HC Deb 14 May 1908 vol 188 cc1406-23

3. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £355,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."


said that in years gone by there used to be a good deal of discussion on the advisability of this Vote. Originally the Government paid no rates on the buildings which they occupied but allowed the ratepayers to bear the burden which ought to have been borne by the Government. Later on, as the result of the outcry in this House against that evasion of payment by the Government, an agreement was come to that a certain contribution in lieu of rates should be made. He asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how it was that, though a large increase had taken place in the rates, little increase had been made in the Government contribution. The increase only amounted to £19,535. Was it not possible that Government buildings could be rated in the same manner as bulb belonging to private people? It seemed to him that there was no reason why the Government should not be assessed in precisely the same way as private people. In these days when the rates were growing by leaps and bounds, and when the Government were putting up palatial buildings, he did not see why the ratepayers should be compelled to pay any part of the money which ought to be paid by the Government. It was very hard on people who lived in a particular area where there were Government buildings, though he did not deny that it was an advantage to the taxpayers as a whole, because they paid rather less—but it was hard on the people of London, where there were many large Government buildings, that they should be required to pay more than their share owing to the refusal of the Government to bear their proper proportion. Unless the hon. Gentleman could give him a satisfactory assurance on this subject, he would be obliged to move a reduction of the Vote. He wished to know more than appeared in the Estimates in regard to Item A. Salaries to the Treasury valuer, inspector of rates, assistant clerk, and second division clerk. As far as he could gather the only duty which these gentlemen had to perform was to pay the contributions in lieu of rates to the different municipalities in England. Instead of spending £2,615 a year on the salaries of these men, why could not the officials in charge of the buildings pay the contributions? He wished to know why we paid part of the rates in respect of houses occupied by the representatives of foreign Powers. We did not pay their salaries or provide them with houses, and he did not see why we should pay part of the rates on the houses which they occupied. The Estimate for this item said "See below," but when he looked below he saw nothing at all. He found at page 68 that of the total rates amounting to £8,600, the Treasury paid 0,415. On what principle was the sum of £3,415 arrived at? If there was an obligation on the representatives of foreign Powers to pay rates, why should they not pay the whole?


explained that the representatives of foreign Powers were exempt by law from the payment of certain charges. If they refused to pay them, it would be perfectly impossible to recover by law, therefore an agreement was arrived at to the effect that the poor-rate should be paid by the British Government and the local rates on their houses by the representatives themselves, on the condition that reciprocity was observed in this matter in regard to our representatives abroad. As to the salaries in Item A the explanation was very simple. The official valuer had to perform most responsible duties, and he received a salary of £1,200 it year, while the assistant received £800 a year. They were responsible for the valuation of Government property in every part of the world, and had frequently to make journeys abroad. They received adequate but no more than adequate remuneration for their services. The hon. Baronet opposite was one of the few Members of the House who seemed to be not only surprised, but sorry that the expenditure by the Government in respect of contributions in lieu of rates had only increased by £19,000. He could not share his grief in that respect. On the contrary, it was satisfactory that, while there was an inevitable increase in rates, the sum paid by the Government this year had been kept within moderate dimensions.


said he had no objection whatever to the way in which the Government dealt with the rates on houses occupied by the representatives of foreign Powers. It was a question of reciprocity, and foreign Powers met us in a similar way. He wished to draw attention to the question of the contribution in lieu of rates in relation to Government property in his own constituency. At Waltham Abbey there was an enormous number of buildings, and he urged upon the hon. Gentleman the absolute necessity of assisting the ratepayers of that locality with a further increase in the contribution in lieu of rates. He would like to know whether there had been an increase this year as compared with last, and also how the contribution to Waltham Abbey compared with the contributions to Woolwich, Deptford, and other places where Government Ordnance factories existed. The Government had bought at Waltham Abbey a site which was absolutely unique for their purpose, and it was right, especially in view of the dangerous nature of the operations conducted there in connection with the manufacture of powder, that the contribution in lieu of rates should be largely increased. Not only was there danger to those employed in the factory but to the occupiers of the houses in the immediate vicinity who were heavily rated. There did not seem much possibility of a decrease in the rates, but rather an increase. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell him what proportion of the increase of the Government contribution to local rates was given to Waltham Abbey. There had, he knew, been no increase to Waltham Abbey for the last five or six years, and the ratepayers in the district were fairly entitled to a larger contribution than was now given.


said that he quite accepted the statement of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the payment with regard to the representatives of foreign Powers. The statement was satisfactory and he had no complaint to make with regard to it. But he was afraid he had not made himself clear on the other point. He would be the last person to suggest an increase of expenditure, but rather that it should be decreased where possible. His complaint—and it had not been answered—was that the Government Department did not pay the local rates that the ordinary citizens paid. He thought it was very hard on the ratepayers in those districts where Government property was situated if the Government did not take its fair share of the rating burden. All that the Government said in answer to his complaint was that they made a contribution to the local rates; but he drew attention to the fact that the Government contribution had increased in a very small way. The hon. Gentleman did not argue the point as to whether a proper proportion of rates was paid by the Government, but only that a contribution was made. Why should not the Government make a larger contribution when there was a general rise in the rates? There was a general fair- ness among all the inhabitants of the country; they did not wish to gain a small benefit at the expense of other people, but he thought the Government should pay their rates in the same way as ordinary people did. He believed that the argument was advanced, especially in the case of London, that London benefited so much by the presence of Government officials and buildings that they ought to pay something for that benefit. But, unfortunately, that applied to only one part of London where the ratepayers were mulcted for the privilege of having Government buildings and Government officials in their midst. He begged to move the reduction of the vote by £100.

Motion made, and Question Proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £354,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)

MR ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)

said that the question raised by the hon. Baronet was of very great importance and he did not hesitate to commend it to the consideration of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The principle undoubtedly was that the Government contributed to the local rates in places where there was Government property. But the system of contribution had this great defect, that as the years went on the rates of the localities increased while the contribution of the Government remained the same, and therefore the Government were evading their fair share of the expenditure which the locality had to pay. For instance, before the Government took over the telegraphs the telegraph companies made large contributions to the local rates; but when they took over the undertakings of the companies the Government, to his own knowledge, made very tight bargains with the local authorities as to the amount of the contributions they should make in lieu of rates. It was notorious that these contributions, fixed thirty years ago, were wholly inadequate.

MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

drew attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.

House counted; and forty Members being found present—


said that the contribution system as applied to the telegraphs had ended in a miscarriage of equity. The bargain was made thirty years ago when the rates were probably one-half of what they were now. In the year 1910 the Government were going to take over the telephones throughout the country. Those telephones were at present charged for local rates at the full percentage. He had no doubt that when the Government came into possession of all the telephones up and down the country they would adopt the same principle as in the case of the telegraphs, and propose to give a contribution towards the local rates; that was to say the respective localities would be deprived of the rates they at present received from the telephone companies. That had already arisen in the case of Glasgow. The private telephone system carried on in that city had been sold to the Government, but the Government had refused to pay a single penny of the rates, which he believed meant a present loss of £2,000 a year to the local authority, which would be increased in a short time to £4,000 a year. And if, when the Government in 1910 took over the whole of the telephones, they treated Glasgow in the same illiberal spirit, the city finances would be short by between £9,000 and £10,000. He could understand the Government saying that they would pay no local rates at all. That was a comprehensible principle, although he did not believe in it. But he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in the view which he had strongly expressed that there was no reason why the Government, having property in a locality, should not be rated on that property the same as anybody else. Any other system was bound to be unfair and fallacious, and had probably been adopted by some official on grounds of timidity. It was not a fair and square bargain. It had been alleged that where there were Government institutions and Government telephones and telegraphs, there was a certain advantage to the locality. Granted; but he did not think these considerations ought to enter into the case. If they were to weigh considerations of that sort they would get into a perfect labyrinth. He submitted that if the Government were open to conviction, and if tradition did not hold the Financial Secretary to the Treasury too tightly in its control, the whole subject should be reasonably reconsidered. It was no argument to say that the present Government only followed in the footsteps of their predecessors. A Liberal Party was in power, and it was their business to reform everything. If the present system was conceived in iniquity and created in sin that was a reason why the Liberal Government should address themselves to its reform. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to show the Committee some proper system by which the Government contributions to the local rates would advance with the increase in the rates. The old-fashioned practice was for some official to come from the Department and have a talk with the officials in the locality. Then there were deputations sent to London at great expense, and ultimately they struck a contribution which was not very equitable to the locality because the Government made hard bargains. The expenses of the locality went on increasing, but still it was held to its bargain. Was not this a question to be dealt with in a fair and liberal spirit? Was it fair to hold them to a bargain made twenty or thirty years ago when the rates were probably only one-half of what they are now? If the same policy were pursued when the Government took over the telephone system of the country it would mean that localities would be deprived of the rates which were at present paid by telephone companies. He thought the hon. Gentleman might strike away from these old-fashioned traditions and start a system once for all under which property in the counties, cities, and boroughs should be valued like other people's property, and should pay rates like other people's property, and then he would be put in a position at which nobody could cavil.


did not think this ought to be a party matter. He was one of those who, previous to 1894, called attention to it, and about that year they got from a Liberal Government a great improvement in regard to the question of contributions, although that did not put it on anything like a fair footing. The Government very often paid on an unfair valuation and that was not right. What he said then and what he said to-day was that the question would never be settled until Government property paid rates on the same valuation as applied to other properties. The Government said it was an act of grace for them to pay rates at all, but that was all nonsense. He was very grateful to the Government of that day for doing something, but he was sure that in London at all events the Government were not now paying on the net rateable value of the property in which they were concerned. Everybody who had gone into the question admitted that all properties ought to pay rates, otherwise in some parishes they got a very Unfair and unequal burden put upon a certain class of ratepayers, especially in places where the Government had a large amount of property. He hoped his hon. friend who had just come into office would make up his mind to do justice, and that he would take a fair and business-like view of the question and get the Government to allow their property to be assessed by the local authorities in the same way as that of anybody else. Like anybody else they would have the right to appeal and get the assessments reduced if there was an unfair value placed on them, but the local authorities, who were responsible to the people for the management of local affairs, would never be satisfied until the Government in common fairness and justice allowed their property to be assessed in the same way as that of other people, and thus paid their share of rates and taxes so that there might be fairness and equal fair play to all parties in the State. He did not see that the Government would lose any dignity by doing this, because they said they were willing to contribute a fair amount towards the loyal rates, and surely, they ought to be bound by the assessment authorities when they valued the property. As he had said, this was no Party matter and he asked the Government to make this alteration and do justice all round.


said he would like some details in regard to Ireland, as he thought preference had been given to the Colonies and Scotland. The increase for this year in the case of the Colonies was 50 per cent., in the case of Scotland 4 per cent., and in the case of Ireland only 1 per cent. If there was any principle in the way in which these rates were struck in the various parts of the country surely it ought to work out somewhat equally all round. But they found the Colonies having a preference. He was always willing and anxious to see the Colonies supported in every possible way, but they found in this case an increase from £5,000 in 1907–8 to £7,500 in the following year, while in Ireland the increase was only 1 or 2 per cent. The Government, he thought, had a scheme for purchasing the whole of the telephone system, not only in Scotland but in Ireland, and he supposed the postal authorities would acquire the buildings in which the telephone system was now carried on. What effect would that have in any town where the ratepayers had obtained the ordinary contribution to rates from the telephone companies. The Post Office would come along and claim exemption from the ordinary rateable value of their buildings, and immediately the other residents in the locality would have to be rated to the extent to which the Post Office mulcted the public authority in that particular locality. That it would appear to any business man to be absolutely unfair. He hoped that some adequate explanation would be afforded of the figures which seemed to show that an increase had without justification been given to the Colonies, and of the other points raised. If the rates were not to be paid by the Government on the same basis as those of a private citizen who had a house or warehouse or shop or place of business what guiding principle was there? He supported the Amendment.


I think this will be a very opportune moment in which to give an answer to some of the points raised in the course of this discussion. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has raised a point, not, I think, for the first time in these debates, as to the method in which the Government gives contributions in lieu of rates. The explanation I shall offer to him is an explanation which I am afraid will not be new to him, but being in accordance with the facts can serve the purpose of refreshing his memory. The valuations upon which contributions in lieu of rates are given are fixed after personal negotiation between the Treasury Inspector and the local authority. During ten years experience of the Treasury valuer there has only been one difference of opinion as to the proper value to be fixed on buildings and other assessable hereditaments between the two contending authorities. And, therefore, if I may say so, these local authorities seem to be rather less dissatisfied with their position than the hon. Baronet.


Have they got any alternative?


Certainly; they can appeal to the Treasury. In 1907 the borough of Kensington expressed their appreciation of the consideration given by the Treasury valuer to all the circumstances of the case and their acceptance of the value he arrived at. That is only one of many, and they were satisfied as to the method by which the contribution in lieu of rates was arrived at. It has been suggested that there is no variation in the amount contributed by the Treasury. That is not so. If a rate goes up the Treasury contribution goes up, and if a rate goes down the Treasury contribution goes down. There is a definite identity about the amount of the rate which is paid by the local authority.


Is it not the fact that there have been no additions to the telegraph part of it since it has been taken over?


I must deal with one thing at a time. I am dealing with the buildings and not the telegraph. It is quite clear that the Government must be protected against the natural inclination of the local authority to assess unduly highly property which has no living representation in the district in which it is situated. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the Government property must make contribution to the expense caused in the locality in consequence of its position in it. The hon. Baronet, whom, I do not see in his place, raised the question of the War Office building. The reconsideration of the value of that building is now taking place, and I have not the slightest doubt that in a short time the contribution which we now make will be largely increased. Then there is the question of contribution for the telegraph and telephone offices. The hon. Gentleman opposite has made a mistake in the statement he has made to the Committee. The people of Glasgow are not going to lose by the transfer of the telephone lines to the Government. The contribution will be paid on both lines and exchanges and there is likely to be no loss in any respect. The hon. Member for East Down referred to the increased contribution made to the Colonies. That has reference to the Colony of Malta, where the Government property is assessed for local rates. The Government property has gone up largely in value, and that is the explanation for that. The reason why Ireland's contribution has not gone up more than it has done is that the value of Government buildings has only increased by that proportion.


said it was satisfactory to him to know that Glasgow would not suffer from the transfer of the telephone service to the Post Office, but he did not understand on what principle the valuations were made. There should be an annual revision. He did not suppose that there was any disagreement between the locality and the central authority, or could be, but he failed to see how the valuation was arrived at. His complaint was not only that the property of the Government was assessed at too low a valuation, but on the other hand the rates as assessed were largely going up. The hon. Gentleman was entitled to ask what the increase in the other rates was, and to contribute to them a largely increased sum. He also contended that while the rates were rising, the Government was contributing on a basis fixed forty or fifty years ago, and in any case on a valuation lower than they ought. On these grounds he, as a protest, would divide the Committee on this Vote.


asked whether the hon. Gentleman could arrange to have the Government property assessed by the local authority.


said that would involve a change in the law and therefore it was not in order to discuss it.


said in that case he would ask whether he would allow it to be valued in the same way and at the same rate as other property in the district. The appeal which they now had was from the Treasury to the Treasury. That did not strike him as being of much use. But if they appealed would the appeal be heard?




They had made a great advance since 1894, because they used to be told they could not go beyond the Government valuation. He knew a great deal of Government property which was not properly valued and he would call attention to that at the proper time, and in some other place.


said that if the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow was satisfied that no injustice would be done by the telephone offices being taken over by the Government, so far as his constituency was concerned he was not, because when these offices came under the Government they would come under the same system as other Government offices, and would be valued at less than other offices, and a great injustice would be done. He did not see how the Government could refuse to come under the same conditions with regard to their property as private owners. The argument of the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to this matter was rather weak. He said there was never any dispute between the Treasury and the local authorities; that the Treasury met the local authority, discussed the matter with them, and came to a decision satisfactory to all parties, Of course, where one of the parties had both hands held behind its back, and knew it must accept the decision of the Government, the settlement was bound to be amicable because there was no chance of getting fair play. Having regard to the fact that the appeal from the Treasury was to the Treasury itself, he should support his hon. friend in the lobby.


said he was satisfied with the answer which he had received with regard to Ireland, but he would urge the hon. Gentleman to give some further explanation so that the Committee might know exactly where they were. Everybody knew that recently there had been a revaluation, but, so far as he understood, in that revaluation the Government property was passed over, the valuer saying he had nothing to do with it. He would like to ask whether in Scotland, where the valuation was annual, or in England, where it was at varying periods, the bargain having been entered into it was not the duty of the valuer to value the Government property in the same way as the property of private individuals. Did the Government mean to say that their contribution of £665,000 was to continue from year to year on the old valuation while the local ratepayers had to pay on the increased valuation? The Government properties were valued many years ago, and there had been no increase in the Government contribution to local taxation. Owing to pressure of public business and different matters outside, he dared say that the Committee would break up without getting a satisfactory answer. They entered their protest against the treatment they received in Committee when they asked straight questions and did not succeed in getting straight answers. They asked their questions and were put off in a light and airy manner by being told, for instance, that Ireland had not done quite so much as Scotland. He wished to know whether some extensions which had been made to buildings in Ireland had been revalued for the purpose of their paying the ordinary rates of the localities where they were situate. He wished to know also whether the same value was put upon those extensions as was put on the original buildings years and years ago. If that was the case it was not fair to those who paid their rates on a proper valuation and had also to pay the difference that was caused by the Government's contributing on an old valuation. The Committee, with a very small attendance, was asked to sanction an arrangement which was obviously unfair on the face of it and was not in accordance with business traditions. An hon. Member below the gangway had addressed a very strong argument to the hon. Gentleman opposite, and what answer had he received? He had got no answer at all.


The hon. Member is repeatedly saying that he has got no answer. He really must confine himself to the Vote under discussion.


said he should not have risen a second time if he had received a fair answer in the first instance. He asked the hon. Gentleman to give them some fair answer.


said the hon. Gentleman had not met the point. He had merely informed him that he was correct in all the objections which he had raised to the Vote. But then he had gone on to say that there was an appeal. The appeal was this. The valuation was made by the Treasury Valuer and by an Inspector. These were the gentlemen who made the assessments. Were they satisfactory to the people concerned? He did not think they were. The hon. Gentleman had produced a letter from the Kensington Borough Council in which they said that they were satisfied. They might have been satisfied in that particular instance, and he thought they were wise if they were satisfied. But it could not in any way be considered a satisfactory appeal, and it was evident that the unfortunate municipalities were bound to accept whatever the Treasury Valuer might say. What he desired was that these valuations should be carried out in a business like manner. The hon. Gentleman was the representative of a businesslike Government, which they had been given to understand when it came into power was to carry things out in an economical and efficient manner.

What was to prevent a proper valuation being made on the basis upon which all other valuations were founded? He was glad that he had the support of hon. Members on the other side of the House, and he thought that it was absolutely necessary to express, by dividing the Committee, their dissatisfaction with the manner in which these valuations were carried on.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 28; Noes, 199. (Division list No. 94.)

Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex,F. Craig,Captain James(Down,E.) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Ashley, W. W. Dalrymple, Viscount Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Forster, Henry William Stone, Sir Benjamin
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Gretton, John Thomson, W. Mithchell- (Lanark)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Guinness, Walter Edward Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Bull, Sir William James Hope,James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Butcher, Samuel Henry Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Cave, George MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Magnus, Sir Philip Fell and Mr. Cross.
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Parkes, Ebenezer
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Collins, SirWm.J.(S. Pancras, W.) Harcourt,Robert V. (Montrose)
Agnew, George William Compton-Rickett, Sir J. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) Hart-Davies, T.
Atherley-Jones, L. Cowan, W. H. Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cox, Harold Helme, Norval Watson
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.) Cremer, Sir William Randal Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Crooks, William Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Curran, Peter Francis Henry, Charles S.
Barker, John Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Higham, John Sharp
Barran, Rowland Hirst Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Hobart, Sir Robert
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Donelan, Captain A. Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Bell, Richard Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Hodge, John
Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Hogan, Michael
Bennett, E. N. Elibank, Master of Holt, Richard Durning
Berridge, T. H. D. Essex, R. W. Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Esslemont, George Birnie Horniman, Emslie John
Bowerman, C. W. Fenwick, Charles Hudson, Walter
Brigg, John Ferens, T. R. Idris, T. H. W.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Findlay, Alexander Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Brodie, H. C. Flynn, James Christopher Jardine, Sir J.
Brooke, Stopford Fuller, John Michael F. Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh) Fullerton, Hugh Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Bryce, J. Annan Gill, A. H. Jowett, F. W.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John Joyce, Michael
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Kearley, Hudson E.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Grayson, Albert Victor Kekewich, Sir George
Byles, William Pollard Gulland, John W. Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Gurdon,RtHnSirW.Brampton King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Cleland, J. W. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Laidlaw, Robert
Clough, William Hall, Frederick Lambert, George
Clynes, J. R. Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L (Rossendale) Lamont, Norman
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Strachey, Sir Edward
Lehmann, R. C. Parker, James (Halifax) Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) Partington, Oswald Summerbell, T.
Levy, Sir Maurice Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Sutherland, J. E.
Lyell, Charles Henry Pickersgill, Edward Hare Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Pollard, Dr. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs Power, Patrick Joseph Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Macpherson, J. T. Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford. E.) Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) Radford, G. H. Thorne, William (West Ham)
Mac Veigh, Charles(Donegal, E.) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro') Torrance, Sir A. M.
M'Crae, George Reddy, M. Toulmin, George
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Redmond, William (Clare) Vivian, Henry
M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Rendall, Athelstan Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Maddison, Frederick Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n) Wardle, George J.
Mallet, Charles E. Richardson, A. Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Ridsdale, E. A. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Markham, Arthur Basil Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Waterlow, D. S.
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Watt, Henry A.
Marnham, F. J. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Weir, James Galloway
Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) Robinson, S. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Meehan. Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Roche, John (Galway, East) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Menzies, Walter Roe, Sir Thomas White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Micklem, Nathaniel Rowlands, J. Whitehead, Rowland
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Scott, A.H. (Ashton-under-Lyne Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Sears, J. E. Wiles, Thomas
Murnaghan, George Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Napier, T. B. Shipman, Dr. John G. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Silcock, Thomas Ball Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Nicholls, George Simon, John Allsebrook Winfrey, R.
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r) Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Nuttall, Harry Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid. Snowden, P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Soares, Ernest J. J. A. Pease and Captain
O'Doherty, Philip Stanger, H. Y. Norton.
O'Dowd, John Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Question put, and agreed to.

Forward to