§ (1) Where a decision of a local tribunal has been varied on appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, any certificate of exemption granted in pursuance thereof shall be reviewed or renewed only by the Appeal Tribunal on an application made direct to that tribunal, and the provisions of the principal Act as to the review or renewal of certificates of exemption shall apply accordingly.
§ (2) A certificate of exemption may be granted under the principal Act subject to the condition that the certificate shall not be renewable except on an application made with the leave of the tribunal, and unless leave is so given, the provisions of the principal Act as to the renewal of certificates shall not apply to a certificate granted subject to such a condition.
§ The decision of the tribunal granting or refusing leave under this provision shall be final.
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1). I suppose it applies to all kinds of certificates of exemption. Does it apply also to industrial certificates of exemption?
§ Mr. HOGGEIf it applies to all certificates of exemption why should these matters not come before the local tribunal in this particular instance? After all, the 826 Appeal Tribunal is more difficult to get at. It exists over a wider area. I should be glad to know that before we discuss it.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEThere is an important point raised by this Amendment. I am speaking from my memory of the principal Act, but if I am right the local tribunals alone were given power under these circumstances to review a certificate. It was the Government Department or the local tribunal which alone could review a certificate granted. This proposal of the Bill which we propose to omit extends that power to the Appeal Tribunal, and gives it a power that it had not got previously. If that is so, it is a substantial change in the principal Act, and I think it is a matter of very great importance. I should be glad to know whether my interpretation of the principal Act in this respect is correct or not.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI would like the President of the Local Government Board to explain why this change is being made. Many of these certificates of exemption deal with industrial cases—cases of men who are regarded by their employers or by the nation as being engaged in work of so essential a character that for the time, at any rate, they cannot be spared. Consequently they get what is called a temporary certificate of exemption, which, may last for four, five, or six months. These certificates of exemption are granted by the first court—the lower court; and, as I understand it, it is not the people who 827 heard the circumstances of the case who are now going to decide whether the certificate is going to be extended. One Court is going to decide as to whether a man shall get a certificate, and at a later period, three months hence, another Court which knows nothing about the circumstances, is going to decide whether the man's certificate is still valid, or whether it is going to be changed. I want to know whether that is the case. I also want to know why it is proposed that in future these certificates shall be reviewed or renewed only by the Appeal Tribunal, because that is a change, and I think it will be satisfactory if we have an explanation from the President of the Local Government Board.
§ Mr. LONGI think there is some misapprehension. The law is as stated by my hon. Friend, but the original Act is not affected by the proposal here. The proposal is really a very simple one, and it is made in the interests of the economy of time more than anything else. The proposal is not that there should be a hearing by the local tribunal and then a subsequent hearing by the Appeal Tribunal who have not heard the original case. The proposal we make is that where the local tribunal have granted an exemption, and the certificate has been varied by the Appeal Tribunal, that any further reference to the certificate shall be to the tribunal who has last dealt with it and have given a decision. If it is to go back over their heads to the Court of the first instance, which has given the certificate which has been subsequently altered, it means a great deal of delay. That would be using the original Act in a way which I do not think Parliament intended. This power is not given with a view to materially changing the procedure in a spirit contrary to the original Act, but is intended to give what we think was the intention of Parliament and the Government, that where the Appeal Tribunal has varied any certificate, any further application shall be made to them and not to the tribunal of the first instance.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIt only deals with cases where the Appeal Tribunal has varied the certificate.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI see that now.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether I am right in this. There were something like 16,000 or 17,000 appeals under the 828 Derby scheme which came to the Central Appeal Tribunal before the District Appeal Tribunals were formed. It has been a very laborious task getting through these appeals, but it is nearly completed, and in a great many cases there have been variations made of the decision from the local tribunal. It would be perfectly impossible to saddle the Central Appeal Tribunal with a second batch of appeals of that kind. I understand that in these cases where the Central Tribunal, who are not really included in the Act, varied these particular exemptions, the cases they exempted will go to the local Appeal Tribunal again and not to the district tribunal, and be subject to the usual procedure.
§ Mr. MORRELLI want it to be quite clear that this is not going to be a hardship on the applicant. The President of the Local Government Board says this is going to be an economy of time. That may be so in some cases, but it seems to me that in many cases it will be a great hardship on a man who may be living in a small village and who will have to travel to the county town at great expense of time and money to himself in order to decide some small point which might quite well be decided by the local tribunal. Let me give a simple case. Suppose a man has exemption for a certain time, on certain conditions. These conditions, or that time, have been slightly varied by the appeal tribunal. When the time has elapsed the conditions are very much the same—as they were, and he thinks he has the same right to further exemption as when he first applied. Must he, then, go to the appeal tribunal to decide a comparatively small local point? Would it not be much better to have it decided to his own satisfaction by the local tribunal which tried his case in the first instance? It seems to me that for simplicity of working the old Act was better, and that this is really not wanted.
§ Sir COURTENAY WARNERMay I explain this? I have sat on appeal tribunals, and there are many cases. This only refers to cases where an appeal has been made, and the appeal tribunal has made a decision at variance, giving an extension or shortening the extension, with that of the local tribunal. Cases have been brought before us by solicitors and others in which the man says: "When my time expires to whom am I to appeal? If I go back to the tribunal 829 against whom I have appealed they will decide as they did first time, and I shall have to appeal again." In the interests of the applicant, therefore, he is given in this proviso the right to go straight to the appeal tribunal which has given him exemption instead of to the men who have refused him before.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDThere is only one suggestion I should like to make. I think the point of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) may be valid in some cases. Would it, therefore, not be advisable, instead of saying "any certificate of exemption granted in pursuance thereof shall be reviewed," to make it "may be reviewed"? In that case the holder of the certificate can choose the local tribunal or the appeal tribunal for the purpose of further review. In country districts I think it might impose an unfair disability on some of these men. I have had cases where the travelling expenses have been rather considerable, especially on labour exemption, and I am afraid I have not thought it out very carefully, but I think the intention of this Sub-section is simply admirable, and I would suggest that it might obviate the objection which has been made, a real objection, if the holder of the certificate had the power to choose the tribunal to which he would go.
§ Mr. LONGThe danger of that is this: that in these cases—I do not think they are numerous, but there is a certain number—where the local tribunal has taken a view of the case which appears to be incorrect, which is not justified by the facts, or is contrary to the intention of the Act, and where their decision is reviewed by an appeal tribunal with a result not quite so satisfactory to the applicant, if you give him discretion it is obvious that he will go to the court of first instance, who gave him the more favourable treatment, rather than go to the court of appeal, which gave a decision more consistent with the law. I should not like to give that power, but rather to prevent cases, where the appeal court has given its decision altering the decision of the lower court, in which the applicant goes back to the lower court, and thus produces the game of battledore and shuttlecock to which I have referred, and causing a great deal of confusion and delay. I think that, on the whole, justice is met by our proposal, which I may say has been carefully considered, and is the result of a quite impartial investigation of the circumstances by those who are not 830 concerned on the one side or the other, either with the War Office or the workman, but who really want to see fair play and the work expeditiously done.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI do not think the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are at all conclusive as to why this should not be made permissive. He says some of the tribunals have not been satisfactory. So far as the county of Nottingham is concerned, the majority have done their work well, but some of my Constituents have been treated extremely harshly, and at the appeal tribunal worse than at the tribunal itself. If a man comes before the appeal court, which takes a view more favourable to the Government than did the tribunal itself that in no way alters the position, because the Government have still the right of appealing against any decision at which the local tribunal may arrive. By the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), where few people live a considerable distance from the county towns, it would be a great convenience for them to go before a local tribunal. How are the Government going to be prejudiced if the case comes before a local tribunal? The military representative has still the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and to say that would mean loss of time cannot be seriously meant. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to all the circumstances, and that some of the tribunals have not been working satisfactorily, to take this into consideration. I hope he will reconsider his decision.
Mr. T. WILSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider between now and the Report stage whether provision cannot be made in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). In scattered districts extremely great hardship will be caused to men who may be appealing in getting to the appeal tribunals, and so long as the decision of the tribunal of appeal is to be final, I do not see why any great difficulty should arise if it was advisable to appeal to the local tribunal. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider this.
§ Mr. LONGI am quite willing to consider it, but I honestly cannot hold out much hope of meeting the case because the difficulties are much more practical than the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), who usually takes the opposite view, seems to think.
§ Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSI should like to join in the appeal that has been made to the right hon. Gentleman. There is great hardship in some districts for those who have to go to the Appeal Tribunal.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)The next Amendments come as new Clauses. Mr. King.
§ Mr. KINGThere are so many of my Amendments that have been passed over, no doubt to appear again on another occasion, and I am not quite sure of the one for which you have called upon me.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANTo leave out Sub-section (2).
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEThe Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman is, I suggest, of very great importance. The Sub-section which it is proposed to leave out of the Bill reads:
"A certificate of exemption may be granted under the principal Act subject to the condition that the certificate shall not be renewable except on an application made with the leave of the tribunal, and unless leave is so given, the provisions of the principal Act as to the renewal of certificates shall not apply to a certificate granted subject to such a condition.
"The decision of the tribunal granting or refusing leave under this provision shall be final." This is a most amazing Sub-section to have introduced into this Bill. What is the present position? At present many persons come before a tribunal owing to circumstances of financial, domestic, or business urgency, and claim a temporary postponement. It is not possible either for them or for the tribunal to state when their difficulty will have been removed, and it has been the custom for many tribunals, feeling the difficulty of this position and desiring to act perfectly fairly towards the applicant—I am not making any charge in this connection against the tribunals—to say: "We will grant exemption of one, two, or three months, and you must then come to us at the end of this time, and can state your position, and we will again consider your application." That has been a perfectly fair arrangement, so long as it has been fairly worked. The applicant goes away for a month, comes back at the 832 end of that period, states the position he is in and the work he is doing, and so forth, and the tribunal then renews the certificate if he makes out his case and the tribunal thinks fit. But this Clause, if it stands, will entirely sweep away that arrangement which has in many cases worked quite fairly. Now, when these applications are made, many tribunals will say: "We will give you an exemption for a certain period, during which time you must arrange your affairs or your business. We shall give it under this Section; that you shall not have the power without our permission to apply for exemption, extension, or renewal of your certificate." There is no doubt that the proposal is made in this Bill in this form, because of the great number of claims that are placed before tribunals, and, therefore, to relieve the congestion of the tribunals. But to relieve the congestion of the tribunal at the cost of doing justice and of making fairly the needs of the applicants, is to do a very great wrong indeed, and is to remove from the principal Act one of the provisions which give some protection to a great number of applicants. This is a matter of quite first-class importance to many thousands of people affected by the Bill, and I earnestly hope that it is going to be very carefully discussed, and that the Government is not going to offer an unyielding front on this important question. I support the Amendment.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI earnestly trust the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. I speak with some experience of tribunals, and of the classes of cases in which the tribunal is very anxious and desirous that the applicant should be exempted. But they have found it very difficult to do so because of the fact that these constant renewals can be brought forward, and of the tremendous waste of time they involve. It is a thing to be avoided in a matter of this kind when we are fighting a life-and-death battle. Take an agricultural case. It has gone very much against my grain, as a Scotsman, to have to grant temporary exemption at the Central Appeal Tribunal to many men of military age who are employed to milk cows. We do not employ men to milk cows in Scotland; we employ women. To many of these men we have granted two or three weeks' exemption in order that substitutes may be found and trained in their places during that time. If the man came up again at the end of three months and applied again, having probably made no attempt to find a woman 833 substitute, you have again to go through the whole gamut of appeals, and you have another delay of a month or six weeks; because, if these appeals are numerous, the tribunals take a certain time to get through them. Altogether the situation becomes so cumbrous and the appeals so many that the Government will make the greatest mistake in the world in allowing that kind of thing to go on.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI admit that there is considerable force in what the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) has said, but I ask him to look at the other side of the matter, and see that this Amendment is going to tilt matters very heavily against the applicants. As I understand it, applicants in future will only be able to appeal provided the tribunal allows it.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERIf they so order.
§ Mr. ANDERSONIt is no doubt true that tribunals feel themselves overworked, and are anxious to get rid of as much worry and trouble as possible. But it will be a very wrong thing if that is done by sacrificing the various applicants who desire to have renewals. In the three or six months intervening since he brought forward his first application an applicant's circumstances may have changed in such a way that he may have a stronger claim than previously. How is he going to put that forward? Unless he has a chance of doing so the tribunal would decide the matter before they have heard whether he has a case or not. That is going to tilt matters very heavily against the individual applicant, and I hope that at least some middle way will be found so that the matter might either be definitely settled or the tribunal might say: "We give you two months, and in that time matters must be so re-adjusted that automatically your time expires at the end of that period." In such a case there will be no need for the tribunal to have the case brought before them again. I hope that the man's interests will not be needlessly sacrificed and that some middle way may be found.
§ Sir G. CAVEI think the hon. Member is quite mistaken in thinking that a man would be refused leave to appeal without being heard. I think it would be the duty of the tribunal if he came to apply again to hear what he had to say. I am afraid the hon. Member is wrong about that. The object is not to relieve the tribunal from overwork. The object is this—it often 834 happens that the balance is very close between giving extension or exemption for a time, and refusing it. If a whole series of appeals is involved a tribunal may feel that they cannot give exemption or extension, whereas if they can give this last-period exemption on condition that it is the last, very often they will grant such exemption.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI am not sure that the Solicitor-General has not demolished the argument for the Sub-section. If, as he says, no tribunal would refuse to hear the merits of the case, that disposes of it, but if the whole case is to be stated as the Solicitor-General suggests why an applicant should have leave to appeal, then it seems to me that the whole ground will be covered needlessly. I would suggest to the Committee that we are approaching a portion of the Bill which needs most vigilant watching at the present time, because we are now trenching upon certain safeguards which were deliberately put in the original Act, and which were advanced again and again in the discussion in Committee as strong reasons for commending the provisions of the Bill to the sympathetic consideration of the House. I look with very great suspicion upon any proposal in this Bill which indirectly or directly trenches upon certain securities given under the original Act. I must say that I think on the balanec this particular Sub-section is likely to be more dangerous to the men concerned than the Government have so far realised, and I will certainly support my hon. Friend if he divides against the Sub-section.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEMay I point out that we have had no reply from the President of the Local Government Board? May I put this case to him—?
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEThe other day I listened to a case where a man appealed for an additional temporary certificate of exemption on the ground that he was the sole organising force in his business, that he employed no one else, and that if he were taken under the provisions of this Act his business would go, and his mother and sister, who were dependent upon that business, would have their livelihood taken away. The tribunal said to the man—I heard the decision given myself —"We think you have made out a case for exemption, but we know that a great number of 835 men will be required for the Army. We will, therefore, give you exemption for two months, and you can then come before us again and ask for further exemption." If he had been given, under this section, a certificate preventing him from appealing without permission, what would happen? He would have no right to go to the appeal tribunal, and I think it is most important that applicants should have that right. The hon. Baronet opposite said in effect that it is necessary to relieve the appeal tribunals of some of their work.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERNo, what I said was that applicants were very often prejudiced by the fact that they might go on appealing. I know a case where it would be difficult for a tribunal to grant temporary exemption, because they thought it undesirable that the applicant should appeal again.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI think it is very undesirable that applicants should be so prejudiced, and, I think, that this is a very serious admission made by a member of the Central Appeal Tribunal. I hope the Committee will take notice of it.
§ Mr. HOGGEI should like to understand this, because I have an Amendment down later to leave out the whole Clause. I listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet opposite, who took as an illustration a case very familiar to myself, and to you, Mr. Maclean, in Scotland. There cows are milked by women, and not by men. The hon. Baronet opposite is a great authority upon milk and other liquids, and other members of the Appeal Tribunal may not have the same intimate knowledge as regards more complicated occupations than the simple one of milking cows. Surely in that case the man ought to have the advantage as against the tribunal. I am certain that if I were to be arrested as a criminal for an offence I ought to be in the position that the Court which is going to try me should be put to as much trouble as possible in order to arrive at a decision on the crime for which I am arrested. And similarly, these men who claim exemption should not be prevented asking the appeal tribunals for a renewal simply because the tribunal think he ought not to get it. Surely it is the man's life and actions which are involved, not the tribunals, and I really honestly think that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the man 836 whose alternative is to go into the Army. The alternative of a tribunal is to sit the next day, and the next day also, and to hear these appeals. The man has to go into the Army if he does not get a renewal, and I hope the Law Officers of the Crown will look at the matter from the point of view of the man. That is my objection, and if that can be removed I shall be satisfied.
§ Mr. LONGIf it becomes clear that there is a grievance, that grievance will be considered. It is perfectly true that this is an Amendment of the Act passed the other day, but the Committee must remember that that Act was passed at a time when we had little or no experience of the working of machinery of this kind. There have been undoubted cases where it has been sought to put the law at defiance. There is no intention of doing injustice to anyone, and I am convinced that justice will be done. This is a change rendered necessary by our experience under the first Act, and I am very much surprised that it has met with so much opposition. I thought it would be regarded as a very natural result of our experience.
§ Mr. GILBERTI want to put before the Committee another point of view, and that is that under this Bill you are going to deal with an entirely different section of people than you did under the original Act. Under the original Act you were dealing with single people, while in this Bill you are dealing with married people whose conditions are largely different from the conditions of the single people under the original Act. Speaking from the London point of view. I think you will find that a great number of married men who will come under the Act will be small business men, shopkeepers, clerks and people of that kind who are living in quite different conditions to the large number of single men who came under the original Act. I think it would be unfair to these men if you are going to worsen the conditions of appeal for them as compared with the single men under the original Act, and I hope the Minister in charge of the Bill will consider the Clause from that point of view.
§ 1.0 A.M.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI only rise to express the hope that between now and the subsequent stages of the Bill the President of the Local Government Board will at least consider how far this matter can be dealt 837 with in such a way as to safeguard the claims of applicants. After all, the Committee must remember that the tribunals were made for the applicant, and not the applicant for the tribunals, and what we are anxious for is to see that what we desire is carried out by legislation. I will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Divisioin on this point, but I do ask that between now and the Report stage the President of the Local Government Board shall go over the matter again and see if there is not a middle way between one side and the other.
§ Mr. LONGI beg to move in Sub-section (2), after the word "renewable" ["the certificate shall not be renewable"], to insert the words "or open to review."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. LONGI beg to move in Sub-section (2), after the word "renewal" ["the provisions of the principal Act as to the renewal"], to insert the words "or review."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move to leave out the words "The decision of the tribunal granting or refusing leave under this provision shall be final."
I venture to think that there are good grounds for omitting these two lines, even if the sub-section, which we know is to be reconsidered, is retained. I was struck just now by the few remarks of the hon. Member for West Newington, who pointed out that this Bill will bring in a large number of small tradesmen — that is, people carrying on small shops in London and elsewhere. I was reminded when he was speaking that only two days ago I had an interview in the Lobby here with a gentleman who represented that he was the organising secretary of a large union of newsvendors in London—a union composed of people keeping shops in which a large business is done in selling newspapers, stationery, and various other articles. This gentleman pointed out to me that out of the 5,000 shops, or thereabouts, of this kind in London, a very large number — I was given to understand more than three-quarters — are carried on by men who live on the premises. A shopkeeper of this kind, I am 838 informed, has no male assistants, but does the whole work himself, possibly with the help of one or two members of his family. These shopkeepers represent a very large class who will be brought in under this Bill. I submit with confidence that such people ought to have a power not only of securing a postponement of their call from time to time, but of appealing from the local tribunal to the Appeal Tribunal.
§ Sir G. CAVEThis Amendment would clearly destroy the effect of the Sub-section. It would do this. Whereas it is provided by the Sub-section that where a non-renewable certificate is granted there should be no application for renewals except with the leave of the local tribunal; if this Amendment were passed, a man would come to the local tribunal for leave to apply for a renewal, and if that were refused he would then appeal against the decision. That, as I have said, would destroy the whole effect of the Sub-section.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe whole of the remaining Amendments to this Clause should come as new Clauses.
§ Mr. SHERWELLOn a point of Order. We have had a ruling from the Chair that the remaining Amendments should be brought up as new Clauses. In connection with other Bills we have often had Amendments ruled out and have been told that they should be moved as new Clauses, only to find, despite that suggestion, that they were held to be out of order when the new Clauses have come to be discussed. Are we to understand as the result of the ruling from the Chair to-night that these Amendments will be considered in the form of new Clauses at the proper time?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt does not follow that if the Chairman for the time being stated that a proposition should come up as a new Clause, when it comes up as a new Clause it is in order. He simply says that it is not in the right place as an Amendment and that it must be raised as a new Clause.
§ Question proposed, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. HOGGEI am not going to make a speech, but I simply wish to say that I am going to divide against the Clause.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 9.
825| Division No. 12.] | AYES. | [12.10 m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Chapple, Major William Allen | Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham) |
| Amery, Captain L. C. M. S. | Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Hon. H. (Ab'don) |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Coats, Sir Stewart A. (Wimbledon) | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Coote, William | Hinds, John |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Cowan, W. H. | Hope, Lieut.-Col. J. (Midlothian) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Horne, Edgar |
| Bathurst, Col. Hon. B. (Glouc, E.) | Craik, Sir Henry | Hunt, Major Rowland |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Illingnorth, Albert H. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Dixon, Charles Harvey | Jacobsen, Thomas Owen |
| Bellairs, Commander C. W. | Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Edge, Captain William | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Bird, Alfred | Fell, Arthur | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Kenyon, Barnet |
| Boyton, James | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Brace, William | Forster, Henry William | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Foster, Philip Staveley | Layland-Barrett, Sir F. |
| Brookes, Warwick | Galbraith, Samuel | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) |
| Broughton, Urban Hanlon | Goldman, C. S. | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Grant, J. A. | Mackinder, Halford J. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Greig, Colonel James William | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Butcher, John George | Gretton, John | Macmaster, Donald |
| Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton) | Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Cassel, Captain Felix | Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Cator, John | Gulland, John William | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Maitland, A. D. Steel- |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. | Tickler, T. G. |
| Mills, Lieut. Arthur R. | Robinson, Sidney | Touche, George Alexander |
| Morgan, George Hay | Rothschild, Lionel de | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Neville, Reginald J. N. | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Newman, Major John R. P. | Salter, Arthur Clavell | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Nicholson, Sir Charles (Doncaster) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Whiteley, Herbert J, (Droitwich) |
| Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.) |
| Norton-Griffiths, Leut.-Col. J. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Parry, Thomas H. | Shortt, Edward | Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea) |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Pennefather, De Fonblanque | Smith, Harold. (Warrington) | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Spear, Sir John Ward | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Philipps, Capt. Sir O. C. (Chester) | Stewart, Gershom | Worthington-Evans, Major L. |
| Pollock, Ernest Murray | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Pratt, J. W. | Sykes, Col. Alan John (Knutsford) | Yeo, Alfred William |
| Pretyman, Ernest George | Talbot, Lord Edmund | Younger, Sir George |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | |
| Pryce-Jones, Col. Edward | Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr Geoffrey Howard and Mr. J. Hope. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) | |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Anderson, W. C. | Morrell, Philip | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Outhwaite, R. L. | Sutton, John E. |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Pringle, William M. R. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Jowett, Frederick William | Radford, George Heynes | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Rowntree, Arnold | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. King. |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
| Division No. 13.] | AYES. | [1.8 a.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Goldman, C. S. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Goulding Sir Edward Alfred | Pennefather, De Fonblanque |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Grant, James Augustus | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Amery, Captain L. C. M. S. | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Philipps, Captain Sir O. C. (Chester) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gretton, John | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Gulland, John William | Pryce-Jones, Colonel Edward |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Bathurst, Col. Hon. B. (Glouc., E.) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Lutcn, Beds) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccfesall) |
| Bellairs, Commander C. W. | Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Bigland, Alfred | Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham) | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Bird, Alfred | Henderson, Lt.-Col. Hon. H. (Ab'don) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Bliss, Joseph | Hinds, John | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Boyton, James | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Brace, Willam | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Brookes, Warwick | Hope, Lieut.-Col. J. (Midlothian) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Broughton, Urban Hanlon | Horne, Edgar | Shortt, Edward |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey W. A. | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hunt, Major Rowland | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Carew, Charles Robert S. | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Cassel, Captain Felix | Illingworth, Albert Holden | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Cator, John | Jacobsen, Thomas Owen | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Chapple, Major William Allen | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Joynson-Hicks, William | Touche, George Alexander |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Larmor, Sir J. | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff) | Layland-Barrett, Sir F. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Whiteley, Herbert J. (Droitwich) |
| Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Mackinder, Halford J. | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Dixon, C. H. | Macmaster, Donald | Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea) |
| Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Edge, Captain William | Maitland, A. D. Steel- | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Fell, Arthur | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Mills, Lieut. Arthur R. | Worthington-Evans, Major L. |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Forster, Henry William | Newdegate, F. A. | Younger, Sir George |
| Forster, Philip Staveley | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.Bridgeman and Mr. Beck. |
| Gilbert, J. D. | Parry, Thomas H. |
| NOES. | ||
| Hogge, James Myles | Outhwaite, R. L. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Jowett, Frederick William | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | |
| King, Joseph | Rowntree, Arnold | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Morrell and Mr. Anderson |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Sherwell, Arthur James |