HC Deb 30 March 1911 vol 23 cc1595-609

There shall be substituted for the scale of Minimum Duty payable for pub- licans and beerhouse licences in Great Britain contained in Scale 3 Head C, of the First Schedule of the Principal Act, the following scale, that is to say:—

Population. Minimum Duty.
Publican's Licence. Beerhouse Licence.
£ s. £ s
In areas which are not urban areas, and in urban areas with a population of less than 2,000 5 0 3 10
In urban areas with a population of—
2,000 and less than 5,000 7 10 3 15
5,000 and less than 10,000 10 0 5 0
10,000 and less than 50,000 15 0 7 10
50,000 and less than 100,000 20 0 10 0
100,000 or above 25 0 12 10

This Section shall have effect as respects licences granted after the passing of the principal Act and in force at the time of the passing of this Act, and as respects licences granted after the passing of this Act.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

Mr. CAVE

Having regard to the conditions under which we are working, I shall move this Clause in a very short speech. The effect of the Clause will be to reduce the minimum Licence Duties from the figures at which they were fixed by the Act of last year to somewhat more reasonable figures, in some cases by twenty, thirty or forty per cent. The reasons for the reduction are shortly these. In the first place we have now some figures showing how many of the houses are subject to the minimum duty, in how many cases the minimum duty exceeds half or one-third the annual value as the case may be, fixed as the duty last year. I have got a number of figures and a list of five boroughs, Birmingham, Bristol, Halifax, Portsmouth, and Southampton. In those five places together the total number of beer-houses is 1,871, and the total number coming under the minimum duty is 1,709, which is a very large proportion of the whole. The second point is that the duties work very harshly indeed upon the small houses. Of course, the theory is that when you have a large population you must have a large custom for these houses. That may be the theory. It is not the fact, because in very many cases the borough itself extends beyond the really populous centre, and includes a great deal of country that is either rural or suburban. In those cases the houses near the boundary having a very small custom indeed find that the minimum duties fixed by reference to the population of the whole borough work extremely harshly, and are very burdensome on the house itself.

I may give three cases from one borough, the borough of Halifax. One house has an annual value of only £11. The duty before the Act of last year was £3 10s. It is now £23s. 10s., or over twice the annual value of the house itself. In the second case the annual value is £25, and the duty has risen from £3 10s. to £23 10s., or almost the annual value. The third case is just outside the Halifax boundary. The annual value of the house is about the same and the custom is about the same, but the duty remains at a very much smaller sum. The third point I want to put refers to the census which is now coming. There may be houses to which the minimum duty does not now apply, or to which a lower scale applies. The moment the Census figures come out, and the populations are fixed by reference to the new Census, a number of houses just because they are within the boundary of populous places will jump up immediately though there is no increase whatever in the custom, and though the duties may even now be very burdensome. Surely the time has come when these minimum duties should be considered, and when the Government ought to ascertain whether the small licensees are not reasonably entitled to a reduction of their very heavy burden. The fourth point that I want to put is one which we have already discussed to a certain extent, that is the position in cases were boroughs or urban districts are extending. There, again, these minimum duties operate very unfairly. Some cases were mentioned the other night, cases like Cambridge and Birmingham, where there is no relief, and cases like Stoke, where relief had been granted. You extend the boundary of a borough so as to bring the enlarged borough into a higher category as regards duties.

Mr. JOHN WARD

Stoke was not extended.

Mr. CAVE

Stoke was a combination.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

I would like to know how far we shall be able to go into these special cases of boroughs which have their boundaries extended?

Mr. CAVE

I am not going into this special case. I am putting it as an in- stance of what is happening. In these cases of borough extension the minimum scale is specially hard, because the effect of the extension of the borough for purely local government purposes is suddenly to increase the minimum duty upon the houses within the borough, and still more upon these houses just around it. In the case of Dewsbury, the Postmaster-General, I think, was not able to give the house full or accurate information the other night. What the Postmaster-General said was that the representation by virtue of which the Government then proposed to give special exemption to the Dewsbury houses did not come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman). The representations, he said, which were made by the publicans of Dewsbury—who by the way are not supporters of the Minister for Education, but are his most bitter opponents—were representations which could have been made by publicans in every other locality similarly situated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday. 28th March", 1011, col. 1194.] That is what we were told the other day, and, being an unsuspicious person, I, of course, accepted what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

The hon. and learned Member should also read the passage from my remarks on that occasion, where I said, in referring to the statement that I had said that the President of the Board of Education had nothing to do with the matter:— I did not say so; I said that the representations were initiated by the publicans of Dewsbury. They naturally went to their Member of Parliament as publicans in any place would do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, March 28th, 1911, col. 1145.]

Mr. CAVE

I was reading from the last speech the right hon. Gentleman made in the Debate, the speech in which he withdrew the Amendment. I read from the OFFICIAL REPORT. If he says it was wrong, of course I acept his statement; at all events, I understood the statement as printed, and that the representations were from the publicans of Dewsbury.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Initiated by them.

Mr. CAVE

That is not the statement here:— The representations did not come to us from the light hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury. The Postmaster-General will not say that to-day. Before going on with the matter, let me read what the Postmaster-General continued to say:— But I take it as the general desire of the Committee that an effort should be made to see whether or not general words should be used in this connection. While I give no pledge on this subject, the Government are willing to withdraw this Clause, and to see whether this principle of differentiation is the right line of discrimination in these cases. If it is then we will see in what form words to give effect to that principle can be embodied in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday. March 28th. 1911, col. 1191.] He distinctly promised that the Government, if allowed to withdraw the Clause, would at all events see whether they could not frame a general Clause to cover all cases that would be embodied in the Bill. When I looked at the Paper this morning, I saw no Clause, and that no effort had been made to meet the representations strongly pressed on this side of the House, that while the principle proposed to be applied to Dewsbury was a perfectly fair and proper principle which we support, yet we thought it ought to be generally applied to all these cases. Who would have thought, when that speech was made and the Clause withdrawn without opposition, that a negotiation had been actually going on between the Minister for Education and his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the result that, according to a letter from the Minister of Education which I hold in my hand, the Chancellor had agreed to accept the Dewsbury Clause, provided it could be done in such a way as not to make an opening for further places. I want to give the right hon. Gentleman time for some explanation, and, therefore, I will say no more about the matter except that I do think it requires explanation. I invite the Government to consider one mode, at all events, of dealing with the misunderstanding which occurred the other night, and that is to atone for it by accepting this new Clause.

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS

I beg to second the Motion. I support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend, but under the circumstances in which we are working this evening I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to reply, especially as to the case of Dewsbury.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

This Clause which it is now proposed to add to the Bill would reopen the scale of taxation which was fully considered by the House of Commons when it passed the Budget of 1900 and which, therefore, ought not to be remodelled, in the view of the Government. without very strong reason being shown. I put it to the House with confidence that the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) in no degree established the case for an alteration of the scale of taxation of the minimum Licence Duty deliberately resolved upon after full consideration and discussion by the House of Commons two years ago. His points were four. In the first place he said, "We now have figures which tell us how many public-houses are affected by the minimum Licence Duties, and that these figures show that there is a considerable number which are affected by these new Licence Duties, particularly in the case of beerhouses." There is nothing surprising or unanticipated in that. The minimum Licence Duties were put in because they were expected to have an effect, and in order that they might have the effect of raising the scale of Licence Duty upon houses which otherwise, in our view, supported, as we were by the view of the House of Commons, would have been too low. The mere fact that a considerable number of public-houses and of beerhouses are affected by the duties is no reason why the duties themselves should be altered, particularly in the case of beer houses. We were aware that these duties would affect a very considerable number. I do not know whether hon. Members who did not follow the Debate at that time are aware that beer houses had a uniform Licence Duty throughout the country of £3 10s. and no more. A beer house might be doing an enormous trade, thousands of pounds' worth of liquor a year, and the whole of that valuable trade was allowed to be carried on with the derisory, the almost nominal, Licence Duty of £3 10s. Of course, the effect of the additional scale of the minimum Licence Duty was intended, namely, that a large number of houses should pay under a more reasonable scale of Licence Duty. The hon. and learned Member said to-day, as he has said many times in this House, that the Licence Duty on many of these houses was £.3 10s., that under the Licence Duty they now pay £23 10s., and that, therefore, £23 10s. is too high a Licence Duty. 7 fail absolutely to follow that argument.

Mr. CAVE

I said the small houses were rated on £11 or £12 a year.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

No; the hon. and learned Gentleman said there was thousands of cases throughout the country where the Licence Duty was £3 10s., and that it has now become £23 10s., which was an enormous jump, and one which indicated an injustice. I deny absolutely that it indicates injustice. One of two conclusions may be drawn from a comparison of the then existing duty and the now existing duty. One conclusion is that the now existing duty is too high; the other is that the then existing duty was too low. I submit to the House, and I do not think anybody can dispute it, that for these houses, even though they may have a small rateable value, the Licence Duty of £3 10s., established very many years ago, was an absurdly low figure under which to carry on a protected trade, a monopoly created by all the provisions of the Licensing Law. A similar figure of £6 or £8 a year was allowed for the publican's spirit licence. That was far too low a figure, and ought properly to have been raised. The third point of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that now the new Census comes into operation, suddenly you will find a jump of the publican's Licence Duty, the licensed houses being taken out of one category and being put into another. But the scale of Licence Duties is to be graduated; there will be a very small and gradual increase of the duty; there will be no sudden jump between the old duties compared with the new. The steps will be gradual, and the increase of the duty will correspond to the increase in the town which gives a larger market for the goods supplied by the public house. Lastly, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that injustice is done in the case of municipal extensions. He quoted once more the case of Dewsbury, which was discussed the other day with some heat. Let me in the first place rebut the accusation of the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have misled the House.

Mr. CAVE

I never intended to say that for a moment. I thought the Postmaster-General was himself misled, and that he was not aware of the facts.

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

No, sir. I was aware of all the facts. I was aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) had mentioned this matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I made that clear in the remarks I addressed to the House on that occasion. The case that I was answering was this: The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a few words out of a speech of mine, and his case was that the town of Cambridge and the town of Birmingham, when their bounds were extended, ought to be treated in the same way as Dewsbury. I replied that after all it was with the publicans of Dewsbury that these representations originated, and that it was from them they emanated. They first raised the matter, and I said that what the publicans of Dewsbury had done could be done by the publicans of Cambridge or Birmingham, or any other town in precisely the same way. I was pointing out that no representations had come to us from any quarters on the same lines. Afterwards, gathering from a remark made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. W. R. Peel), that my words had been misinterpreted when he said, "We are assured by the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Board of Education had nothing whatever to do with it," I, at once rose in my place, being unwilling to allow that misapprehension to go abroad, and realising that the words I had spoken might possibly be misinterpreted, and said: "I did not say so." I said that the representations were initiated by the publicans of Dewsbury. They naturally went to their Member of Parliament, as publicans in any place would do; and it is surely a strange doctrine to say that on a legislative matter, upon a question which involves the amendment of an Act of Parliament, the only people who were to be regarded as disfranchised, the only people who were not to be allowed to make representations through their Member, were those who are under the disability of being represented by one of the Members of the Government of the day. Surely that is an impossible position to take up. I hope I have made that clear. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a letter of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman), who it was said had approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as indeed it was his duty to do as a Member of Parliament. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House freely speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on matters of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose reply was, in effect, this: If this is really a special and peculiar case, like the case of Stoke, it may be dealt with, but if it raises a large new principle, and will let in a great number of other towns, meaning a considerable sacrifice of Revenue, then I cannot undertake to make such an Amendment. That was precisely his view; that clearly was the meaning and intention of the language which was used by the right hon. Gentleman.

The reason of differentiating the case of Stoke from other towns, and the reason why we made a special provision in the Bill of 1909 in the case of Stoke, was this. There you had a group of towns previously disunited, but which were to be brought into one whole. The effect of bringing them into one whole would be to raise the licence duties imposed upon the publicans of those towns by no less than £4,000 a year—£3,950, I think it is, to be precise. They came to us and said this provisional order for the unification of six towns of the Potteries was passed into law on 21st December, 1908, before the Budget Bill was introduced. It did not come into operation until 31st March, 1910, after the Budget had been introduced. They said to us, "If we had known that the effect of the unification was to impose upon us these very much heavier duties, then the whole question of the unification in the Potteries might have been very different. This has come upon us as a surprise. It introduces a new and strange element previously unforeseen in the whole question, which has been debated for years in those Pottery towns." And they appealed to the Government to make an exception in their ease, and asked to be treated as though they were separate boroughs. They supported their case by saying that Parliament has already realised that there are differences in our six towns, because they are allowed a differential system of rating which is to prevail for a period of twenty years.

After hearing those arguments, and it being represented that this was a special and peculiar case, the Government, anxious to avoid a hardship of that character, said, "We will accept the Amendment dealing with this particular case by allowing the same period for the differential public-house licence duty that was allowed for the differential rates of those boroughs." That was the case of Stoke. Then came the people of Dewsbury, who had not got nearly such a strong case, but one of a very similar character. Their Provisional Order was passed on 25th November, 1909, after the Budget was introduced, but it did not come into operation until the same day as the Stoke Order. As to the figures, their case is a little weaker, and, further, the increased burden imposed upon them is considerably smaller than £4,000. Nevertheless, the cases were so analogous, and we were informed that there were no representations from any other towns, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, thinking that this would not raise any large new principle, accepted also the case of Dewsbury. So much objection was taken to it the other day that the Clause was withdrawn, and I undertook, while giving no pledge, to consider whether it would be possible to adopt any form of words that would deal with such a case. We have considered carefully, with the authorities of the Customs and Excise, and we have come to the conclusion that it is not possible in those cases, which vary so much, to draft any form of words which would do justice to all the cases which may arise in future; and, further, we should have to consider whether such words, if they were adopted, ought not to have retrospective validity. A large number of difficulties would therefore arise, which the Government confess, after full consideration, they have not been able adequately to meet, and, consequently, they cannot

present to the House a new form of general words that will deal with all the cases. The Government cannot accept the form of words suggested in the Clause moved by the hon. Member opposite, because it deals quite indiscriminately with a large number of different cases.

Mr. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman has left me no time to say anything except to offer him my sincerest congratulations on the fall of the gag.

And, it being Eight of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 27th March, proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Motion already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 297.

Division No. 100. AYES. [8.4 p.m.
Acland-Hood, Rt Hon. Sir Alex. F. Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. Kimber, Sir Henry
Archer-Shee, Major Martin Dixon, Charles Harvey Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ashley, Wilfred W. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers. Kirkwood, John H. M.
Astor, Waldorf Du Cros, Arthur Philip Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Lane-Fox, G. R.
Baird, John Lawrence Falle, Bertram Godfray Larmor, Sir J.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Fell, Arthur Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)
Balcarres, Lord Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Lee, Arthur Hamilton
Baldwin, Stanley Finlay, Sir Robert Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.) Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Fleming, Valentine Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Forster, Henry William Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwlch)
Barnston, Harry Gardner, Ernest MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Macmaster, Donald
Bathust, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Gibbs, George Abraham Magnus, Sir Philip
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Gilmour, Captain John Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Beckett, Hon. William Gervase Goldman, Charles Sydney Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Goldsmith, Frank Morpeth, Viscount
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Goulding, Edward Alfred Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Beresford, Lord Charles Grant, James Augustus Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Bird, Alfred Greene, Walter Raymond Mount, William Arthur
Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith. Gretton, John Newdegate, F. A.
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward Newman, John R. P.
Boyton, James Haddock, George Bahr Newton, Harry Kottingham
Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Bridgeman, William Clive Hambro, Angus Valdemar Nield, Herbert
Bull, Sir William James Harris, Henry Percy Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Helmsley, Viscount Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A.
Butchr, John George (York) Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Campion, W. R. Hickman, Colonel Thomas E Paget, Almeric Hugh
Carlile, Edward Hildred Hill, Sir Clement L. Parkes, Ebenezer
Castlereagh, Viscount Hills, John Waller (Durham) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Cator, John Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak) Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Cautley, Henry Strother Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Perkins, Walter Frank
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Hope, Harry (Bute) Peto, Basil Edward
Clive, Percy Archer Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Clyde, James Avon Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Houston, Robert Paterson Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Courthope, George Loyd Hume-Williams, William Ellis Quilter, William Eley C.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, F.) Hunt, Rowland Ratcliff, R. F.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Rawlinsen, John Frederick Peel
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Ingleby, Holcombe Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Craik, Sir Henry Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Remnant, James Farquharson
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Joynson-Hicks, William Ronaldshay, Earl of
Croft, Henry Page Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Rothschild, Lionel de
Dairymple, Viscount Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Salter, Arthur Clavell
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Kerry, Earl of Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Sanders, Robert Arthur Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Sanderson, Lancelot Swift, Rigby Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) Sykes, Alan John Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) Wolmer, Viscount
Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) Thynne, Lord Alexander Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Snowden, Philip Tobin, Alfred Aspinall Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Spear, John Ward Touche, George Alexander Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Stanier, Beville Valentia, Viscount Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) Walker, Col. William Hall Yate, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Walrond, Hon. Lionel Younger, George
Starkey, John Ralph Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. Samuel Roberts
Steel-Maitland, A. D. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Stewart, Gershom White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc, Southport)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) John, Edward Thomas
Acland, Francis Dyke Dawes, James Arthur Johnson, William
Adamson, William Delany, William Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Adkins, W. Ryland D. Devlin, Joseph Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Dickinson, W. H. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Agnew, Sir George William Dillon, John Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Donelan, Captain A. Jowett, Frederick William
Alden, Percy Duffy, William J. Joyce, Michael
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Keating, Matthew
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Kellaway, Frederick George
Anderson, Andrew Macbeth Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Armitage, Robert Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Kilbride, Denis
Aequith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) King, Joseph (Somerset, North)
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Lamb, Erneet Honry
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Elverston, Harold Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lansbury, George
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Essex, Richard Walter Lawson, Sir W.(Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)
Barnes, George N Falconer, James Lewis, John Herbert
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) Fenwick, Charles Logan, John William
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) Ferens, Thomas Robinson Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Barton, William Ffrench, Peter Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Beale, William Phipson Field, William Lundon, Thomas
Beauchamp, Edward Fitzgibbon, John Lyell, Charles Henry
Beck, Arthur Cecil Flavin, Michael Joseph Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Bentham, George Jackson France, Gerald Ashburner Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Bethell, Sir John Henry Gelder, Sir William Alfred Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Gibson, Sir James Puckering Maclean, Donald
Black, Arthur W. Gill, Alfred Henry Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Boland, John Plus Glanville, Harold James MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Booth, Frederick Handel Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford M'Callum, John M.
Bowerman, Charles W. Goldstone, Frank M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Brace, William Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Marshall, Arthur Harold
Brigg, Sir John Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey) Martin, Joseph
Brocklehurst, William B. Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Bryce, John Annan Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Masterman, C. F. G
Burke, E. Haviland- Gulland, John William Meagher, Michael
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hackett, John Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Menzies, Sir Walter
Byles, William Pollard Hancock, John George Millar, James Duncan
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) Molloy, Michael
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Molteno, Percy Alport
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) Money, L. G. Chiozza
Chancellor, Henry George Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Mooney, John J.
Clancy, John Joseph Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Morgan, George Hay
Clynes, John R. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Morrell, Philip
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Muldoon, John
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Munro, Robert
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Hayden, John Patrick Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hayward, Evan Murray, Capt Hon. Arthur C.
Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Needham, Christopher T.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) Neilson, Francis
Cory, Sir Clifford John Higham, John Sharp Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Cowan, William Henry Hinds, John Nolan, Joseph
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Norman, Sir Henry
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Hodge, John Norton, Capt. Cecil W.
Crooks, William Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Crumley, Patrick Hudson, Walter O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Hughes, Spencer Leigh O'Connor, John (Kildare. N.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Illingworth, Percy H. O'Doherty, Philip
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel O'Donnell, Thomas
O'Grady, James Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Toulmin, George
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Robinson, Sydney Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Malley, William Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Roche, Augustine (Louth) Verney, Sir Harry
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Roche, John (Galway, E.) Wadsworth, John
O'Sullivan, Timothy Roe, Sir Thomas Walters, John Tudor
Palmer, Godfrey Mark Rose, Sir Charles Day Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Parker, James (Halifax) Rowlands, James Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Wardle, George J.
Pearce, William (Limehouse) St. Maur, Harold Waring, Walter
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. Watt, Henry A.
Pointer, Joseph Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Webb, H.
Pollard, Sir George H. Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. White, Sir George (Norfolk)
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Sheehy, David White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)
Power, Patrick Joseph Shortt, Edward White, Patrick (Heath, North)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Simon, Sir John Allsebrook Whitehouse, John Howard
Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) Whyte, A. F.
Primrose, Hon. Neil James Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wiles, Thomas
Pringle, William M. R. Spicer, Sir Albert Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Radford, George Heynes Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Raffan, Peter Wilson Strachey, Sir Edward Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Rainy, Adam Rolland Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Summers, James Woolley Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Reddy, Michael Sutherland, John E. Winfrey, Richard
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Sutton, John E. Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Young, William (Perth, East)
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Tennant, Harold John Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Thomas, James Henry (Derby) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Howard.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Mr. SPEAKER

then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Eight of the Clock this day.