James	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall	Robson, William Snowdon
Causton, Richard Knight	Levy, Maurice	Roe, Sir Thomas
Cremer, William Randal	Lewis, John Herbert.	Runciman, Walter
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)	Lough, Thomas	Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Shackleton, David James
Doogan, P. C.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Elibank, Master of	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe
Emmott, Alfred	Markham, Arthur Basil	Toulmin, George
Fenwick, Charles	Moss, Samuel	Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John	Nussey, Thomas Willans	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Partington, Oswald	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale-	Pearson, Sir Weettuan D.
Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.	Price, Robert John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Horniman, Frederick John	Priestly, Arthur	Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.
Hutton, Alfred E. ( Morley)	Rea, Russell	Ure.

Preamble.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the preamble of the Bill."

MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)

moved to leave out "the King's Most Excellent Majesty," and insert the words "divers foreign Powers."

* THE CHAIRMAN

said that was out of order because it was contrary to fact.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 134: Noes, 50. (Division List No. 226.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Brodrick. Rt. Hon. St. John	Churchill, Winston Spencer
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Brotherton, Edward Allen	Clive, Captain Percy A.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Bull, William James	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ)	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Compton, Lord Alwyne
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r	Cavendislt, V.C. W. (Derbyshire	Corbett, A.Catiteron (Glasgow)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Corbett. T. L. (Dawn, North)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch	Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm	Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim S.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Charrington, Spencer	Dalkeith, Earl of
Dickson, Charles Scott	Lawson, John Grant(Yoeks, NR	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Doughty, George	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Rolleston, Sir John E. L.
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Lockwood, Lieut -Col. A. R.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.)	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Faber, George Denison (York)	Long, RtHon Walter(Bristol,S)	Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle ofWight
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r	Lowe, Francis William	Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Sinith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Fishier, William Hayes	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Spear, John Ward
Forster, Henry William	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Spencer, Sir E. (W Bromwich)
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.	Macdona, John Cumming	Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset
Fyler, John Arthur	M'Arthar, Charles (Liverpool)	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Galloway, William Johnson	M'Iver Sir Lewis(EdinburghW.	Stroyan, John
Gibbs, Hn A.G.H(City of Lond	Milvain, Thomas	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hodley
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Stunt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Gordon, J. (Londondeyry, S.)	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Talbot, Lord E.(Chiehester)
Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxieth)
Greene, W. Raymondt (Cambs.)	Mount, William Arthur	Thornton, Percy M.
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute	Valentia, Viscount
Groves, Janses Grimble	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Nicholson, William Graham	Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.
Hall, Edward Marshall	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Midx	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Webb, Col. William George
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Percy, Earl	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Pretyman, Ernest, George	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred	Purvis, Robert	Wylie, Alexander
Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George	Bandies, John S.	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Keswick, William	Rankin, Sir James	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Reid, James (Greenock)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasaow	Remnant, James Farquharson	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th	Renwick, George	Sir Alexander Acland-
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson	Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Jones, William (Carnarconsh.)	Rickett, J. Compton
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Kearley, Hudson, E.	Rigg, Richard
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Kilbride, Denis	Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.
Caldwell, James	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)	Robson, William Snowdon
Causton Richard Knight	Levy, Maurice	Roe, Sir Thomas
Cremer, William Randal	Lewis, John Herbert	Runciman, Walter
Devlin, Joseph (KillKenny, N.)	Lough, Thomas	Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	MacVeagh, Jeremiah	Shackleton, David James
Doogan, P. C.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Elibank, Master of	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radecliffe
Emmott, Alfred	Markham, Arthur Basil	Toulmin, George
Fenwick, Charles	Moss, Samuel	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	Nussey, Thomas Willans	White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	Partington, Oswald	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	Price, Robert John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Horniman Frederick John	Priestley, Arthur	Mr. Ure and Mr. Broad-hurst.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Rea, Russell

Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment,to the House.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 41. (Division List No. 227.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Charrington, Spencer
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Clive, Captain Percy A.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Brotherton, Edward Allen	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Bull, William James	Compton, Lord Alwyne
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Cavendish, R. E. (N. Lancs.)	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r	Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Chamberlain. Rt Hon J (Birm	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A (Worc	Dalkeith, Earl of
Dickson, Charles Scott	Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C.Thomson
Doughty, George	Lees, Sir Elliott (BirKehead)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford-
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Faber, George Denison (York)	Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r	Lowe, Francis William	Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdate)	Spear, John Ward
Fisher, William Hayes	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bremwich)
Forster, Henry William	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmonth	Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Foster, Philip. S(Warwick, S.W	Macdona, John Cumming	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Fyler, John Arthur	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Stroyan, John
Gibbs, Hn. A.G. H. (City of Lond	M'Iver. Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Grodson, Sir Augustits Frederick	Milvam, Thomas	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Gordon, Maj Evans(T'r Haml'ts	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)	Morgan, D.J. (Walthamstow)	Thornton, Percy M.
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Mount, William Arthur	Va1entia, Viscount
Groves, James Grimble	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Walker, Col. William Hall
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill	Nicholson, William Graham	Walrond, Rt Hon Sir William H.
Hall, Edward Marshall	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Webb, Colonel William George
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Perey, Earl	Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George	Purvis, Robert.	Wylie, Alexander
Keswick, William	Randles, John S.
Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.	Rankin, Sir James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Reid, James (Greenock)	Sir Alexander Acland-
Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)	Remnant, Jas. Farquharson	Hood and Mr.Anstrnther.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool	Renwick, George
NOES.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Kilbride, Denis	Rigg, Richard
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall	Roe, Sir Thomas
Broadhurst, Henry	Levy, Maurice	Runciman, Walter
Caldwell, James	Lewis, John Herbert	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland
Cremer, William Randal	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Shackleton, David James
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Shipman, Dr. John G.
Doogan, P. C.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe
Elibank, Master of	Moss, Samuel	Toulmin, George
Fenwick, Charles	Nussey, Thomas Willans	Ure, Alexander
Griffith, Ellis J.	Partington, Oswald	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.	Price, Robert John
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Priestley, Arthur	TELLEES FOR THE NOES—
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Rea, Russell	Mr. Lough and Mr.
Kearley, Hudson E.	Rickett, J. Compton	Wanier.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.