HC Deb 06 February 1913 vol 48 cc170-85

(1) There shall be established in accordance with the provisions. of the Third. Schedule to this Act a Scottish Licence Holders Central Insurance Board and also a Scottish Licence Holders Mutual Insurance association or associations, and every holder of a certificate shall insure in such an association in respect of each certificate held by him.

(2) The insurance of certificates shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions set out in the Third Schedule to this Act.

(3) A person from whom a certificate is withdrawn in pursuance of a Resolution under this Act may, in accordance with the scheme set forth in the Third Schedule to this Act, recover the moneys payable to him thereunder: Provided always, and it is hereby expressly declared, that any claim in respect of the declared value of the certificate shall be enforceable only if, and in so far as, moneys for the payment of such claims are available under the said scheme.

(4) No Excise licence for the sale by retail of exciseable liquor shall be granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or by any officer of Customs and Excise except upon the production by the person authorised to hold the licence of a receipt for the insurance of his certificate for the year to which the licence relates and for any levy under the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act.

(5) This Section shall take effect as from the passing of this Act.


I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the second most important proposal inserted by the Lords in this Bill, and I suppose the House desires that I should express the views of the Government upon it. I think there are very strong reasons why the Government cannot adopt this scheme of which the Lord Chancellor said he had "never seen anything like it in an Act of Parliament." I think the Lord Chancellor completely expressed the views of the Government when he said:— We object to it because we think it is a thoroughly unworkable proposition, and as wholly unprecedented a thing to introduce into a Bill of this kind as ever came within our experience. That completely expresses the view of the Government, that it is an entirely unworkable proposition and entirely unprecedented. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed," "Agreed."] I am afraid everybody is not agreed; if they were, I should be very glad to conclude my remarks and take a vote. This is a proposal to impose a compulsory contribution—and I call the attention of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) to it, because it is one of those schemes which I imagine his financial mind will not accept—this is a proposal to impose a compulsory contribution upon all licence holders, present or future in Scotland, at a flat rate, which takes no account of different circumstances and prospects. On the other hand, it is the intention that the Insurance Board shall be obliged to accept everyone who comes to it, whether they think it to be to the interest of their existing body of members or not. Otherwise, under this scheme, the man will not be able to receive his Excise licence or begin to practise his business. This is a very novel plan of insurance to compel an unwilling man to come in whatever the risk to the insurance company. I venture to say the hon. Baronet never heard of a scheme like this.


The Insurance Act.


That is a very ingenuous interruption, but no one knows better than the hon. Baronet that it is not very relevant; it is quite different from the Insurance Act. It is clear that there are different classes of licensed premises—an hotel, or a solitary country inn, or a country grocer's licence—and there must be a very great difference between them and a public-house in a town ward, where there may be a public-house at every street corner. It is not surprising that many licence holders object to this principle of compulsion. I cannot help thinking that it is quite idle to say, as has been said in another place, that if the Government accepts this Amendment they will have no responsibility. The Government cannot wash its hands of responsibility for what it places in one of its own Bills; yet I believe that if we accepted this scheme, as soon as it was understood, we. should have such a howl of indignation from the licence holders in Scotland that no Government could resist it, and this scheme would not be a settlement of the case. Lord Camperdown, in another place, declared that the scheme he introduced, and which was rejected on a Committee stage, was, "the joint production of the Scottish Licence Holders' Mutual Insurance Association and of the Scottish Licensed Trade Defence Association." The former he described as a voluntary association which really conducts at the present time the whole voluntary insurance of the licensed trade in Scotland. He attached great importance to the fact that the scheme was set up by the licence holders themselves, and that was really the reason why the Government could not accept the scheme without being responsible. I would like to inform the House that this Mutual Insurance Company have reconsidered this scheme. They are strongly opposed to it. For one thing, they object to disinterested management being mixed up with it.

While I am referring to the speech of the Noble Lord, I should like to comment on another statement he made. He said that the Government would have very little to do with this scheme, and only in one instance—that is when the Secretary for Scotland approves of the rules. I cannot help thinking that that would be a very considerable Government interference and control of the scheme. There is another point he did not mention, and that is that the Excise authorities are brought in. The Excise authorities are not to give the certificate unless the man produces a receipt for the payment of his premium and levy. The Excise authorities very strongly object to being brought in, and they give very sound reasons. As a matter of fact the Government would be brought in to a very considerable extent. and would have to bear the odium of the whole business.

There have been six or seven schemes submitted to me during the progress of this Bill with all sorts of features. One scheme provided that the local authority should buy up all the stock of spirits, and I suppose sell it or drink it or put it down the gutter. I think they had the choice. We had all sorts of fanciful proposals. There was a scheme rejected by 39 to 19 in Scottish Grand Committee, and the scheme rejected by this House by 249 to [...]08. Then there was Lord Camperdown's scheme, which was discussed at some length and very severely criticised in the House of Lords, and finally defeated and thrown out in that House in the Committee stage. Now we have this scheme introduced on Report and altered again on Third Reading. This scheme is open to all the more important objections that have been urged against the others. It certainly has not been placed before the licence holders of Scotland in its present form. One licence holder wrote a letter to the "Glasgow Herald" with a criticism that has never been answered. His view was that this was a scheme in favour of the wholesaler, and I have had many representations made to me to that effect.

He said take the case of a licence holder who is working on borrowed capital, and you call upon him to pay what may be a very large proportion of his income. He may have to pay in premium and levy as much as 2 per cent. on the value of his licence, and yet all the compensation or the greater part of it will go, not to him, but to the man who has lent the money. I daresay it will be said that that is quite fair and that he ought to pay his debts, but that is not a satisfactory answer, because the man who lends the licence holder the money in a case like this is not an ordinary mortgagor who lends money for the sake of 5 per cent., but lends it to get the trade of the house and is a partner in the profits. That is recognised by the framers of this scheme, and they tried to meet that objection that the licence holder is called upon to pay for somebody else's benefit. They have done it in a Clause which is entirely illusory. They provide that if there is a covenant or agreement or undertaking for the purchase of liquor by a licence holder that in the case of a person who holds that covenant he shall pay a portion of the premium in accordance with the proportion of his interest compared with that of the licence holder. That looks very fair, but it is not worth twopence in Scotland. I am told by the trade and I was told it only yesterday by the Mutual Insurance Company that there are no tied houses in Scotland and those covenants do not exist. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) I notice agrees. Then what is the value of the Clause. All the lender has to do is to take short bills and he has only to say, "You are not giving me trade and it is not worth while lending you money, and I would rather have my money back," so that he really has the publican under his control. No way has been devised to make him pay his share of the premium

I think the publican's complaint is really well founded. But, it is urged that with all its faults a majority of the trade are in favour of the scheme. There really is not sufficent evidence of that. They have never expressed an opinion about this particular. scheme as it was only introduced by Lord Salisbury on the 21st January, and even on the first scheme about which they did have a postcard plebiscite the result was not very conclusive, as only 38 per cent. of the licence holders voted for it. The great majority did not trouble to reply. Of course, that plan presented the difficulties of the referendum, the perennial difficulty of the referendum, that nothing is put but a general proposition, and the men did not know what was in the scheme, except in the vaguest form. You could not possibly on a postcard give a satisfactory idea of what the scheme was. The present scheme has not been before them at all in any form. I should like to say a word about the position of voluntary insurance in Scotland, because after all it is not very clear that you want anything but voluntary insurance. This Mutual Insurance Society, to which Lord Camperdown referred, informed me yesterday that their calculation was that they were on-licences of the value of £7,000,000, and that they insured three-fourths of them, or about 5½ millions in value. In Glasgow alone they have between 1,000 and 1,100 insurances out of 1,200 licences. I do not know the figures for any other company, but this undoubtedly is the greatest, and those figures do not indicate the failure of voluntary effort. Therefore I submit that after many attempts no workable or fair scheme has been placed before Parliament, and that we have not had any adequate insurance that the trade is in favour of this scheme, while we know that it is opposed by many licence holders, and in itself is a scheme which Parliament ought not to take the responsibility of inserting in the Bill.


We have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman before, and I do not think he has added anything to what he said on a previous occasion. He still harps on old strings, although some of those I thought had been destroyed. He did so particularly towards the end of his speech when he suggested that nothing was wanted but a voluntary system of insurance. We have been told over and over and over again of those figures, which are all very well and very right and proper so long as your existing system continues, when you have your licensing system administered by a competent and careful body under a strictly judicial system. When you transfer the administration or the granting of licences to a popular democratic vote then the right hon. Gentleman is beating the air and wasting the time of this House in telling us that the same system of voluntary in- surance is possible. He knows perfectly well it was nothing of the kind. How would it be possible to insure a licence which may be taken away at the end of the third year by veto or a limiting resolution? It is a very different matter when each case is considered on its merits and evidence for and against is heard. What comparison is there between that system and the system of popular vote—and heaven only knows how the popular vote will go? Democracy is all very well, but democracy speaking for itself in a matter. of this kind is a very different thing from democracy speaking through its recognised and elected authority, which is the proper way for democracy to give effect to its opinion and to control its own action. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman was beating the air when he brought forward that statement.

I am ready to make an admission on the subject of insurance. In the first place, the House will clearly understand that this is not a complete scheme of insurance. It never professed to be that. It is a mere palliative of the great loss which will be entailed upon those licence holders who lose their licences. It will depend upon the time limit and the number of districts in which one or the other of these options is adopted, how far the funds accumulated for the purpose of paying these licence values will meet the demand upon them. Various estimates have been made in regard to that subject, but it is perfectly impossible to make any estimate that is worth anything. No one knows in the least degree what the effect of the measure will be if it was passed. No one knows how the various areas will vote. But the scheme is not even a palliative if five years is to be the time limit. Insurance with a five years' time limit is absolutely no use at all. If the right hon. Gentleman had given that as a reason for rejecting the proposal, I should not have contradicted him. But I live in hope, after the Debate of this afternoon, and the expressions of opinion by so many Members behind the Government Bench, that there may yet be a ten years' limit. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a flat rate. What is a flat rate? A flat rate is the rate you have in the Insurance Act—fourpence to every man, irrespective of age or anything else. It is not a flat rate in this case at all. I have pointed that out before, but the right hon. Gentleman seems a little slow in picking up any corrections.


I do not always agree with t hem.


No; I am surprised if the right hon. Gentleman ever agrees with me. We are built on quite different lines, and I am rather thankful that we are.


I agree there.


It is true that this is a. rate of 30s. per cent. upon the licence value of the premises, which varies according to the various conditions which have been mentioned—locality, risk, quality, and so forth—and the amount has to be declared beforehand. The right hon. Gentleman says that the insurance companies will have to accept all of them. Of course they will have to do that, or the scheme is no use at all. It is equally true that unwilling people will be compelled to insure. That is an awkward feature of the scheme. We know that there are a certain number of people who object. They think, and no doubt they are perfectly right, that their licensed premises are in places where there is no sort of chance of a limitation or prohibition Motion being carried, and that therefore they are perfectly safe in running the risk without any insurance, and in sitting tight to reap the benefit of any prohibition or limitation Resolution that may be carried in a neighbouring area. Therefore it seems fair that, as in the case of the English Licensing Act, the fund should be a national fund, and there Should be a compulsory payment. As to the claim of the right hon. Gentleman that if this were put into the Bill it would involve a grave Government responsibility I quite disagree. There is no intention whatever of placing any responsbility upon the Government. The scheme has been most carefully drawn up, so that it shall not interfere with the operations of the Bill or place any responsibility on the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government would be responsible if these payments were not forthcoming, I would remind him that even in their own scheme of insurance the Government do not guarantee the approved societies. Are they, because they put these obligations of insurance upon the people, going to be held responsible if one of these societies fails to pay? They have deliberately said that they are not. What is the difference between the two? No one seeks to place any responsibility upon the Government in this case any more than they accepted responsibility in the other. The right hon. Gentleman talks as if there was no precedent for a scheme of this kind or something approaching it being put into an Act of Parliament. It is in the Act passed last year, and many people thought it a very strong order indeed for the Government to refuse to, accept responsibility when compulsory obligations were placed upon the people at the Government's desire.

The last point put by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Excise Authorities would object to be in any kind of way dragged into this scheme. At the present Authorities are not in any kind of way dragged into this scheme At the present moment they issue licences on the production of the magistrate's certificate. In this matter they are simply instructed that along with the magistrate's certificate. there must be a receipt for the insurance; therefore they will be no more dragged into it in the future than they are at present. But what have the Excise Authorities got to do with it? They are the servants of the public. What right have they to say that they object to undertake this responsibility? It is for the House to place upon them any responsibility it pleases. They are the servants of this House and of the public. I should be very much surprised to find that they raised anything beyond a technical objection. Every Government Department raises a technical objection to any fresh duties being placed upon it, but I do not think there would be any substantial objection. The insurance scheme, however, is of no use if the time limit is not increased beyond five years, because no sufficient funds could be gathered together in five years to make any sensible payment to the people whose licences were refused. I would far rather have an extension to ten years and no insurance scheme at all, than a period of five years with an insurance scheme. The best thing would be to have both the ten years and the insurance scheme, but that I do not suppose we shall get. In the meantime we must divide in favour of the Lords Amendment in this matter, as we consider it one of great importance.


The objections. which the Secretary for Scotland brought forward on the ground that the scheme is not accepted by members of the licensed trade ought to weigh with the House in dealing with the Amendment. We have. no evidence whatever that the trade are united. On the contrary, there are evidences that the trade knows that this scheme was only inserted in the House of Lords in opposition to the wishes of many members of the trade. That fact was duly recognised at a meeting of representatives of the licensed trade in the West of Scotland at Glasgow last month. It would be most undesirable that the Government should be asked to charge themselves with the carrying out of a scheme of this character unless they had some further indication that the trade were united, and in that case it would be entirely unnecessary for a compulsory scheme to be introduced at all. If the trade is united they have the means of dealing with the matter themselves. If they are not united the Gevernment ought not under any circumstances be asked to insert this scheme in the Bill. It is asking the Government to take far too great a responsibility upon their shoulders. Hon. Members should also keep in view the fact that the scheme has been entirely altered, the disinterested management proposals having been taken out of the Bill. What do the members of the licensing trade say to the loss of the payments that disinterested management houses were expected to make towards the compensation fund? It also affects the situation very materially if you take into account that this proposal substantially, though not in quite the same form, was defeated in Committee of the House of Lords. I think that this House ought to regard with considerable suspicion a scheme which could only be introduced on Report stage, and which is, I believe, the seventh different scheme proposed to be introduced into the Bill.


The whole of the speeches to which we have listened from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill seem to me to be levelled against this particular scheme of compulsory insurance, which is suggested by another place to deal with the case, on the basis of the existing law of licensing. He seems entirely to forget that this scheme was to be incorporated in the Bill, and is to give an entirely altered system of licensing under which, instead of licences being dealt with in the ordinary judicial manner as they have been for many years, whether the licence was to be renewed or not, that now the object of this Bill is to leave it to the electors either to abolish licences in given districts altogether or to make very drastic reductions. It must be obvious to the House that that is a new state of affairs from that contemplated by the Bill. If this Bill ever comes into operation at all it will establish a state of affairs for which we have got no precedent at present. We really do not know what the effect upon licences as a whole will be. Therefore, it really is impossible to deliver oneself, as the right hon. Gentleman did, of a series of argument founded on certain procedure being followed which it is obvious will not apply in the future. It is perfectly obvious that the other House has very carefully considered the whole of these provisions, and we have been face to face to-night with a series of carefully considered Amendments which have dealt with a number of most important points.

10.0 P.M.

The other House in passing the Bill and adopting the principle have made it clear, by putting this new Clause in, and also this very elaborate Schedule to which it refers, that they were only prepared to pass the Bill, I take it, on the footing of there being a fund for compulsory insurance, so that anybody who might lose his licence under the Bill would at all events get some reasonable compensation. The only really effective criticism that we have listened to is certainly very important. It weighs with me to a very considerable extent, and it is this: That when you come to look at the Schedule you will find that only a half per cent. on the declared value of the house is to be the maximum amount paid to this insurance fund in order to provide funds for compensating any licensee who loses his licence. The criticism is fairly well founded that the amount you will get from the mere contribution of half per cent. on the declared value might, if this Act were to be operated very drastically in many districts, very soon sweep away altogether all the money, and there would be none left to carry out the principles of the Clause. There is an answer to that criticism, and it is this: That at all events the fund would be established, and if the Act did not come into operation in the respect mentioned for some time, or to any great extent, the fund would be accumulating, and it might he possible to rearrange the amounts for compensation if found necessary to do so. There is one very important fact which seems to have been left out of calculation in the discussion on this Amendment, and that is that, for the first time in Scotland, if this Act passes, it would be possible for a large number of licences to be swept away without any preliminary notice of any importance, without any misconduct whatever on the part of the licensee, or any suggestion of it, and without any failure on his part to carry out the law. That being the case, surely it is a reasonable thing, if such an Act is on the Statute Book, that there should be some fund out of which those innocent people who have invested their money in this business should get something from. I take it that is the principle Clause. I take the view in regard to licensed houses that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the general community that every licence holder should know that his property is safe, and that he cannot lose it at the mere will of a body of electors, certainly without some compensation.

If there is a trade in the whole world that demands money being spent to do justice to the common people, to provide reasonable accommodation, sanitary, convenient, clean, and well kept, so that the trade may be properly conducted, it is the licensed trade. If you are going to have the welfare of the public well looked after, you must make it worth the while of the people concerned to spend money. You cannot expect decent, respectable people to spend their money and to cater for the public in a proper manner if their property can be swept away at the mere whim of a body of electors and without a penny of compensation. The other House have taken the precaution, having approved the principle of the Bill, to study this question of compensation for the licence holder, and they have studied it carefully and elaborately, and these points ought not to be swept away by the right hon. Gentleman reading out an old speech that he has to my knowledge delivered three or four times before. He seems to think that it is a complete reply, whereas it has nothing on earth to do with the subject of the present Bill. I take a very strong view on this matter. I have not a halfpenny interest, directly or indirectly, in the business either in England or Scotland, but I think that [...]t is one of those things which have not been adequately considered. The main principle and the alteration which the other House have made in this Bill and which are embodied in this Amendment ought not to be brushed aside without adequate discussion. When we look at this Third suggested Schedule, it will be found that every detail of this proposed scheme of insurance has been carefully thought out.

We have had no criticism from the Government Bench of any of the details of the scheme. We have simply had some observations, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was a fatal objection to the whole scheme that it would give some of his Excise men in Scotland a little bit of extra work. He pointed out that this extra work would involve responsibility for the Government in connection with this scheme. What is the amount of this extra work and responsibility? It is this: That before issuing the licences the authorities should take care to see that the magistrate granted a receipt for the premium. What a terrible amount of extra work there is in having to see that there was a receipt! And what a fearful amount of responsibility to see that the receipt was signed by someone who had to sign it. Of all the frivolous and, if I may say so, stupid suggestions ever Made to this House, it seems to me that that was about the most extraordinary. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that other Departments of the Government were asked to accept serious responsibility in connection with this insurance. I have taken the trouble to read the scheme from one end to the other, and there is no suggestion of any Government Department taking responsibility. It is a carefully designed scheme to enable the licence holder of Scotland to make some small expenditure so that, if their licences are swept away under this peculiar Bill, they would be able, at all events amongst themselves—for the payment comes out of their own pockets—to get some little security and return for the money they spent on their business, and of which otherwise they would be entirely deprived. I do not think the scheme has met with the attention at the hands of the Government which such an important scheme should receive.


I desire to point out that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has based his argument on what I respectfully consider to be a fallacy. He has forgotten to distinguish between the licensing system in England and in Scotland, and he has repeatedly referred to this scheme as a scheme of compensation. It is a scheme of insurance, or it is nothing at all. He has forgotten entirely that in Scotland the Licensing Court has absolute and unfettered discretion to grant or refuse as many licences as it may think fit, and he has also forgotten that in Scotland no licence holder has a vested interest in his licence. It is perfectly certain and well-ascertained law, that. the licence holder receives his licence for a year and no more, and therefore this scheme, so far from being one of compensation, is a scheme of insurance. Viewing it as such, I venture to say it has not been shown why this scheme should be a compulsory scheme, and it is not shown in the second place that it is desired in Scotland.

We heard a great deal some time ago about fun in the Cabinet in connection with a recent measure. I think that that humour would be as nothing compared with the fun that has taken place behind the scenes when this very scheme was considered by the trade in Scotland. On these two grounds I think the House should reject it. Further, it has been shown that the scheme is financially unsound. There is no doubt it is not a business proposition; it does not pay 20s. in the £. There is a flat rate suggested for risks varying in their character and quality. In addition, I venture to say it is not insurance; it is a misnomer to call this an insurance scheme. The House well knows what insurance means; that in respect of a particular payment you receive in a certain event a specific sum. It has not been shown that a specific sum would

be forthcoming under this scheme. What would be forthcoming would be something in the nature of an eleemosynary dole. I can well imagine the speech which would be made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) five or six years hence, if this scheme was inserted in the Bill, if a no-licence resolution were carried and the till was empty. He would say that this was a Government Bill. He would say you compelled every licence holder in Scotland to contribute to this scheme, and, now you are trying to escape from your liability on a miserable and technical plea that the Government was not responsible for it. I can well imagine him saying in his most rhetorical style that the scheme was put into the Bill by the Government, and that they are responsible for the soundness and the sufficiency of it. On the grounds that the scheme has not been shown to he an insurance scheme worthy of the name, and that it has been shown to be financially unsound, I venture to oppose its insertion in the Bill.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 75.

Division No. 582.] AYES. [10.14 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)
Acland, Francis Dyke Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Harvey. W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Dawes. James Arthur Hayden, John Patrick
Alden, Percy De Forest, Baron Hazleton, Richard
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Delany, William Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Denman, Hon. R. D. Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury. E.) Dickinson, W. H. Helme, Sir Norval Watson
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Donelan, Captain A, Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Barton, William Doris, W. Higham, John Sharp
Beale, Sir William Phipson Duffy, William J. Hinds, John
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Hogge, James Myles
Bentham, G. J. Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Holmes, Daniel Turner
Boland, John Pius Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)
Booth, Frederick Handel Elverston, Sir Harold Hudson, Walter
Bowerman, C. W. Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Essex, Sir Richard Walter Illingworth, Percy H.
Brady, P. J. Esslemont, George Birnie Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Falconer, James John, Edward Thomas
Brunner, John F. L. Farrell, James Patrick Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bryce, J. Annan Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Ffrench, Peter Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Field, William Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Fitzgibbon, John Jones, W. S. Glyn.- (T. H'mts., Stepney),
Byles, Sir William Pollard Flavin, Michael Joseph Jowett, Frederick William
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Gladstone, W. G. C. Joyce, Michael
Chancellor, H. G. Glanville. H. J. Keating, Matthew
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Goldstone, Frank Kellaway, Frederick George
Clancy, John Joseph Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Kelly, Edward
Clough, William Greig, Col. J. W. Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Clynes, John R. Griffith, Ellis J. Kilbride, Denis
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) King, J.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Gulland, John William Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Criclade)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Cotton, William Francis Hackett. J. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Crooks, William Hancock, J. G. Lawson, Sir W, (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)
Crumley, Patrick Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Levy, Sir Maurice
Cullinan, J. Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Lewis, John Herbert
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Lundon, Thomas
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Harvey, A, G. C. (Rochdale) Lynch, A. A.
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
McGhee, Richard O'Shee, James John Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. O'Sullivan, Timothy Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Outhwaite, R. L. Sutherland, J. E.
Macpherson, James Ian Parker, James (Halifax) Sutton, John E.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Parry, Thomas H. Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
M'Callum, Sir John M. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Tennant, Harold John
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Thomas, J. H.
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Pirie, Duncan V. Toulmln, Sir George
M'Micking, Major Gilbert Pointer, Joseph Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Mason, David M. (Coventry) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Pringle, William M. R. Verney, Sir Harry
Meagher, Michael Raffan, Peter Wilson Wadsworth, J.
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Millar, James Duncan Reddy, Michael Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Molloy, M. Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Wardle, George J.
Malteno, Percy Alpert Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Money, L. G. Chiozza Rendall, Athelstan Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Morrell, Philip Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Watt, Henry A.
Morison, Hector Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Muldoon, John Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Munro, R. Robinson, Sidney Whitehouse, John Howard
Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R, C. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Roche, Augustine (Louth) Wiles, Thomas
Needham, Christopher Roe, Sir Thomas Wilkie, Alexander
Nolan, Joseph Rowlands, James Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Norton, Captain Cecil W. Rowntree, Arnold Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
O'Doherty, Philip Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
O'Dowd, John Scanlan, Thomas
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow) Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
O'Malley, William Sheehy, David Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Webb.
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A.
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Eyres-Monsell, R. M. Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Falle, B. G. Perkins, Walter Frank
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Fletcher, John Samuel Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barrie, H. T. Gardner, Ernest Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Gilmour. Captain John Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bennett-Goldney. Francis Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Sanders, Robert A.
Bentinck, Lard Henry Cavendish- Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Spear, Sir John Ward
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) Stanler, Beville
Boyton, James Hewins, William Albert Samuel Stewart, Gershom
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hill-Wood, Samuel Talbot, Lord E.
Butcher, John George Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) Thynne, Lord Alexander
Carlile, Sir Edward Hiidred Hume-Williams, William Ellis White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Cassel, Felix Ingleby, Holcombe Williams, Col. R. Dorset, W.)
Chaloner, Col, R. G. W. Larmor, Sir J. Wills, Sir Gilbert
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Clyde, James Avon Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Worthington-Evans, L.
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Long, Rt. Hon. Walter Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Mackinder, H. J. Yate, Col. C. E.
Craik, Sir Henry Mount, William Arthur Younger, Sir George
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Dairymple, Viscount O'Grady, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Dewar, Sir J. A. O'Neill, Hon, A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Watson Rutherford and Mr. Rawlinson.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.