§ (1) There shall be charged, levied, and paid for every financial year in respect of the capital value of minerals a duty, in this Act referred to as a Mineral Rights Duty, at the rate of a halfpenny for every twenty shillings of that capital value.
§ (2) For the purposes of Mineral Rights Duty, the capital value of the minerals shall be taken to be the value adopted as the original capital value of those minerals, or where the capital value of those minerals has been ascertained under any subsequent periodical valuation thereof for the time being in force, the capital value as so ascertained:
§ Provided that where the minerals are being worked the Commissioners may in any year make such allowance from the duty payable as they think just in respect of any minerals which have been gotten since the date at which the value has been ascertained.
§ Mr. NEWDEGATE moved, in Section (1), to leave out the word "capital" ["There shall be charged, levied, and paid for every financial year in respect of the capital value of minerals …"].
§ I am bound to say that I did not expect this Amendment to come on, because I thought the whole question of minerals was going over to a future time. It has been pointed out to me how very ridiculous it is to put down the capital value of minerals as part of the value, because it is almost impossible to ascertain it. A mining engineer who thoroughly understands 663 these subjects has pointed out to me that there are so many changes and chances in the mineral field that it is almost impossible to find out what the capital value is. The Government have in a light-hearted way talked about testing the value of minerals, yet it is impossible without placing numerous bore-holes all over the country to find out. You are confronted with all sorts of difficulties in regard to minerals. You may find coal at one place, but a short distance from that you may find there is a wash-out and the coal ceases to exist. In my own county of Warwickshire I know where there are four seams of coal lying one on top of the other, and there are about 22 feet of coal on that particular place, but if you go a mile away you will find that all the seams are divided, and the coal is absolutely different in quality. For myself, however, I cannot see the object of bringing the whole question of minerals under discussion, when it will not be disposed of. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why move it?"] Over and over again I have put down Amendments which have been ruled out of order, and if I am called upon to move an Amendment I hope I have pluck enough to do so. If the Government are waiting to withdraw the clause and going to put the mineral tax on a more practical footing, I am willing to sit down and say nothing more about it.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOUR
My hon. Friend was probably rather taken aback by the fact that the Amendment was called on after the Government had announced their intention of withdrawing the clause. That is because our Rules rather absurdly insist that a clause shall not be withdrawn until you get to the end of it, so that the Chairman is absolutely bound to put every Amendment on the Paper. It will be a futile waste of time to discuss those Amendments, and I should think the sooner we proceed to the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill the better. On the Motion to leave out the clause the Government will probably be prepared to make some statement of policy, and that would be a legitimate occasion for discussion and for elucidating from the Government the grounds on which they have substituted a wholly new plan for the one originally brought forward. I hope we shall proceed as fast as possible to the final Amendment, which will decide the fate of the clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.664
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)
I understood the Prime Minister had explained the new clause, and had made quite clear what the policy of the Government was. That seems to be the general impression of all the papers, and some approve it and others call attention to the fact that we have changed our mind, and the Press to-day is full of criticism of the statement of the Prime Minister on this particular point as well as with regard to valuation.
§ Mr. BALFOUR
The Prime Minister explained what the general outline of the new plan was to be, but. he never told us what we surely have some right to know, why the scheme originally brought forward has been abandoned, and in what respect it proves impracticable, and why, speaking generally and not in detail, we have a new Budget proposal to take the place of the old one. If the clause had contained the new proposal instead of the old one we should have had an opportunity on the Resolution of discussing it, and we should have only that plan before us. We have now two plans before us, and the Committee are quite ignorant now why the Government have changed their minds. The change involves not merely questions of principle, but also questions of revenue. I understand the amount expected from the new tax is precisely double what was expected from the old one. Although the sum involved may seem small, it is very large compared with the receipts from the group of these taxes which we have been so long occupied in discussing.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
I think I am entitled to point out that there will be at least two opportunities of discussing that very point. The first operation, I understand, will be the Resolution. I shall have to get a fresh Resolution with a view to enabling me to move the new clause in Committee. Upon that Resolution the whole of this policy can be discussed, and I cannot conceive of anything I could say now which I should not have to say then in defence of the Resolution, and I cannot think of anything which the right hon. Gentleman would wish to say now which would not be equally relevant when he comes to that Resolution. It is not desirable to have two discussions. It is not that we could avoid discussion even if we wished, because on two separate occasions he can discuss identically the same issue 665 as he could raise now, and I think much more effectively.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
It depends entirely when the new clauses are taken. I understand they will not be taken till the end of the Bill, but I am willing to meet the Opposition, and bring it down in the next few days.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BALFOUR
I think we ought to know from the Government what they have to say in regard to this proposal at the present moment. May I ask a question in regard to procedure? When we come to the Resolution to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred, I presume that references to the abandoned tax will not be in order. I do not imagine that in discussing the new tax it would be fair to exclude references to the tax which is being abandoned. I shall have to wait for the ruling of the Chairman in regard to that. But on broader Parliamentary grounds I think that, in regard to the course which has been taken by the Government in proposing this change, this is the moment when the Government should defend themselves and say why they are dropping Clause 12. When they are giving notice of a formal Motion to that effect I should have thought that that is the proper occasion on which to say something in justification of their procedure.
§ Mr. J. C. WEDGWOOD
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, really objects to the withdrawal of this clause; he is only asking in explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a large part of his own following would like to have an explanation of the withdrawal of this clause, because they prefer the Bill as it originally stood with the Clause 12 to the proposed new tax on mining royalties. What is the effect of the change? The original Clause 12 based the tax on the capital value of minerals. It was a tax exactly similar in principle to the halfpenny tax on undeveloped land. It affected mining properties whether they were being worked or not. The change proposed is that those minerals which are not being worked shall be ruled out of the purview of the tax which is to be levied only on those owners who work their minerals. It is proposed to tax, not the 666 whole of the minerals, but to confine the tax to those which are being worked. In that way you must penalise the working of those minerals in a particular district where there are minerals which are not being worked, and therefore you are penalising production.
The hon. Member is not entitled, on the Amendment now before the Committee, to anticipate the discussion of the new clause.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
I am not anticipating the new clause. I wish merely to state my objections to the dropping of Clause 12.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE
May I say to my hon. Friend that all those objections can be stated equally well when we come to the new clause, with the additional advantage that he will be able to enter into the merits of the new proposal.
§ Mr. BALFOUR
On a point of order. I understand you ruled just now that we are only to discuss the proposal to withdraw Clause 12, because the new clause is not before us. By parity of reasoning, when we come to the new clause it will be only the new clause that we can discuss, and not the old one. I wish to know whether, when we come to the Resolution which is to be brought forward soon, we will be able to travel over both the abandoned proposal and the new proposal, though apparently at present we can only touch on the old proposal.
It may be useful to argue now why the old proposal should not be departed from, and, in so far as the hon. Gentleman deals with that question, references to the new proposal may be allowed.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD
Shall I be justified in dealing with the change simply and solely as it affects the clause which is to be withdrawn, merely pointing out the disadvantages of other forms for the taxation of minerals except the one originally adopted. I desire that the clause should remain in the Bill, and I wish to show the disadvantages of any other mode of treating the taxation of minerals. The proposed change is that the tax shall be levied only on minerals which are worked, thereby penalising production, and in the long run transferring the tax to the consumer. That would not happen all at once; it would not happen under existing leases, but directly the new leases are 667 drawn up there can be no doubt that, as long as you keep within the purview of the tax only minerals which are being worked, the owners will be able to charge extra royalties to recoup themselves for the tax by getting more for the coal that is produced. That. I think, would be a calamity to bring about by this Budget. Hitherto the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said over and over again that the taxes on land values do not penalise industry in any way, but directly you arrange your tax that the price of coal will be enhanced you will be inflicting a most serious blow on the industries of this country. I do not say that that will happen immediately. It will not happen until the new leases come in force, and I hope that long before the present leases fall in we shall have an amending Act which shall bring into the purview of the tax minerals which are not being worked as well as those which are being worked. I think this is the occasion to point out to the Government that it is of the utmost importance that, at any rate, the principle of the original Clause 12 should be maintained.
I should like to give two examples of what the change means in specific cases. The other day in a district which I know there was a pit closed down where 300 men were employed. I cannot say the exact reason why it was closed down, but the fact was that the lessee found himself no longer able to pay the royalty which had been agreed upon. Therefore, it no longer paid him to work that pit. Directly the pit was closed down, under the new scheme now proposed, there would be no tax on the lessee of the coalfield, but under the old scheme of Clause 12 as it originally stood in the Bill the lessee and the owner would have had to continue to pay the tax, and the paying of it would have acted as a direct inducement to the lessee to keep the pit open and continue to employ these 300 men. There was another case in my own constituency where a pit was closed down four or five years ago. There was a dispute, but I have not been able to discover the details of it in a form which I should like to give for publication. There you had big capitalists anxious to lease the whole pit and allow people to work the coal. They could not come to terms as to the royalty which had to be paid, and there we have had people ever since thrown out of work simply because the pit was closed down. If there had been a tax on minerals, whether worked or not, the owner of the minerals 668 would have had a strong inducement to lease the fields to the persons who were willing to work them at a lower royalty than the landowner was willing to accept Take the case of Lord Penrhyn. He closed his quarries for three years, and directly he ceased to work them 2,300 men were thrown out of work. He went at once to the Assessment Committee, and got his assessment reduced by £14,600. Under the proposals of this Bill, if they had then been in operation, he would have had to pay the tax on the value of the slates whether he worked them or not, and that would have been a strong inducement to him to work the quarries. Directly he threw all these men out of employment his taxation was relieved. What is now proposed is not a sound policy for a Liberal Government to take up. I know the difficulties perfectly well. The difficulties have been often stated by lion. Gentlemen opposite as to the impossibility of obtaining any accurate valuation of minerals, but that is surely not ground on which the Government can base themselves, because they are valuing for the Increment Tax.
What is now proposed is a concession to those people who own minerals in this country, and who know perfectly well that the effect of the tax would have been to force the output of coal, to reduce the price of coal, and thereby to beneficially affect the industries of this country at the expense of the coalowner. That is a matter I can contemplate with perfect equanimity. I want coal cheaper as well as land cheaper in the interest of the industries of the whole community. The Government recognise the advantages of a halfpenny tax on undeveloped land, but they do not carry the principle right through and recognise the absolute similarity of this tax on the capital value of minerals.
§ Mr. A. CLAVELL SALTER
I have no desire to follow the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) in speaking in favour of a tax which the Government are desirous of abandoning. As I understand, the Government are now asking us to abandon the Mineral Bights Duty not because it is a bad duty, not because for want of some other change this would not be a desirable change to make in our law, but because they have a better change. When we are being asked to abandon this duty in favour of a better one which the Government have discovered, surely it behoves them to tell us at this stage, before we accede to their suggestion and finally part with this duty, 669 what are the relatively superior advantages of the new duty in favour of which they ask us to abandon this one. It behoves the Government to do so now, and to give us an outline of the new duty, because obviously it will be too late when we come to the Resolution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to in relation to the new duty.
§ Mr. E. G. HEMMERDE
It seems to me that the course the House is now invited to take to leave out Clause 12 cuts right across the principle of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) pointed out just now that Clause 12 did for mineral land what was done in Clause 10 and other clauses for undeveloped land, and in Clause 10 we find that the House has already passed these words: That for the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty undeveloped land does not include the mineral underneath the surface of the land. It is quite obvious that they passed these words with the view of bringing in the question of undeveloped mineral lands under this clause. I am quite unable to understand how a tax upon mining royalties can in any way come in and take the place of this clause consistently with the Bill. One of the great principles of this Bill, running all through this Bill, is that whether a man is working his land or not he shall pay taxes upon its value. Now what they are going to do is to tax those who are working their mining land even more than they were originally going to tax those who are working it and those who are not. That seems to me a somewhat startling theory. I should like to know if the Government ask us to leave out this clause, with the view of putting in a clause upon royalties, whether they are going upon the Report stage to move the omission of Section (4) of Clause 10? I do not say that even so we should have as satisfactory a clause as we should have in the Bill as originally introduced, but I do say that we should have something consistent with the principles of the Bill, and I can only say, personally, if mining land is to be exempted from the Undeveloped Land Tax, and only mining royalties are to be taxed, that although I may be the only person who will go into the Lobby against the omission of this clause, I will certainly go there. I represent a mining constituency, and I fought a recent election mainly upon this question, and I was very pleased to see when the Budget was introduced immediately afterwards that this clause was in it. I 670 cannot possibly acquiesce in the abandonment of this clause unless I understand from the Government that they are going to bring in mining land within the Undeveloped Land Duty. I do not say that that is as good as the original proposal, but it will satisfy me. Otherwise I shall vote against it.
§ Sir JOHN RANDLES
I would like to ask what is going to be the effect of this new proposal on the industries concerned —the industries connected with coal and iron—because it may be that instead of being beaten with whips we are going to be beaten with scorpions. I have no love for the old Clause No. 12, which is now proposed to be abandoned, but we have had arguments from the Government to show that it has some advantages—for instance, it was going to bring into operation mineral properties which were difficult to get hold of for working purposes. It was going to confer the same benefit, and in the same way, as the Undeveloped Land Duty was going to confer by bringing in plots of land into the builders' hand, and causing houses to be built, and a lot of mines were going to be started working under the beneficent operation of this clause, which is now to be abandoned. I think when it is being abandoned we should have, at any rate, some general details as to why it is now being given up. If the arguments that have already been stated have been found to be fallacious, we may then know that the same arguments applied to other things are equally fallacious, and we may perhaps find that it is desirable to have a fresh clause in reference to undeveloped land in some other part of the Bill. So if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would favour us with some explanation of the disadvantages of the clause which he is proposing to abandon to show that the industry which he is proposing to tax will not be more heavily hit by any other proposal which he may have in his mind then we shall say goodbye to this clause with a great deal more satisfaction than is likely to be the case if, as we have some reason to believe, the taxes which he is about to propose are taxes on the industry; because whether you levy a tax upon ungotten minerals or on the royalties, it is the manufacturer, the iron and steel worker, the man who uses the coal, who has got to pay the tax in the long run. Therefore if, instead of a tax of £10,000 or £100,000, or whatever it may be, you are going to put on double the amount of money, and to make it more 671 burdensome to the community, and they have got to pay in respect of minerals a far larger amount, then I think we are entitled to protest even under the conditions on which the Government are asking us to withdraw this clause. Little as we like it, we may possibly find it will cost us double the amount to do what the Government propose to do, and therefore
§ we want to know something about it before the clause is withdrawn.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 82.673
|Division No. 436.]||AYES.||[4.25 p.m.|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Harwood, George||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Mawortn, Arthur A.||Richardson, A.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Barker, Sir John||Helme, Norval Watson||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Robinson, S.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Higham, John Sharp||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Beale, W. P.||Hobart, Sir Robert||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Be[...] W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Berridge T. H. D.||Horniman, Emslie John||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Btthell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Hudson, Walter||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Brace, William||Jardine, Sir J.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Bright, J. A||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Sears, J. E.|
|Brocklebust, W. B.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Shackleton, David James|
|Brooke, Stopford||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Jowett, F. W.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Kekewich, Sir George||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Laidlaw, Robert||Snowden, P.|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Lamont, Norman||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Lehmann, R. C.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)|
|Clough, William||Lewis, John Herbert||Steadman, W. C.|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Summerbell, T.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Crooks, William||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||M Callum, John M.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Duckworth, Sir James||M'Laren, (H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Verney, F. W.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||M'Micking, Major G.||Walsh, Stephen|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Massie, J.||Walters, John Tudor|
|Erskine, David C.||Masterman, C. F. G.||Walton, Joseph|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Menzies, Sir Walter||wardle, George J.|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Micklem, Nathaniel||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Falconer, J.||Molteno, Percy Alport||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Morse, L. L.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Gill, A. H.||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)||Wilson, J, W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Glover, Thomas||Myer, Horatio||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Norman, Sir Henry||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Gulland, John W.||O'Grady, J.||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Partington, Oswald|
|Harcourt, Robert v. (Montrose)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Perks, Sir Robert William|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bowles, G. Stewart||Clyde, J. Avon|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Butcher, Samuel Henry||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Ashley, W. W.||Carlile, E. Hildred||Courthope, G. Loyd|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Cox, Harold|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Banner, John S. Harmood||Chance, Frederick William||Doughty, Sir George|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Du Cros, Arthur|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Clive, Percy Archer||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Fell, Arthur||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Fletcher, J. s.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool)|
|Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Gordon, J.||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Smith, Hon. W, F. D. (Strand)|
|Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Moore, William||Stanier, Beville|
|Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)||Morpeth, Viscount||Starkey, John R.|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Newdegate, F. A.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Hills, J. W.||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Pauiton, James Mellor||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Walker, Colonel W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Peel, Hon. W. R. W.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Pretyman, E. G.||Younger, George|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W.,|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)||Renton, Leslie|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Renwick, George||Forster.|
|Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dublin, S.)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
§ Question put, "That clause 12 stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 172.675
|Division No. 437.]||AYES.||[4.30 p.m.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Oddy, John James|
|Banner, John S. Harmood||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. C. Wedgwood and Mr. Hemmerde|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Falconer, J.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Ambrose, Robert||Findlay, Alexander||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Fletcher, J. S.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Fuller, John Michael F.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Barker, Sir John||Gill, A. H.||M'Callum, John M.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Glover, Thomas||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Massie, J.|
|Beale, W. P.||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Gulland, John W.||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Brace, William||Harwood, George||Morse, L. L.|
|Bright, J. A.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Murphy, John (Kerry, East)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hedges, A. Paget||Myer, Horatio|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles||Helme, Norval Watson||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Byles, William pollard||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Grady, J.|
|Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||O'Mailey, William|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Higham, John Sharp||Partington, Oswald|
|Chance, Frederick William||Hobart, Sir Robert||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Chanping Sir Francis Allston||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Clough, William||Horniman, Emslie John||Perks, Sir Robert William|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Hudson, Walter||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jardine, Sir J.||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)|
|Cox, Harold||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Richardson, A.|
|Crooks, William||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Cullinan, J.||Jowett, F. W.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Elflon)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Kekewich, Sir George||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Laidlaw, Robert||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lamont, Norman||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Lehmann, R. C.||Rogers, F. E. Newman|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Lewis, John Herbert||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Erskine, David C.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Evans, Sir S. T.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Lupton, Arnold||Sears, J. E.|
|Shackleton, David James||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)||Williams, J, (Glamorgan)|
|Shipman, Dr. John G.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Silcock, Thomas Ball||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Sloan, Thomas Henry||Thorne, William (West Ham)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Snowden, P.||Verney, F. W.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Walsh, Stephen||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Soares, Ernest J.||Walters, John Tudor||Yoxall, Sir James|
|Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)||Walton, Joseph|
|Steadman, W. C.||Wardle, George J.|
|Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Sir E. Strachey.|
|Summerbell, T.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Taylor, sahn W. (Durham)||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|