HC Deb 13 May 1907 vol 174 cc701-17

As amended, considered.

Mr. FERENS (Hull, E.)

moved to insert the following proviso to Clause 5: "Provided also that no allowance shall be made for compulsory sale, but the arbitrator, arbitrators, or umpire, who shall determine such price or consideration (in this section called 'the court'), may make such allowance as they think just for re-coupment of any loss of interest pending reinvestment, as well as for the cost of reinvestment, and for covering any costs, charges, and expenses (other than costs in curred in any arbitration under this Act), which have been, or are likely to be, incurred in consequence of the passing of this Act by the company or the stockholders therein, and which ought, in the opinion of the court, to be borne by the corporation." He said the gas supply of Hull had until recently been in the hands s of three companies—the British Gas Light Company, the Kingston upon Hull Gas Company, and the East Hull Gas Company. In addition to the gas under-taking, the corporation owned the water, the electric lighting, the electric power, and the tramway undertakings. Perhaps he was not exaggerating when he said that the tramway system was the best in the country. Those industrial undertakings had been so well managed by the corporation as to contribute to the reduction of the rates between £20,000 and £30,000 per annum. The East Hull Gas Company affected by this Bill were established in 1846 and obtained their first Parliamentary powers in 1867. The Hull Corporation for many years had intended to purchase the East Hull Gas Company when the opportunity came. In the last session of Parliament the gas company promoted a Bill to enable them to raise a large sum of ad ditional capital and also to obtain further powers, to which it was not necessary to refer in detail. The corporation were not informed of the intended promotion of that Bill and were not aware of the promotion until after the last day fixed by the standing orders to take the first steps in the promotion of a Bill them solves, and were not, therefore, in a position to promote a Bill last year to purchase the company's undertaking. They, however, opposed the company's Bill upon the ground that they should have an opportunity of purchasing the undertaking, and at their instance the Committee of the House of Commons to whom the Bill was referred, which was presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division, inserted a clause to the effect that if the corporation promoted a Bill in Parliament in the present session to enable them to purchase the undertaking nothing contained in last year's Act should in any way prejudge or prejudice the question of purchase, and that if the corporation's Bill became law, the value of the company's undertaking should not be enhanced or depreciated by the passing of last year's Act. The corporation accordingly were promoting the present Bill to empower them to purchase the undertaking, and they had, of course, obtained the necessary sanction of the ratepayers. The Bill proposed that in case the two parties concerned could not agree as to price it should be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, and, as was well known, these provisions were the most favourable from the point of view of the vendor. There was no provision whatever, in the Lands Clauses Acts requiring that any additional allowance should be given in respect of compulsory purchase, but the practice had been, and was now, quite settled under those Acts, where the subject matter of the purchase was lands or buildings, to make an addition to the sum awarded on the ground that the purchase was compulsory. The reasons given for this practice varied, but it was apparently generally recognised that there were two principal reasons, namely—(1) That there might be a difficulty in accurately determining the value of land which might have some dormant value not ret developed—some possible appreciation in value; and (2) That where an owner was required against his will to part with land for which, owing to its having been in his family for years, or for other reasons, he might have an affection, something in the nature of solatium should be given to him. The usual practice in the case of lands and buildings was to make an allowance which was probably never less and sometimes exceeded 10 per cent Neither of the foregoing reasons had any application in the case of the purchase of a gas undertaking, particularly such an undertaking as the one dealt with in the present Bill. In such a ease as that, an experienced arbitrator, assisted on either side by valuers who were constantly dealing with questions of this kind, would have no difficulty in arriving at the true value of the undertaking. This was done by ascertaining from past experience what was the amount of maintainable profits which the company (having regard to the provisions limiting their profits) were entitled to distribute in the shape of dividends, and by multiplying the sum so arrived at by an appropriate number of years purchase so that each shareholder could re invest the money paid to him in other securities, equally safe, to produce exactly the same revenue. The dividend of the East Hull gas company was strictly limited to 7½ per cent., so that there was no fluctuation on the shares. In such a case as this, there could be no dormant value and the true value could be ascertained with great exactitude. The first reason, therefore, for which the allowance was given in the case of lands did not apply. Moreover, the second reason that an allowance should be given as a solatium to the owner for parting with property for which he might have an affection, was hardly applicable in the case of a gas share. One could not well imagine any-one having a sentimental feeling for a gas share. Consequently, he submitted that the practice of making an allowance for compulsory purchase ought not to be applied in the case of the purchase of the present undertaking, and his Amendment accordingly proposed, in the first place, to exclude an allowance for compulsory purchase. In order, however, to treat the shareholders in the company quite fairly, the Amendment proceeded to provide that the arbitrators were to make such an allowance as they thought just for recoupment of any loss of interest pending reinvestment, for cost of reinvestment, and for certain other costs. Obviously it might take some time before the shareholder was able to reinvest the money which he received, and he might be put to some expense in the matter, and it was only fair that these circumstances should be taken into consideration and a proper allowance made accordingly. The provision was taken practically word for word from Section 23, Sub-section (8), of the Metropolis Water Act, 1902, under which eight water companies' undertakings in London were acquired by the Metropolitan Water Board. It would be remembered that that was a Government Bill under the late Government, the late President of the Local Government Board being responsible for it. It was a public Bill, but nevertheless it was referred to a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, and counsel were heard before the Committee on behalf of the Local Government Board and of the Water Companies. The question was, therefore, very adequately considered, and the clause was settled in a form which dealt fairly as between the ratepayers who were buying and the shareholders who were selling. He was not aware that any other precedent existed for the exact proposal now put forward, but in recent years there had been several Acts which excluded allowance for compulsory purchase, namely, the Tramways Act, 1870, Section 43, where dealing with the purchase of tramways; the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, where dealing with the purchase of electric lighting undertakings; the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and the Local Government Act, 1894, with reference to the purchase of lands by parish councils or for the purposes of allotments. He submitted that the provision excluding compensation for compulsory purchase was particularly applicable in the present case, because the shareholders would, in fact, receive from the corporation a good deal more than they had put into the concern. By their Act of 1867 the company were specially authorised to issue all their additional capital by auction or tender at the best price obtainable, but instead of adopting that course, and although the shares already issued were at a considerable premium, they had issued all additional capital to their own shareholders at par, practically, therefore, giving them a very considerable bonus. The proviso now proposed to be inserted was included in the original Bill which passed the Second Reading, but was struck out by the Committee. Apparently the Committee objected to the provision, not on its merits, but on the ground that its insertion would, in the absence of a precedent in a Bill to acquire a gas undertaking, be beyond their powers. When the question was being discussed by the Hon. J. D. Fitzgerald, K.C., on behalf of the promoters, he was stating that the Committee were sitting there as "legislators," when he was interrupted by the chairman, the hon. and learned Member for Rugby, who said— Oh, no. If you came to me as a legislator (I am speaking now of course personally, and not at all as Chairman of this Committee) if you came to me as a Member of the House of Commons and asked me to vote for the Second Reading of a Bill proposing something of this kind, I should give you an entirely different answer to the answer that should give you as a member of this Committee. As I understand, this Committee is bound by precedent and it is only entitled (as I understand the practice) to make a new precedent where a ease of public necessity or of local necessity is made out. Moreover, in the announcement of the decision of the Committee in disallowing the proviso, the Chairman stated as follows— If this clause were allowed, in the opinion of the Committee, it would be the creation of precedent in the matter of compensation which they think, if it is to be created at all, must be created by Parliament itself in a public Bill. He did not bring this Amendment forward in antagonism to the Police and Sanitary Committee, but to give the House the opportunity of doing what the Committee felt was more than they ought to undertake. It was a very important matter and this was the only opportunity the House would have of considering the proposal. If it were necessary to do so for the present purposes, it might, with all respect to the Police and Sanitary Committee, be well contended that the Committee had underrated their powers. They were an unusually large and exceptionally strong Committee, and they should, he suggested, not hesitate to create a precedent if it were necessary to do so, in order that justice might be done; and he further submitted that justice would not be done as between the ratepayers of Hull and gas consumers on the one hand, and the shareholders in the company on the other hand, if the proviso were not inserted. Accepting, however, for the moment, the view of the Committee that a precedent, was necessary, it was submitted that such precedent was clearly provided by the Metropolis Water Act. The only possible distinction between the two cases was that in the London case the shareholders were making their income from the supply of water, and that here the shareholders in the company were making their income from supplying gas. This could not possibly affect the question as to whether the shareholders were to receive at the hands of the ratepayers more than the full value of their shares, together with such a sum as might be necessary to enable them to re-invest the purchase money without loss. Apart from the London precedent, there were also the Housing of the Working Classes Act and other public Acts. Moreover, Committees of Parliament were constantly modifying the Lands Clauses Acts, and in each case where this was done for the first time, a precedent was created "in the matter of compensation." For example—one of the principles of the Lands Clauses Acts was that the sum to be paid for the land was the value thereof to the vendor and that no deduction could be made in respect of any improved value which might attach to other lands held by him by reason of the execution of the improvement for which the lands were acquired. This principle was frequently put aside by Committees by the insertion of a provision to the effect that the tribunal were to take into account any increase in value to the lands retained, which would result from the proposed works. Further, the Land Clauses Acts prohibited the compulsory acquisition of part only of a house. Committees were constantly excluding this provision and allowing part of a house to be acquired. Again the Lands Clauses Acts provided that in all cases the vendor was entitled to his costs unless the purchaser made an otter of a sum not less than that ultimately awarded. Committees frequently modified this provision so as to deprive the vendor of his costs if he did not give to the purchaser adequate information. Further, under the Lands Clauses Acts the value of the property sold was ascertained as on the date on which notice to treat was given, so that the vendor could erect buildings and create new interests in the property between the date of the passing of the Act and the service of the notice and thus increase the purchase money. Committees frequently amended this provision also by providing that no such buildings erected or interests created after a fixed date before the passing of the Act were to be allowed for. In those cases, it would be observed, the Lands Clauses Acts were amended, and precedents in each case were created in regard to compensation for land, a matter to which the Lands Clauses Acts were intended to apply. So much the more could a Committee modify the Acts when applying them to the purchase of a gas undertaking, a subject matter to which they were not intended in the first instance to apply. It should be stated that when the Committee decided that the preamble of the Bill was proved, the gas company, in order to have their hands free to deal with the whole matter in the House of Lords, withdrew, and took no part in the discussion upon the clauses. He could but believe that his Amendment would meet with the approbation of the Committee, and he, with confidence, commended it to the favourable consideration of the House.

SIR SEYMOUR KING (Hull, Central),

in seconding, said that personally he had no quarrel with the action of the Committee. The Committee had acted strictly within the restrictions which Parliament had imposed upon them, and if they had gone outside the pre- cedents they would not have acted in accordance with the visual custom of the House. But they were now in a different atmosphere; they had left the atmosphere of the Committee and coma down to that of the House of Commons, which, in these respects, was said to be omnipotent. It was not the business of the Committee to create precedents; that was the business of the House. He was not asking the House of Commons to inflict any slur on any Committee of the House of Commons; but he was asking the House to make a precedent. The position here was that the gas company was being bought out by the corporation of Hull. Everybody knew how corporations were bled by private companies in these circumstances, which prevented the municipalities carrying out improvements which they desired to do. This gas-company were absolutely prohibited by their Act from receiving more than 7½ per cent. dividend on their stock. Why on earth should they get a premium on their shares over and above the full equivalent for a 7½ per cent. stock, merely because the shares were handed over from one person to another? On whom would the loss fail? On the ratepayers, who were the consumers of the gas, and who would have consequently to pay more for their gas. He was the last man in the world who would advocate anything that would derogate from the rights of property; but he denied that the shareholders of the gas company should receive more than the fair equivalent of profits provided for them in their original Act of Parliament. The precedent had been quoted of the Metropolitan Water Board, but that Bill was a public Bill, and no doubt could not be adduced as an argument in regard to this Bill, which was a private measure.

Amendment proposed— In page 6, line 17, after the word 'contained,' to insert the words 'Provided also that no allowance shall be made for compulsory sale, but the arbitrator, arbitrators, or umpire, who shall determine such price or consideration (in this section called the court'), may make such allowance as they think just for recoupment of any loss of interest pending reinvestment, as well as for the cost of reinvestment, and for covering any cots, charges, and expenses (other than costs incurred in any arbitration under this Act), which have been, or are likely to be, incurred in consequence of the passing of this Act by the company or the stockholders therein, and which ought, in the opinion of the court, to be borne by the corporation.' "—(Mr. Ferens.)

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

MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)

said he opposed the Amendment because he considered it a dangerous precedent that ought not to be followed. There was no reason why municipalities should not pay 10 per cent, more for property taken by them compulsorily for municipal trading purposes when other people had to pay that 10 per cent. according to long-established principles.


thought the Amendment involved a very important principle, and that no injustice was involved in it at all, because the holders of the present stock were practically guaranteed in regard to their dividend if their business was transferred to the corporation. He did not see why a public body when they had to buy should pay a 10 per cent, increase in price in consequence of compulsory purchase. They had to look after the interest of the public. He thought the Amendment was in the direction of enabling municipalities to acquire an undertaking on fair terms and to conduct the undertaking on business lines. He therefore associated himself with the Amendment.

MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)

said the speech which the hon. Member had just delivered was an admirable one in favour of the alteration of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, but it was not a speech which showed that they should break an established rule of the House. That was the principle which lurked behind the Amendment which had been moved. There was no precedent for such a provision as the Amendment proposed in regard to a gas undertaking being inserted by a Committee. The practice of allowing something for compulsory purchase had been applied to every case of gas or water purchase that had come before the House, except that of the Metropolis Water Act, which counsel for the corporation admitted, before the Committee over which he presided, was an exceptional case, and was a public Act. He did not say that there might not be a case for alteration, but if the practice were altered it should be done by a public Bill, which could be fully considered by the House and the Government.

*MR. LUKE WHITE (Yorkshire, E.R., Buckrose)

quite agreed that the Committee had no power to make any alteration in the ordinary practice or to make this new departure. The House itself, however, had full power to do so according to the precedent in the case of the London Water Companies, and therefore he supported the Amendment, which would give to the shareholders all they were entitled to and ensure that justice was done between them and the corporation. Therefore in the interests of all concerned He had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.


said he did not think such a case of hardship had been made out in this case as would lead to the House departing from its precedent in these matters. He viewed with some alarm the setting up of such claims by corporations who, though representing the ratepayers in some degree, also had a somewhat fiduciary capacity. An argument which had not boon sufficiently considered in this case was the great inconvenience and loss that fell upon those who had to sell under these compulsory powers. It must be borne in mind that money could not be reinvested without expense, without risk, or without trouble, labour, and anxiety for which some compensation ought to be paid. On that ground alone there ought to be some allowance, though he did not say what the allowance ought to be in this case. He hoped the House would support the Committee in what they had done. He agreed that the House was paramount in these matters, but they must bear in mind that the Committees gave much anxious labour to these inquiries, and that they created precedents not on their own initiative, but only after consideration of case after case and after years of experience; and the House, could not expect Members to devote their time to this work in Committee unless their decisions were treated with the highest respect. If the hon. Gentleman went to a division he would be obliged to vote against the Amendment.

MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)

said he was not so wedded to precedent that he would not depart from it, but before he did so he would have to have a strong ease and good reason shown for it in order that a revised precedent might be laid down for the future. If the House accepted the Amendment he did not think it would ever become a precedent for the Houses of Parliament. One case only had been quoted, and that was not on all fours with the case before the House he had heard cases of this kind argued many times, and the case in which the allowance for compulsory purchase appeared to him to be rather hard was when a corporation was seeking compulsory powers, not for the purpose of a profitable undertaking, but for the purposes of public health; where it was often a case of buying insanitary property and pulling it down for the benefit of the public health and the general welfare of the people. It might be quite right and fair to throw over a precedent of this kind, but he contended that it ought to be done only by a public Bill and after buyers and sellers had had ample notice that those would be the conditions under which they would treat. He supported the Committee in this matter.

*MR. C. NTCHOLSON (Yorkshire, W.K., Doncaster),

as a member of the Committee which considered this Bill said he supported the action that that Committee had taken. His experience was short, but he did not think the House liked any sudden interruption or alteration of the practice and custom upon which the Committees acted. Therefore he thought the Committee were quite right in striking out this particular clause. He, however, thought there was too much reverence paid to precedents and too little consideration given to the time and circumstances under which they were created. The difficulty was to consider where the line should be drawn and what precedents should be regarded, and what ought to be left to the consideration of the House. In this case in his opinion the Committee were quite right. The question raised here was whether the Committee ought to make a new rule for compensation in dealing with matters by private Bill. There was no doubt if that was once granted this provision would be inserted in every Bill of a like character that came before the Committee, It was, therefore, desirable that the House should consider and decide once and for all which principle should be adopted. He thought the line ought to be drawn between the purchase of land and property and the purchase of undertakings in which the interest of those concerned was purely financial. A person who was compelled to part with his house was entitled to more consideration than a man who sold a commercial undertaking, because it made very little difference to a shareholder, whose interests had alone been changed, whereas round a man's house there were many interests of a personal character which had grown up from association which could not be measured by a money compensation. He therefore hoped the House would allow this clause to stand. He should oppose the Amendment.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

said that so far as he could see the question before the House was whether in this particular Bill under the particular circumstances of the case the House should sanction a complete abandonment of the practice that had hitherto unanimously boon imposed on the Committees by the House for sixty years. That was a considerable proposal to make to the House. Surely, if they were going to make such a fundamental change it ought to be done by a Bill before a full House, when all the reasons for and against it could be fully weighed. What was hero asked was a, complete reversal of the practice, and procedure of the House, which had continued for sixty years, and the introduction of a dangerous and far-reaching principle into the consideration of private Bills. The precedent of the Water Board Bill had been referred to, but that was no precedent at all. The Water Board Bill was a public Bill; and then, again, the state of affairs with regard to the water companies of London was that for years they had been threatened bodies; Bills had been brought in and had been rejected; and these companies had lived for years on the understanding, that they were to be bought out. He did not know what might be the circumstances of Kingston-upon-Hull, but he took leave to say that the position of this particular gas company was entirely different from that of the London water companies in regard to purchase There was no precedent for this very large change, which he confidently submitted to the House ought not to be introduced into their ancient practice The existing principle was well established; everybody knew what it meant; it was to leave these matters to the good sense of the arbitrator on the understanding that an allowance would be made, usually 10 per cent. for compulsory disturbance, reimbursement for losses, and so forth. It might well be that vendors had been awarded undue profits by arbitrators, but if that were so it was, after all, due to human nature, which doubtless tenanted the breast of an arbitrator as that of any other person, and it might be that at times he dealt tenderly with those who were compulsorily turned out of their properties. But, notwithstanding those grounds, no single reason had boon shown why the House should depart from an ancient practice in favour of this Bill.


said it was perhaps natural that hon. Gentlemen representing the borough of Hull should ask for exceptional treatment for that town; and, if it were done in the right way, at the right time, and with reasonable notice, perhaps more could be said for their claim than could be advanced in the existing circumstances. The proposal now before the House was struck out of the Bill by the Committee, notwithstanding which the Member for Hull persisted in appealing to the House to do what the proper tribunal, after reviewing all the facts, had declined to do. The common form in all private Bills for the acquisition of properties was the application of the Lands Clauses Act. This had been followed in all cases since 1845 except in the very exceptional case of the London Water Act. But that precedent did not apply to this case, as the London Water Act was a public Act for which the Ministry of the day took responsibility, and which dealt with interests of vast magnitude. If its precedent were applied to this Bill every other private Bill before the House ought to be similarly treated, and even if that were done it would not meet the case of Bills already passed which would have lost the advantage of the Amendment. Why should Hull get unique treatment by way of a private Bill? It was hardly fair that the parties interested in this Bill should receive treatment as if the Lands Clauses Act had been varied by a public Bill—a course which at that moment they were not capable of adopting. The precedents of which the two hon. Members had spoken were not of the character which they had indicated. In the case of Housing Bills the principle of the Lands Clauses had either to be varied or modified or sot aside, and that could only be done where the House approved of it. Where public bodies asked for lands to be taken away for public purposes it was done by public Bill. The Lands Clauses Acts had been set aside, and Michael Angelo Taylor's Act also, to enable them to vary the Lands Clauses principle, and the general principle in regard to acquiring property, but all that had been done by public Bill. And he put it to the supporters of the extension of municipal ownership, and of municipal trading, that to vary these well-established conditions under which all municipalities had automatically acquired properties, and trading concerns taken over from private hands, would be to create a precedent which he believed would be dangerous, and for this reason: he thought that the Lands Clauses practice might be too generous; or it might be onerous, as it occasionally was to intending purchasers; but if it was to be altered they ought either to alter the Standing Orders of the House, or also amend by Bill the Lands Clauses Act. If that were to be done, as it might perhaps have to be done, it would facilitate the transfer of monopolies and other interests to municipalities. No one could accuse him of being indifferent to the interests of municipalities; on the contrary, few men in so short a life had done more to transfer great concerns from private hands to public bodies. He had always believed in it. We were all collectivists by compensation nowadays—he had adhered to that view because he thought it the line of least resistance. But if they embarked upon a public policy otherwise than in a public Bill voted by both Houses, they would make the task of the acquisition of private properties by public bodies more difficult in the future than it was now. If they were going to make the condition of transfer less onerous to public bodies and less generous to private concerns, that was a strong argument in favour of the view that any such step as the alteration of their Standing Orders, or the modification or abolition of the Lands Clauses provision ought only to be made on the responsibility of the Government, so that everybody concerned could go into the matter with the whole of the facts before them. That issue should not be determined merely because two Members of a municipality were anxious to get favourable terms for their locality, but should be decided by a public Bill, brought in on the responsibility of the Minister. The post of office frequently meant the firing line of duty, and it was his duty as the

Minister partly responsible for this branch of public affairs, in the interests of fair and just treatment for all municipalities, to say that it would be against public policy to have on this particular subject a snatch vote which would recoil on the old policy of municipalities being allowed to acquire and retain powers which they were anxious to possess. He asked that there should be some reasonable continuity in these matters: the best thing to do was to adhere to the old policy which had been adopted for the last sixty years. If that policy was to be altered it should be done fairly and justly by the Government at the instance of a Minister responsible to the House and not in the way now proposed by the hon. Member for Hull.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 73, Noes, 123. (Division List No. 166.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Kekewich, Sir George Rendall, Athelstan
Barnes, G. N. Kettle, Thomas Michael Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Brace, William Kilbride, Denis Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Brooke, Stopford Laidlaw, Robert Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Rogers, F. E. Newman
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. Rowlands, J.
Crooks, William Lehmann, R. C. Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs Steadman, W. C.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Dolan, Charles Joseph M'Callum, John M. Summerbell, T.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Monev, L. G. Chiozza Tomkinson, James
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Murphy, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Gulland, John W. Nolan. Joseph Walsh, Stephen
Hazel, Dr. A. E. Nugent, Sir Walter Richard White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Hazleton, Richard O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid White, Luke (York. E. R.)
Hedges, A. Paget O'Grady, J. Wiles, Thomas
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Higham, John Sharp O'Mara, James Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hodge, John O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wood, T. M' Kinnon
Hogan, Michael Parker, James (Halifax)
Horniman, Emslic John Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ferens and Sir Henry Seymou King.
Hudson, Walter Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Jenkins, J. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Radford, G. H.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Boulton, A. C. F.
Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. Barnard, E. B. Bowles, G. Stewart
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Bramsdon. T. A.
Ashley, W. W. Bell, Richard Branch, James
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonpr't Bridgeman, W. Clive
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. Brocklehurst, W. B.
Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester Berridge, T. H. D. Bryce, J. Annan
Barker, John Bertram, Julius Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Hunt, Rowland Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Cairns Thomas Jackson, R. S. Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Cawley, Sir Frederick Kearley, Hudson E. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Lambert, George Rickett, J. Compton
Cheetham, John Frederick Lane-Fox, G. R. Ridsdale, E. A.
Cleland, J. W. Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Clough, William Layland-Barratt, Francis Roe, Sir Thomas
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Levy, Maurice Rose, Charles Day
Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lewis, John Herbert Runciman, Walter
Corbett, CH (Sussex, E Grinst'd) Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Russell, T. W.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lough, Thomas Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Craig, Captain James(Down, E.) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Salter, Arthur Clavell
Cremer, William Randal Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Crombie, John William M'Crae, George Sherwell, Arthur James
Davies, David (Montgomery Co. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Simon, John Allsebrook
Essex, R. W. Magnus, Sir Philip Stanger, H. Y.
Esslemont, George Birnie Mallet, Charles E. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Everett, R. Lacey Mansfield, H. Randall (Lincoln) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Menzies, Walter Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Micklem, Nathaniel Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Molteno, Percy Alport Thornton, Percy M.
Fletcher, J. S. Mond, A. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Montgomery, H. G. Waterlow, D. S.
Glendinning, R. G. Murnaghan, George Watt. Henry A.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Napier, T. B. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Nicholls, George Whitchead, Rowland
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Nuttall, Harry Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (W'ore'r) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Hemmerde, Edward George Paulton, James Mellor Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, H.) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr. J. W Wilson.
Hills, J. W. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Holden, E. Hopkinson Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Holt, Richard Durning Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Hooper, A. G. Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Chiozza Money,)—put, and agreed to.

Bill to be read the third me.

Forward to