§ (1) If an insured person ceases to be permanently resident in the United Kingdom and becomes a member of any society or institution established in a British possession or foreign country, of a kind similar to an approved society, which is approved by the Insurance Commissioners, or of any branch established outside the United Kingdom of an approved society, the transfer value of such person, or, in the case of a deposit contributor, the amount standing to his credit in the Post Office fund shall be paid to such society or institution or branch; but no such payment shall be made unless the Insurance Commissioners are satisfied that the society, institution, or branch in question gives corresponding rights to any of its members becoming resident in the United Kingdom.
§ (2) Where an arrangement has been made with the Government of any British possession or with the Government of any foreign State, whereby insured persons may be transferred to a society or institution established in the British possession or foreign State similar to an approved society or the Post Office fund, and members of any such society or institution may be transferred to approved societies or to the Post Office fund, it shall be lawful for the Insurance Commissioners to make such arrangements as may be necessary for any such transfer as aforesaid, and for the determination of the amount to be transferred in any such case, and of the rights to which any person transferred is to be entitled; so, however, that nothing in this Section shall affect the rights of a society under this part of this Act to refuse applications for membership.576
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I rule on three points before taking the Amendments in detail. The first point is the matter raised by several hon. Members dealing with Post Office depositors. It is clear this Clause, although it refers to Post Office depositors, is only a subsidiary clause, and anything done in this Clause would not prejudge the full consideration of the position of Post Office depositors on Clause 32. The second point is raised by the Amendment suggesting that deposit contributors ceasing to be permanently resident in the United Kingdom should be able to draw out the balance standing to their credit (if any) on emigration. That, in my opinion, comes on Clause 32, and not on this Clause. The third point is the proposal to give a transfer value to a person leaving the United Kingdom and not joining another similar society. That must be a matter for a new Clause. It could not be brought in as an Amendment to this particular Clause.
§ Mr. HUNT
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or foreign country."
I do not think a man insured in this country should be allowed to take money out of this country and spend it in a foreign country. A man who goes to live out of the country permanently has no business to take British money with him.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
The hon. Gentleman has omitted to note the advantages we expect to get from the foreigner as well as the advantages which we are giving to the foreigner. Unless we get those advantages, the Clause does not hold. We propose to give advantages to the approved societies of foreign countries on the condition that those approved societies of foreign countries give the same advantages to ourselves. That is what we call reciprocity.
§ Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
§ Dr. CHAPPLE
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "gives corresponding rights to any of its members," and to insert instead thereof the words "will give a corresponding right to such member on his again."
If the Clause were amended as I suggest a member of a British approved society emigrating would be entitled to have his transfer value paid over to the 577 Colonial or foreign society on the condition that if he returned and becoming a member of a British society again the transfer value would be returned to his original society. It would not require a general rule with regard to all members of all societies in foreign or Colonial countries; it would be a specific condition attached to the transfer value on each occasion.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
The point which the hon. Member has raised is one of very great importance. The Bill sets up as a test the conduct of the foreign or Colonial society to its own members when those members come to this country. The hon. Member says whatever their conduct may be to their members our business is to our members, and, because they will not extend a particular privilege to their members when they come here, our members ought not to forfeit their privilege if they go there. I think that is a matter of real substance. I can understand there may be reasons for desiring that members of overseas societies should be encouraged to transfer for the benefit of their members when they come here, just as it is proposed we might transfer for the benefit of our members when they go overseas. I do not wish to prejudice that course of conduct on their part, or to lessen the inducement to do so, but I do wish to guard against our people being penalised because they do not choose to adopt that course. Men are compelled to insure whether they like it or not, and, in the course of their lives, they may have to go abroad for a term of years. They may thereby have to forfeit something, and I take it that the object of the hon. Member is to prevent that. He desires to provide that a member who returns must transfer the value if he comes back to the old country. That is an object which we ought to secure, and I hope the Government will insert the necessary words which will secure it. I do not know what words are required, but I do say that our members ought not to forfeit their benefit because oversea societies are not willing to extend to their members the same privilege when they come over here. We have to see that our members are protected.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
This is very incomplete reciprocity. It would mean that there would be continual transfers from 578 our country to a foreign country, and there would be nothing coming back to this country.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
It may be that I do not appreciate the fact but it does seem to me that the great bulk of emigrants who come to this country will not have any transfer value. Surely the hon. Member is in the world of dreams.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I am not very familiar with Colonial societies, but I should think it is quite possible—[An HON. MEMBER: "How about emigrants from the Colonies?"] My hon. Friend behind me has emigrated from the Colonies. The right hon Gentleman has suggested it is very hard that the only alternative to a society which fails to give that reciprocity is for the emigrant to lose the advantage. But these cases must, of necessity, come under a new Clause, and that new Clause the Government are quite prepared to hear the arguments upon. I ask the Committee to support the Clause as it stands.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPS
I do not think the hon. Gentleman really understands the question. No doubt the Clause as drafted protects a man going abroad. But the point referred to by the hon. Member had regard to someone who is a member of an approved society who went abroad and who returned. That is a different matter altogether. In Clause 26, Sub-section (1), that is dealt with. The proposal is that a man should not be penalised because he has been abroad.
§ Mr. SANDERSON
I think the Amendment ought to be accepted. What is its object? It is this: if a member of an approved society of this country chooses to go abroad to one of our Colonies, or to any foreign country, if he has something standing to his credit here he is to take it with him. But as the Clause is at present drafted, unless he can find a society which gives corresponding benefits to his own society, he will not be able to do so. It is further desired to secure that he shall be able to make a bargain, so that if he wants to return to this country the sum standing to his credit shall be re-transferred. Surely that is a point which ought to be considered by this House? The great difficulty has been that a member of an approved society going from this country with something to his credit will, in all probability, find it impossible to discover a society which will come within the provisions of this Clause, and I understand 579 that the object of this Clause is to provide for such a contingency. Surely it ought to be feasible for the Government to carry this out.
§ Mr. FORSTER
I can explain in a very few words the reason why I support the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. He contemplates the case of a man who leaves his country, takes his transfer value with him, and, when he comes back to this country, wants to bring that transfer back. The difficulty is this, that hardly any society in foreign countries or in the Colonies can transfer value to their members when they leave. There may be voluntary arrangements between society and society, but that is not the point. The hon. Member opposite wishes the Committee to bear in mind that this is a transfer value, and I think we ought to take care that, when a man leaves this country and goes to an oversea society he shall be in a position, should he come back to this country, to bring his transfer value with him.
§ Mr. O'GRADY
This is, of course, a very important point, and I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who last spoke. When a man goes from a society to the Colonies and comes back in two or three years, if it can be provided that there shall be a right of transfer value, I think it would be of benefit.
It appears to me that the object the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment aims at is already embodied in the Bill. Suppose a man goes away to a foreign country his transfer value is to be sent after him if the society to which he is transferred will return that value should he come back again to this country. That would cover the case of a man who had joined a society in America, and who desired to return to this country. This is a case of the greater including the less. If the hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench is right that there are any societies in any country who send transfers to other countries, then this Amendment does not meet the point. So far as I can see it will not get us out of the difficulty.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
May I suggest to the Attorney-General one simple way out of the difficulty? I understand him to say that the intention of the Clause is that the man who goes abroad or to the Colonies and comes back should have the right to bring with him what has stood to his 580 credit with either the Colonial or foreign, society. The real difficulty arises by the use of the term "its members." If that means not only the members of the foreign society who have no domicile in this country, but also includes members who have gone from this country without losing their domicile, and who return again, the difficulty that is suggested in the Amendment does not really arise. If the words "its members" does really cover all that, then the Clause may be accepted. Does it cover all that? Inasmuch as the words used here are that the Insurance Commissioners have to be satisfied "that the society, institution, or branch in question gives corresponding rights to any of its members," that would seem to imply that the members so entitled are persons of foreign domicile. If the Attorney-General would make a drafting Amendment in order to say that the word "members" included not only foreigners of foreign domicile but also persons who have gone abroad and who did not lose their domicile in this country and who came back, that would meet the case. I suggest the words "gives corresponding rights to any of its members becoming resident in or returning to the United Kingdom." I ask the Attorney-General to consider these words.
§ Dr. CHAPPLE
The difficulty is this: that if the Clause remains as it is, it will be a great injustice to all those members of approved societies who wish to emigrate to our Colonies, for they will not be able to take their transfer value with them, because there are no societies in our Colonies which now give a corresponding right to us. But if the Clause is amended as I suggest, an emigrant going to Canada or Australia, and who finds there a society which will allow the condition to be attached, that if his transferred value is paid over to them they will give it back if he returns, it will not only encourage emigration but will also encourage return, and we do not penalise the man. I want to be fair to those who emigrate and to those who wish to return. If you insist upon the Clause as it is, all the Colonial societies will have to alter their rules and regulations, which is a complicated matter and would involve considerable delay before the emigrants could get advantage of the Clause at all.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I wish we could have some expression of opinion from the Government on the interesting 581 suggestion of the hon. Member below the gangway (Mr. O'Grady), who informed us of the practice in his own society. I rather gathered that he was not much inclined to approve the Amendment, but he suggested that possibly the practice of his society might conveniently be adopted by the Committee as being the practice to be embodied in the Bill. That practice was that they allowed a period to elapse before the emigrant's right in the transfer value was cancelled, and if he returned during that period of years then he took up his membership at once with the full benefit. That is a very important statement, and I do not think we ought to pass from the matter without some expression of opinion from the Government on the subject.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
The reason why I had not intervened is because it seemed to me that the point made by the right hon. Gentleman does not in any way touch the Amendment. I listened with great interest to the suggestions and observations made by the hon. Member (Mr. O'Grady), which I noted for possible future use. The Clause deals with a person who ceases to be permanently resident in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
He ceases to be permanently resident here. The case raised by the hon. Member is of a man who ceases to be permanently resident here and becomes temporarily resident elsewhere, and then comes back again.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
That point was decided by the Chairman when we began to discuss the Amendment. He said it would have to come in as a new Clause. The whole point to which we must devote attention is whether or not we intend to accept the Amendment? I quite appreciate and sympathise with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but it really does not arise upon this Amendment.
§ Mr. O'GRADY
I do not know who is in fault in this matter, but I raised the point in connection with the Amendment. I understood the point was that the Amendment dealt with men who emigrated to Colonies and desired to come back again.
§ Dr. CHAPPLE
May I point out that the Amendment is not confined to those who wish to return, but is applicable to all emigrants. Under the Clause no emigrant can take with him his transfer 582 value to any society overseas unless that society has a regulation which we all know it has not got.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is not the effect of this Clause under the ruling which I gave at the beginning. The question of an emigrant being able to withdraw his transfer value if he does not join a similar society, must be brought up in the form of a new Clause. It could not be comprehended within this Clause.
§ Dr. CHAPPLE
If I understand the Clause aright, unless in the overseas Dominions, societies can be found whose rules and regulations permit of this corresponding benefit being given to any emigrant from this country so that he can take out with him his transfer value, he is penalised and robbed because these societies have not the necessary rules and regulations. He is robbed of what he possesses in this country if he emigrates to one of the overseas Dominions. I want to prevent that. My Amendment covers all emigrants, and enables them to search about in their new home for a society which will agree that, if they wish to return, a corresponding right will be given to them.
Mr. TYSON WILSON
There are societies in the Colonies and the United States that do this now. Take my own society. We have branches in New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Australia, and South Africa. Anybody who went to one of these places would have credited to him in the books of the society a transfer value that stood in his name. If he came back that transfer value would be standing to his credit. If necessary, it would be transferred to our branches in the Colonies or America. There is no difficulty so far as we are concerned, because we should transfer on paper. Of course, it is a question of international arrangement if you are going to induce foreign societies to come to some arrangement with us. The Engineers' and the Carpenters' and Joiners' Societies are trade unions that have branches in every country. They simply transfer on paper, and the transfer value would be here if the man came back.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 140.585
|Division No. 351.]||AYES.||[6.30 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||O'Malley, William|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Haworth, Sir Arthur A.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Hayden, John Patrick||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)|
|Alden, Percy||Hayward, Evan||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.|
|Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Henry, Sir Charles||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Higham, John Sharp||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Barnes, George N.||Hinds, John||Pointer, Joseph|
|Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)||Hope, John Deans (Haddington)||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Hudson, Walter||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)|
|Boland, John Plus||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Johnson, William||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Brace, William||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Reddy, Michael|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Bryce, John Annan||Jowett, Frederick William||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Joyce, Michael||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Keating, Matthew||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||King, J. (Somerset, North)||Robinson, Sidney|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Lamb, Ernest Henry||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Cameron, Robert||Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Lansbury, George||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Rowlands, James|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Clough, William||Leach, Charles||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Lewis, John Herbert||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lundon, Thomas||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||Lyell, Charles Henry||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Sheehy, David|
|Crumley, Patrick||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||McGhee, Richard||Shortt, Edward|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Macpherson, James Ian||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Dawes, J. A.||M'Callum, John M.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||M'Curdy, C. A.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Devlin, Joseph||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Dewar, Sir J. A.||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Dillon, John||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Donelan, Capt. A.||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Doris, William||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Martin, J.||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||Masterman, C. F. G.||Wadsworth, J.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Meagher, Michael||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Falconer, James||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Menzies, Sir Walter||Wardle, George J.|
|Ffrench, Peter||Molteno, Percy Alport||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Watt, Henry A.|
|Gibson, Sir James P.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Webb, H.|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Mooney, John J.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Glanville, H. J.||Morgan, George Hay||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Goldstone, Frank||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Munro, Robert||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Greig, Col. J. W.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Neilson, Francis||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Hackett, John||Nolan, Joseph||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Doherty, Philip||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds. West)||O'Dowd, John||Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Astor, Waldorf||Banbury, Sir Frederick George|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Baird, John Lawrence||Barnston, Harry|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)||Foster, Phlnp Staveley||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Gardner, Ernest||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Nield, Herbert|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Gilmour, Captain John||O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||O'Grady, James|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Grant, J. A.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Greene, Walter Raymond||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Bird, Alfred||Guiney, P.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)|
|Boyton, James||Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harris, Henry Percy||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Bull, Sir William James||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Burn, Col. C. R.||Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Butcher, John George||Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Campion, W. R.||Hills, J. W.||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hoare, S. J. G.||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Cassel, Felix||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Hume-Williams, W. E.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hunt, Rowland||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Clyde, James Avon||Ingleby, Holcombe||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Kerry, Earl of||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Kirkwood, John H. M.||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Crean, Eugene||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cripps, Sir C. A.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Croft, Henry Page||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Dalziel, D. (Brixton)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter||Weigall, Captain A. G.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Macmaster, Donald||Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Falle, B. G.||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Fell, Arthur||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Younger, Sir George|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Mount, William Arthur|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Neville, Reginald J. N.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Forster, Henry William||Newman, John R. P.||Dr. Chapple and Sir G. Baring.|
§ Mr. POLLOCK
I rise to move, after the word "in" ["becoming resident in the United Kingdom"], to insert the words "or returning to."
This is the Amendment which I indicated when we were discussing the matter previously before the Committee. The Attorney-General will see that Clause 26 really breaks into two parts. First of all, you are dealing with the case of an insured person who ceases to be permanently resident in the United Kingdom and then becomes a member of any society established in a British possession or a foreign country. In reference to these institutions, that is to say, foreign or Colonial institutions, the Insurance Commissioners, before they allow any transfer of the transfer value, are to be satisfied that the society, institution or branch in the foreign country or Colony in question, gives corresponding rights to any of its members (those are the members who are domiciled in the Colonies or foreign countries) becoming resident in the United Kingdom. The last Amendment has been negatived, and we still have to deal with the case of an Englishman who goes to a foreign 586 country and comes back, and for that purpose it is not sufficient to have a test as to whether or not the foreign or Colonial society or institution gives to its members certain rights when they become residents in the United Kingdom. That is not enough. You want to be quite certain that the men who are domiciled as Englishmen and who go abroad have got the right, and will be given by the institution that they join abroad on their once more becoming resident in the United Kingdom, the same full rights that foreign or Colonial members of a foreign or Colonial society are given.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Gentleman handed this in during the last Division, and I waited to hear his explanation. It is clear to me now that this is the same question that was raised then. I cannot see from anything that he has advanced any new question in it. Of course, we cannot go back on a question already decided.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
On the last Amendment the question was whether the word proposed to be left out should stand part 587 of the Clause. Assuming that those words stand part, my Amendment is in order to make it quite clear that the word "members" includes not merely foreign members of foreign institutions, but also domiciled Englishmen who have been abroad and are returning. I accept the result of the last Division, but I want to have it perfectly clear that the word "members" includes persons who are returning.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The effect of carrying this Amendment would be the same as if the other Amendment had been carried. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet shown me anything to the contrary. I will hear him further if he wishes.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
My object in moving the Amendment is to prevent any possible doubt as to who are the members referred to. The members, as the Clause stands, are the members of the foreign society. I want to make it clear that they shall include the persons who come back after residence in a foreign country.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That would be done under the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member (Dr. Chapple). The next Amendment is covered by the ruling I have given.
I submit that the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton is not covered by your previous ruling.
§ The CHAIRMAN
Is not that the same as the one standing in the names of the hon. Members (Mr. Baird, Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Captain Clive)?
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is one with which I have dealt. It is the same point and is covered. It ought to be matter for a new Clause.
May I submit that it is the natural following on of two such Clauses that we have already dealt with? This proposed Amendment is 588 to allow a member of an approved society who goes abroad and does not join a foreign or Colonial society to remain a voluntary member of his home society, and it seems to me it is the natural consequence, and, therefore, that it is desirable to consider it while we have the discussion fresh in our minds. It really carries out, to some extent, the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, and, to some extent, follows the practice of the societies we have heard spoken of.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The first one is to allow a member to become a voluntary contributor in an existing friendly society if he goes abroad, but shall cease to have any claim upon moneys provided by Parliament. It does not seem to me to be necessary to enact that. If, on the other hand, he can claim transfer value from the society, then that is covered by the ruling I gave at the beginning.
It is not that he would retain transfer value for all time. It is that transfer value standing at his credit should be transferred to the voluntary side of the friendly society, and that he should remain possessed of that transfer value. I submit that if we have not that inserted in this Clause now, but are to have it in a new Clause, then nearly all the discussion we have had will be repeated. I submit that it is for the convenience of the Committee we should dispose of that matter now. It will not take any time now.
§ The CHAIRMAN
It is exactly as I have stated, and that is the reason why it seems to me to be included in the decision I gave at the beginning.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I think before we part with the Clause we ought at least to have some statement as to what are the intentions of the Government. Do they regard this Clause as dealing completely with the subject raised, or do they mean to bring up a new Clause dealing with matters which we cannot deal with under the Amendments to this Clause in view of the ruling you have given? That really very much affects the position of the Clause. I do not ask at this stage that the Government should state exactly what they will do. That, I take it, would be trespassing on the ground which you desire should be reserved for another occasion. But I 589 think we ought to know whether the Government intend to take up the threads of this discussion and weave them into a new Clause, or whether in their mind this Clause is complete, and is the only solution they mean to offer spontaneously during the progress of the Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
We will consider these points again, and if we find it necessary, we will put in words to meet the case.
As the Clause now stands I shall vote against it, because it seems to me extremely unfair. I do not want to go over ground which we are barred from going over because the Amendments which we wish to propose are to be dealt with in a new Clause, but surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us a rather stronger indication of the Government's intention. They put down this Clause, and it seems to me that they should say how they are prepared to defend it, or amend it. There has been fencing, but no real defence of the Clause as it stands. I think most Members of the Committee feel that it is not complete. There are a large number of cases left out of consideration altogether, and if this is to be the final decision of the Government as to the transfer value due to people who go abroad or to our Colonies, then I think it is so incomplete and unsatisfactory that I shall have to vote against it. But I should like the Government to say something more definite on the various points which have been discussed.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I cannot give any further promise, for I must consider the matter very carefully. This may be an imperfect attempt to deal with the subject, and I would like to consider the matter further in view of what has been said in the course of the discussion. Beyond that I cannot go. I think it would be wise to allow us to get this Clause now. It may eventually turn out to be of considerable value in connection with the question of insurance. At present I do not think there is any statutory insurance in any part of the Colonies, font if they established insurance schemes, this Clause would give reciprocal power in dealing with insured persons under this scheme and Colonial schemes.
§ Mr. FORSTER
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to say whether or not there is real substance in the points which have been put forward. I want to state 590 briefly the reason why we are not satisfied with the Clause as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman says it is the first attempt to establish reciprocal arrangements with the Colonies and foreign countries in regard to insurance; but we say that his attempt to establish reciprocal relations is bound to break down, because under the terms of the Clause you can only give the right to emigrants to take their transfer values with them if they join societies which give similar advantages to their own members. There is no society in any one of the Colonies or in any foreign country which gives such a right or has such transfer values to give.
§ Mr. FORSTER
I understand that the hon. Gentleman refers to foreign branches of the same union, and that is totally different. One of the reasons why we are not satisfied with the Clause as it stands is that there are no oversea societies that have these transfer values to give to their members. The people who emigrate from this country may have contributed for a considerable number of years to societies in this country, and although there is some offer to them of the opportunity to take their transfer values under the Bill, that offer will be inoperative when they wish to make use of it. It may simply mean that our people, so far from being empowered to take their transfer values with them, will be condemned to forfeit their transfer values for the simple reason that they will not be able to find oversea societies which will be able to give them reciprocal advantages. We are very reluctant to divide against the Clause, but we do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give us some more definite assurance than we have yet got with regard to this matter.
§ Sir EDWIN CORNWALL
I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman opposite has taken up the attitude which he has done in regard to this Clause. It is quite clear that such a Clause as this, which looks into the future, cannot be complete in itself. But surely it is an instance of the credit which is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has looked ahead and kept in view the great opportunity for developing a scheme of this kind. The hon. Gentleman says it will break down because there is no society in the Colonies or in foreign countries that can give reciprocal advantages. How does he know 591 that there will not be societies established when the British Parliament enacts this Bill and makes the offer to societies in the Colonies and foreign countries that we are prepared to give reciprocal advantages in connection with transfers? They will be the first to respond to the action of this Parliament, and in all probability great opportunities will be afforded for the insured in this country and for societies in other countries to build up on this Clause a great extended system of insurance for at all events the whole of the British Empire. That is what I understand to be the object of this Clause. How can we be asked here or during the progress of the Bill, when we are giving the opportunity for 15,000,000 to come in, to make this Clause watertight and perfect? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because it is asking too much under the Bill. At this stage what is essential is that we should make watertight and secure the essential parts of the Bill. We should make provision for building up other watertight parts in the future. We should make clear what is the intention of Parliament when this Bill passes into law. We should make clear that it is intended not only to cover the ground to-day, but to leave opportunities for covering the ground in a far wider direction. I think we should make a great mistake, if we did anything to weaken the inference to be drawn from this Clause, that the Colonies and foreign countries can come into line with us in the matter of insurance.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The hon. Gentleman has informed us that the Clause is essential, and also that it is not watertight.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation that the Clause is essential, and that the Government are not bound to make it watertight because it would be so difficult to do that in a Bill of this kind. The result of that explanation is that the Clause is unnecessary. Here is an hon. Gentleman who is going to vote for a Clause which he himself has told the Committee is unnecessary. He says that this is a bait to foreign countries. We are going to show foreign countries what great people we are. They are going to avail themselves of the opportunity embodied in this Clause, which is not watertight, and cannot be made watertight, and is not essential to the Bill. There can be 592 but one conclusion which every Member who has listened to the hon. Member must have come to. That is, he must vote against the Clause. If he desires to bring foreign countries into line, the matter should be proposed to foreign countries not in a little Clause of this description, which probably foreign countries will not see, but proposed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Then when there is something to go on, we can devote our time next Session to a Bill embodying these ideas. The fact is that that Clause is put in to delude the working classes, and to be used upon platforms. So if anybody says, "What is going to happen to a man in ten or twelve years who has been paying into an insurance scheme and then goes abroad, as owing to the action of a Free Trade Government he can find no work in England?" it can be said, "Oh, there is one Clause in the Bill which provides that if there is a foreign society," which the promoters of the Bill know perfectly well there is not, "that will take them in, and, if the Insurance Commissioners, after consultation, say that this foreign society is approved by them, then the man may be able to get some return for money which he has paid in." It is merely a window-dressing Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friends below the Gangway who are interested in the Bill will divide against it.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown, as the hon. Member opposite (Sir E. Cornwall) says, that in drafting this Clause he is looking to the future, which may be a very distant future, which we cannot affect or hasten. I have not the least objection to the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking to the distant future. On the contrary, the more he does so the better. But that is no reason for forgetting the present. It is quite clear from his observations that he had in his mind the possibility of establishing reciprocity with the British Dominions. The Clause is one which attempts to establish reciprocity with all the world, but it is clear he was thinking in the main of the Dominions, because it is there we hope that the great bulk of our emigrants will go in increasing numbers, and all of us desire that they should go and develop the Dominions rather than become citizens of foreign countries. He has had in mind the idea that, partly influenced by the example of this Government, the Parliaments of those Dominions may at some future time establish similar schemes, and he has prepared 593 the way for reciprocity when they have established a similar scheme under legislative conditions. That is a future that is very proper to deal with, but it is an uncertain future. Meantime, a great many go abroad, and this Clause will have borne no fruit.
The hon. Member asked why should we attempt to make this Clause workable, or to provide for everything when we are asking 15,000,000 people to come in. Is not that the very reason why we should give every attention to it, especially as we are not asking fifteen millions to come in, but are telling them that they shall come in whether they will or not. That makes a difference. Hitherto a man has insured himself as he liked, with the knowledge that if he went abroad, unless there were special arrangements, he would forfeit his reserve value. Now you say, "You shall come in; this reserve value accumulates for your benefits as long as you are there, but unless you can fulfil a condition which at the present time you cannot fulfil, you shall forfeit your reserve value." I am very reluctant to vote against the Clause, because it is imperfect, provided that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees clearly how imperfect it is, and provided that, having heard of the discussion which we had in his absence, he really will set himself to deal with the present necessities of the case, and not content himself with some Clause that will only be workable when the Parliaments of the Dominions have passed legislation similar to that which we are considering to-day. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might admit that there is a gap in his Bill, and that, he will make some proposal to deal with it and not leave us without some assurance that the Government will make a proposal of the kind that is required.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I really do not know that I can go beyond what has been said in the Debate. Just now I am busy preparing the Papers which the right hon. Gentleman himself asked for, I have heard something of what happened, and I do not think that really I can be expected to go beyond this. There is a great thing in what my hon. Friend (Sir E. Cornwall) said that, after all, all you can do really is to put this out in the form of a general offer to the Colonies, and when they come to consider it, they will have a good many reciprocal suggestions, and in formulating an arrangement between the parties they will make certain suggestions which they will put in the form of a Bill. I have no 594 doubt at all then that we would make further suggestions to them which would be in the form of an amending Bill when that comes. This is much more than the nature of an offer than it is in the form of a definite and final arrangement, and it must necessarily be so, because the final offer must correspond to the terms to which they suggest to us. I hope that finally this will carry out a reciprocable arrangement and an international arrangement for the benefit of people who go from this country to the Colonies, and even to other countries. But I think when the time comes for that it must be on the basis of considering this as a general offer to begin with. You cannot really lay down a series of proposals now. There are a great many things which we cannot possibly foresee, and I will be very glad to consider suggestions made, but I have only done this because the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to me on that particular line.
§ Mr. O'GRADY
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to grasp the point. I quite agree that in the future schemes may become interchangeable between ourselves and the Colonies. Meantime what is going to happen? Year after year there are thousands of men who are driven out into the Colonies for some reason or other, and as far as this Clause is concerned at present those men will be robbed of what they have paid into the Insurance Fund. They cannot take their transfer value with them.
§ Mr. O'GRADY
They are not compulsorily insured now. The Chancellor should remember that after all there are thousands of men going out into the Colonies who will remain there for a certain period of time, but will come back again. I think that those men's transfer values ought to be safeguarded. We ought to pay the men out the transfer value or we ought to allow a certain period of years to elapse, so that when the men come back again they may come back into their own society and pass into full benefits; and I think therefore the request for a new Clause is a very reasonable one, and that the Chancellor ought to deal with it on those grounds.
There is one extra alternative, that the man should be allowed to remain a member of his friendly society or trade union as a 595 voluntary member. If the Chancellor can give us an undertaking that for the existing member of an approved society who is to be compulsorily insured, and is therefore not at all on all-fours with the present-day practice, one of those alternatives will be adopted by the Government, I should be satisfied. Unless something of that sort is done my view is that this Clause as it stands is robbery, and I will vote against it.
§ Sir HILDRED CARLILE
With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the Committee must be surprised at the changed attitude which he has taken up within the last few minutes. When the right hon. Gentleman rejoined the Committee about half an hour ago he told us he wanted first of all to satisfy himself that there had been real substance underlying the Debate. He had not the advantage which most of us have had of hearing the Debates, but no unbiassed person could have listened to the material that has been placed before us without realising that there is real grievance underlying this, which was emphasised by the hon. Member below the Gangway a moment ago. The right hon. Gentleman must have long since satisfied himself that there was real substance in the objections to this Clause. Yet now he comes forward shifting his ground entirely, and says, "It is true that the Clause is a sketchy Clause and not a complete Clause. Then what can you expect under the circumstances? We throw this out as a sort of challenge to the whole world, so that at some future time it may serve as a basis on which it can be taken up." The whole attitude of the right hon. Gentleman is extremely unsatisfactory, and I hope the trade unions and friendly societies will realise that under the sketchy arrangement of the right hon. Gentleman their members are, as the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. O'Grady) has said, going to be robbed of their contributions. They are forced to make these contributions, and, having made them under compulsion, they are not to be allowed, even if they go abroad, to retain any hold on them. No portion of them is ever handed back. An arrangement at the present moment existing satisfactorily in trade unions and friendly societies is to be destroyed. An hon. Member below the Gangway opposite mentioned that in his society there was no limit, and that a man's contributions remained to his credit wherever he might 596 be, and he could take up his benefit whenever he returned home. I think the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman most reprehensible, and I hope that the Committee will emphasise their entire disapproval of the sketchy way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with the matter by voting against the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. BAIRD
This Clause on the face of it purports to introduce some sort of reciprocity, some form of common action between the Mother-country and the Colony, which existed throughout the German Empire, and any allusion to the German systems of insurance which ignored that fact cannot give a correct interpretation of the existing state of things in that country. So long as we call ours an Imperial Parliament we should endeavour to deal with the Empire as a whole, and to suggest that this reciprocity is not an essential part of the Bill is indeed to ignore the importance of the Imperial issue. I must vote against anything which discourages reciprocity. It must be real reciprocity, and the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls it real reciprocity does not lead me to accept it as such. In order that a beginning might be made with reciprocity it was necessary that the Amendments we proposed, none of which were accepted, should have been received. As it is, the Clause stands unamended. So far from giving reciprocity it will cause laughter and ridicule throughout the Empire wherever it is read and wherever it is represented as some means of drawling the bond of union closer between the Mother-country and the colonies. It is going by the name of reciprocity without being reciprocity, and you cannot call it actual reciprocity unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer modifies it. I should like to make one last appeal to hon. Members on the Government Benches. We have had three great suggestions, very simple and straightforward, to improve this Clause in 597 such a manner as to make it a real reciprocity. Those proposals were rejected without the Chancellor of the Exchequer vouchsafing any remark to show the reason of their rejection. I do not think that is the proper way in which to carry on a discussion of this character. Our suggestions were brought forward in actual good faith, and with a desire to improve the Clause. They were received in silence and without any remark being vouchsafed at all, so that the Government showed that they did not intend to have any discussion on this point, or that they are against reciprocity. They refused the introduction of any Amendment of the Clause which would bring about a reciprocity.
§ Mr. AMERY
I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there is any real objection to notifying the Colonies, through the Imperial Secretariat, that whenever they are in a position to give us reciprocity we are prepared to meet them by introducing an amending Bill making that possible, and meanwhile one or other of the suggestions should in justice be adopted to meet fairly people who, by hundreds of thousands, are leaving this country.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 148.599
|Division No. 352.]||AYES.||[7.25 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Lough, Rt. Hon Thomas|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Falconer, J.||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)|
|Adamson, William||Farrell, James Patrick||Lundon, T.|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Ffrench, Peter||Lynch, A. A.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Gelder, Sir W. A.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Alden, Percy||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Gibson, Sir James P.||McGhee, Richard|
|Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Glanville, H. J.||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Goldstone, Frank||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Barnes, G. N.||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough||M'Callum, John M.|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||M'Curdy, C. A.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Greig, Colonel J. W.||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)|
|Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)||M'Micking, Major Gilbert|
|Black, Arthur W.||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Boland, John Plus||Hackett, J.||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hall, Frederick (Normanton)||Martin, J.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Mason, David M. (Coventry)|
|Brace, William||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Brady, P. J.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Meagher, Michael|
|Brunner, J. F. L.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Harwood, George||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Haworth, Sir Arthur A.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Hayden, John Patrick||Mooney, J. J.|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hayward, Evan||Morgan, George Hay|
|Cameron, Robert||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morrell, Philip|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Munro, R.|
|Cassel, Felix||Henry, Sir Charles S.||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Higham, John Sharp||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Hope, John Deans (Haddington)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Chapple, Dr. W. A.||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Neilson, Francis|
|Clough, William||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hudson, Walter||Nolan, Joseph|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Hughes, S. L.||Norton, Capt. Cecil W.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hunter, W. (Govan)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||John, Edward Thomas||O'Dowd, John|
|Cotton, William Francis||Johnson, W.||Ogden, Fred|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||O'Malley, William|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Joyce, Michael||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)||Keating, M.||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Kelly, Edward||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||King, J. (Somerset, N.)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lamb, Ernest Henry||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Dewar, Sir J. A.||Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Dillon, John||Law, Hugh A.||Pointer, Joseph|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Doris, W.||Leach, Charles||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Scanlan, Thomas||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.||Wardle, George J.|
|Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Pringle, William M. R.||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Sheehy, David||Watt, Henry A.|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Webb, H.|
|Reddy, M.||Shortt, E.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Spicer, Sir Albert||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Summers, J. W.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Robinson, Sidney||Tennant, Harold John||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Roche, John (Galway, E.)||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Rose, Sir Charles Day||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Rowlands, James||Toulmin, Sir George||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Rowntree, Arnold||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Verney, Sir Harry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Wadsworth, J.||Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Samuel, J. (Stockton)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Forster, Henry William||Mount, William Arthur|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Foster, Philip Staveley||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gardner, Ernest||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Newman, John R. P.|
|Astor, Waldorf||Gilmour, Captain J.||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Baird, J. L.||Goldsmith, Frank||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Grant, J. A.||O'Grady, James|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Greene, W. R.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gretton, John||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Guiney, P.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Barnston, H.||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)||Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hamersley, A. St. George||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Harris, Henry Percy||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Beresford, Lord C.||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Bird, A.||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hoare, S. J. G.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)||Hohler, G. F.||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, Harry (Bute)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)|
|Campion, W. R.||Hume-Williams, W. E.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Ingleby, Holcombe||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Jowett, F. W.||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Kerry, Earl of||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Kirkwood, J. H. M.||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lansbury, George||Thynne, Lord A.|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Crean, Eugene||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cripps, Sir C. A.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Croft, H. P.||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Weigall, Capt A. G.|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Wood, John (Stalybrdge)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)||Worthington-Evans, Laming|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||McCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Falle, B. G.||Mackinder, H. J.||Younger, Sir George|
|Fell, Arthur||Macmaster, Donald|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Finlay, Sir Robert||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Mr. W. Peel and Mr. Pollock.|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes|
§ And it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 25th October, successively to put forthwith the Questions 600 on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at 601 half-past Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.