- (1) This Act may be cited as the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1917.
- (2) This Act shall continue in force only during the continuance of the present War and for a period of five years after the termination thereof.
Mr. HENDERSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "during the continuance of the present War and."
I do not know why this Bill should come into operation during the present War, because the control of these metals is now in the hands of the Government. Perhaps there is some reason too for bringing the Bill into operation during the War, but it seems to me that it is meant to operate after the War and that it should not commence until after the War.
§ The. CHAIRMANI do not see how this Amendment would read. The Act must come into operation when it receives the Royal Assent unless it is deferred to some other period. I do not think that as it stands this Amendment can be accepted.
§ Mr. L. JONESI beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "five years," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."
I think the greater part of the objections to this Bill is due to the long period which the Government has elected to continue the powers of the Bill after the War. Speaking for myself, and I think for others who have taken an interest in the Bill, there has been no desire in our opposition to grudge the Government any 401 powers they require during the War, for the purposes of the War, but we have the very greatest distrust and fear of Government interference with these trade matters after the War. We do not stand alone in that. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that however strongly he may hold the views which he has been putting forward in regard to this Bill there is a strong school of opinion in this country which deprecates the interference which this Bill sets up in peace time. We feel some grievance that a Bill of this kind should be forced through by the weight of opinion which is behind the Government in the matter of the War not for the period of the War, but for a period of five years after the War. We do not at all grudge the Government any power that may be required to make special arrangements in regard to these metals during the War, or for a length of time sufficient after the War to wind up what arrangements they have found it necessary to enter into. What we do object to is so long a period as five years in which these essentially war powers should continue to be exercised by a Government Department with all the dangers which we fear from Government interference, such as the growth of trusts and interests under the Bill, the injury to trade through prolonged interference on the part of the Government, and the driving away of certain trades and certain metals from the City of London—a tendency which the War alone set in motion without these interferences with trade.
The greatest danger which this country has run since the beginnig of the War is that these great trades which have centred in the City of London should find their centre not on this side of the Atlantic but in New York, owing to the tremendous driving influence of the War, and that is accentuated by the Government placing fetters upon trade in this country. If these powers are for the purposes of the War, and for the period of the War, and for a necessary period after the War, to enable the Government to wind up matters we raise no great objection, but we do enter a protest against a measure which is called a war measure being forced through this House by the use of a war majority in support of a war Government, and which affects questions which are essentially peace questions. The methods of war which are appropriate to war time are not suitable to trade in peace time. I appeal very strongly to the 402 right hon. Gentleman not to press us for so long a period as five years. He has put certain Amendments before this Committee, and for many of those Amendments I should like to thank him, for I believe he has greatly improved this measure thereby, still I think the period is far too long, and he would remove much of the feeling which the Bill has created if he will accept a shorter period after the War. I can assure him that, in putting forward the objections to prolonged Government interference after the War we are really voicing the opinions of a very large body of traders in this country. The right hon. Gentleman may not know how strong that feeling is, but we have an immense amount of correspondence telling us of the difficulties and troubles and losses inflicted on the trader by Government interference, and naturally it is desired to bring such interference to an end as soon as possible after the War. I do not stand out for a reduction of the period to six months. Possibly that would be hardly enough time to enable the Government to do all it requires to do. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams) has an Amendment down giving us a somewhat longer period, and I shall be quite content to alter my Amendment accordingly. I therefore move to leave out "five years" and insert instead thereof "one year."
§ Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSI am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for putting his Amendment in the form he has done. I have not myself taken any part in the opposition to this Bill for one reason. Much as I dislike the measure I cannot but feel peat hesitation in resisting it when the Government come and declare that it is necessary for war purposes, especially when they say, as I understand they have said in this case, that they are not prepared at the present moment to put all their reasons before us. Such a statement imposes a duty upon private Members, but I would earnestly impress upon the Government that it imposes a correspondingly heavy responsibility on them, and in view of that responsibility I think they ought to accept this Amendment, and not press for the full period of five years. But if they do so press for that period I am afraid it will give colour to the feeling which many of us entertain that under this Bill there lies a desire to make an attack upon our present system of trading, and on the freedom of 403 commerce which is so deeply held in the hearts of the people, and which has been the foundation upon which the prosperity and the efficiency of the business of this country, and the prosperity of the people of this country, has been based. We shall also feel there is a desire to substitute official control, and the consequent protection of one industry against another. There is a further point. If this Bill is to be effective for five years after the War, during that time vested interests of a most serious character will have grown up, and when changes come to be proposed we shall he met with the cry that we are bringing disaster upon people who have invested their capital and labour on the invitation of Parliament in particular industries. Surely twelve months will give the Government all the time they want! It will enable them to do all that is necessary, and then they can again come to the House and lay all their cards on the Table, giving such information to the commercial and industrial community as will enable them to judge on the facts before them. For my part I do not want to prejudge the question as to what will have to be done after the War. Everything will depend upon what the after-war conditions are If we get simply a form of armed peace, with the opposing nations standing in defiance one of the other, waiting their time, then legislation, of which this is only a small example, will be necessary after the War. But if we get, as I hope we may, a system which is now familiarly spoken of as the League of Nations, then I do-not think that commercial regulations of this character will be necessary. At any rate, after the twelve months have expired, the Government will be able to come to us and state all the facts; they can tell us exactly what their reasons are and what they propose, and I am sure the commercial and labour community will then be able to judge whether it is in the national interest to accept their proposal. I hope the Government will agree to this Amendment. It will give them all they have need of, and at the same time it will remove what I consider to be a most disastrous feeling, that the reasons put forward for promoting this Bill are not the real reasons which have led to its production.
§ Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERI have sat here for a long time, hoping we may at some reasonable period get to the end 404 of the discussions on this Bill, and I would not have spoken now except for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to this as a war measure necessary for war purposes. My own view of this Bill is that it is a matter of peaceful penetration—the peaceful penetration of English trade into trades formerly controlled by Germans. I would like to give one example to show how necessary it is that we should keep this Bill in operation for a sufficiently long period—for a period of five years at least. Everyone knows that spelter is not produced in this country; that the Australian concentrates have been dealt with elsewhere. They come, it is true, from our Colonies, but they have not been dealt with here, except it may be to a very small extent. Negotiations are in progress—I wish they had been concluded—for dealing here with these Australian concentrates for the production of spelter. But in order to do that capital must be raised, works will have to be erected; and unless some measure of this description is passed, is it likely that it will be possible to induce anyone to find the cash necessary for the building of the immense works which will enable us to compete with the Germans? We must have some protection of this sort. A period of twelve months will not be sufficient. By that time we cannot have completed the buildings. There will only be so much bricks and mortar in existence, and the Germans who have hitherto dealt with the Australian concentrates will come back into the trade, and I am sorry to know that there are numbers of people in this House and elsewhere who will be only too ready to buy of them.
§ Mr. L. JONESThis Bill will not stop that.
§ Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERIt will stop it extending to any serious extent, and once our works are established on the basis of this Bill we shall be sufficiently strong to compete with the Germans. If we do not do this thing, what use is it of our talking about trade after the War? Are we going to let our trade go back to Germany? This is not a war measure, I repeat. It is a desire for peaceful penetration in the interests of British industry, and unless we have the period of five years suggested by the Government we cannot possibly expect capitalists or labour to make those efforts which ought to be made to encourage this particular trade.
§ Mr. WARDLEDuring the earlier part of these Debates one of the arguments most strongly advanced was directed against annual licences. We were told that they ought not to exist. This particular proposal does away with that difficulty, and the licences will go on until the period for which the Bill is to operate comes to an end. There will consequently be no interference whatever with the trade. It is impossible for us to accept this Amendment. A period of one year would be altogether inadequate for the carrying out of the purposes of this Act and for giving an opportunity for the establishment of businesses free from German control. In the opinion of the Government five years is the shortest possible period during which the operation of this Act should continue. I should like to say in reference to the observations which have been made about the interference with trade that they are altogether exaggerated. All that this Bill attempts to do is to keep out companies of enemy associations in the matter of dealing with non-ferrous metals. There is no general interference with the trade of the country, and there will be no constant attempts on the, part of the Board of Trade to control the operations. Anyone who has got his licence will continue to hold it unless he becomes subject to the Schedule. Under these crcumstances we feel that there is really no ground whatever for the idea that this Bill is likely to hamper British trade.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BRUNNERWe have had a very interesting speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), who tolls us that negotiations are now going on to deal with the Australian concentrates. We have heard something about this already, though nothing definite. Cannot we have something definite from the Board of Trade as to what really is going on? I understand now that the reason for this Bill is that the concentrates are going to be used by somebody, and that this Bill is necessary in order to enable them to get that business going. That is what the hon. Gentleman says, and cannot we have some information about it? Really this House ought not to he kept in the dark on these matters. I do not see, personally, how this Bill is going to help these people who are going to work the Australian concentrates in this country. It will not prevent spelter being sent in here 406 from Germany or any other country Where it is produced. If the Bill is going to help them, some other Bills will be required in addition. We may have to have an import duty in addition to this Bill if the people who are to work these Australian concentrates are to be protected against the Metallgesellschaft. I fully endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend who seconded this Amendment as to our wanting to have one year instead of five years, because if there is anything worse in the conditions under which we are living at the moment it is Government interference. It is intolerable, the way in which we are interfered with in all matters; finance, transport, export, import; and it is only tolerable because we are at war. We wish to get rid of all this kind of thing at the very earliest possible moment after the War ceases.
§ Sir C. CORYI agree that the daily burden of the complaint of traders is the interference with business that is going on as a result of Government control. They suffer it, as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said, because it is war time, although they think a great deal of it is unnecessary even in war time; but to continue it for an undue period after the War is over is absolutely intolerable. This attitude is not confined, though that is suggested in some quarters here, to free traders. It is held equally as an objection whether men are Free Traders or Protectionists, because they feel that business is made almost impossible. To say that it is necessary to carry this on for five years after the War is absolutely absurd. If after the year has elapsed at the end of the War it is considered that this Bill should be extended, it is very easy to bring in another Bill. Presumably you will have as patriotic a Government in power as you have now, and if it is thought to be in the interests of the country—
§ General CROFTI hope we shall have a more patriotic House of Commons.
§ Sir C. CORYI hope so, too, and if it is a more patriotic House of Commons it probably will not extend this unless it thinks it necessary in the interests of the country. If we had a more patriotic House of Commons than we have now this Bill would probably never have been brought forward. If then it is shown that it is necessary in the interests of the 407 country that this Bill should be extended, it will be extended. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), as to the finding of capital for spelter works in this country, if that is necessary I do not see why it cannot be done in the same way as is being adopted in other directions, by allowing firms to wipe it off by depreciation, up to as much as 50 per cent., out of their excess profits. I would much rather have a subsidy, or any mode of that kind, rather than this extension to five years, which will be to the general detriment of the trade of the country.
§ Sir JOHN AINSWORTHI should like to make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill that they should not ask for so much as they have been doing. Really five years is going to tie you up a long time, and why should not this country and the not inconsiderable trade and business that exists in the City of London and elsewhere have a free hand to do the best they can in the future as soon as the War is over and a reasonable time has elapsed for people to find out what the new circumstances are. I think this is particularly hard as coming from the Gentlemen who are on the Front Bench now. We all know—it was an open secret—that those Gentlemen took office and were welcomed into office because they undertook to finish the War, and I would ask them whether this Act is going to contribute to the finishing of the War. I am afraid other Acts of the same kind have been brought forward and may be brought forward. Just let them think for half a moment whether we are going to help or hinder this country by handicapping its future by Acts of Parliament passed now applying to a period of years that may require quite other considerations! I should like to remind the House of the fact, and I should like to ask them to think of higher things than little peddling measures of this kind, and to ask themselves the question—this may mean something or it may not—how are they going to help to finish the War? I should like to remind the House of one thing that will happen at the end of the War—in fact, the War will go on until that does happen and we are masters of the situation, until the British Empire is a much larger and bigger thing than it has been in the past. 408 The British Empire is going, so we all trust and hope—it is what we are all putting our lives and money, and the lives of our children, into—to have a greater and more glorious future—
§ The CHAIRMANThis is too spacious for the Amendment.
§ Sir J. AINSWORTHI beg your pardon, Mr. Whitley, and I will confine myself to quoting the words of someone who knew a great deal of these matters. On a question of this kind I would remind the Committee of the saying that the British are always a nation of shopkeepers. That was said by the Emperor Napoleon.
§ The CHAIRMANThere is nothing about Napoleon here. I think the hon. Member has not been in the Committee all the time. We are still in Committee, and are dealing with an Amendment.
§ Sir J. AINSWORTHMy only object in rising was to say that I should he most happy, and I hope all hon. Members here will be, to give my support to an Amendment which will cause the Act to remain in force for one year after the termination of the War, and that it shall not be for five years. I hope I can show the importance of that. Surely it is far better at the end of the War and for one year more that all the ability of the country—and, as I say, the ability of the country will be more after the War than it is now, because certain facts that we have to deal with will be greater, and therefore the opening for capital and industry in every part of the world will be greater—should be freely exercised, and that the trammels of this proposed Act should be got free of as soon as possible. Remembering the enormous interests it will have to deal with, the sooner that is clone the better it will be for all of us. I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is anxious to carry it as soon as he can. I would strongly remind him that the policy with which he and his Friends came into power was to finish the War—
§ The CHAIRMANrose—
§ Sir J. AINSWORTHI will not proceed, Mr. Whitley.
Colonel Sir F. HALLI have only just risen to say that I am rather surprised at what I have heard from both sides of the House. It really makes one begin to 409 believe that certain Members of the House do not want this Bill at all. That seems perfectly plain to me, because I heard on Clause 6 an Amendment moved providing that, at all events, this Bill should not come into operation until after the War. Now, practically from the same people, we hear, "We do not want this to continue for more than six months or twelve months after the War." It seems perfectly plain to me that they do not want any Bill at all that is going to protect the industry and trade of this country. So far as I am concerned, I shall do anything I can to strengthen the Bill, and I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on having had the confidence to come to this House and say, "I want this Bill for five years after the cessation of hostilities." I was rather surprised that such a well-known business man as the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory) should make a speech in which he stated that he did not agree that if the money was wanted in the manner referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) it should be obtained. Certainly it can be obtained as long as people have confidence in the country. But labour and capital must work handin-hand, and if you are going to erect these factories, which I hope will be erected, and erected with British money, to enable you to do so you must have the confidence of the country; and to gain the confidence of the country you must be able to say to the people, "You shall have this trade in your hands for a certain given period." I wonder whether some of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken would have sufficient confidence to place their money at the disposal of the capitalists for the laying down of plant and factories for the trade here represented?
§ Mr. L. JONESHas not the British trader done it for seventy years?
Sir F. HALLOf course, I do not believe in carrying on business as it was carried on seventy years ago. What may have been good for seventy years past is not good for to-day, and I say you are not going to get money without something of this kind, and if you do not do so you are not going to build up industry. Unless you can get the Government to come forward, as this Government has taken its courage in both hands and come along with this policy—you may 410 call it Protection or what you like; I do not mind what you call it as long as I am able to cultivate the trade of my own country,. and to employ the labour of my own country also. I shall, therefore, be delighted to support this measure, and if' there are some of these people so frightened of what is going to take place and so very desirous of showing to the country that they do not want any measure of protection, but that they want the, Germans, Austrians, and all those foreign competitors that we have had before to, come in, and that they want to throw their markets open free and unfettered to them as they have done, then I hope in those circumstances we shall have a Division, so that we may show the people outside who are those who are prepared to back up and stand by their country, and who, on the other hand, are those who are prepared, unfortunately, to lend them-selves—in many cases unintentionally, perhaps—to the interests of our foreign enemies.
Mr. HENDERSONThe cat is out of the hag. The two speeches to which we have listened show definitely what is at the bottom of this Bill. It is Protection,. and is the poorest sort of protection you, could have arrived at.
Mr. HENDERSONWhether it lasts for one year or a thousand years, it will never do any good. It has been said that there is a syndicate who are going to put down the money and going to compete in this business after the model of the Metallgesellschaft. The Metallgesellschaft sold the goods to their own people dear and gripped their own people. The hon. Member for Christchurch is a great Tariff Reformer and a great Protectionist: is he satisfied with this kind of protection?
§ Brigadier-General CROFTI am satisfied to keep German trade down after the' War.
Mr. HENDERSONThis Bill does not affect German trade after the War. What is going to happen after the War does not lie with this House or with the hon. Member. It lies with the Conference. The Noble Lord whose name is on the back of this Bill (Lord Robert Cecil) said that he would not remain an hour in the Government if the economic boycott was to be part of the settlement after the War. You are not going to grant the licences to an 411 enemy or any man who has been an enemy, but to anybody else. Are you satisfied with that protection? If I were a Protectionist I should not be satisfied. You are causing a great deal of trouble and depriving of their business a few men, all to give encouragement to put down money in spelters, and so forth, and get your concentrates from Australia, which you can get any time by paying for them. But you must have protection for five years to start with. What it boils itself down to is striking off about half a dozen German firms who cannot get licences. That is the protection on which you are going to rely. I wish you joy of it This is a Coalition Government, and we are here to support the Government on the understanding that these contentious measures are not to be brought up, and this is an attempt to sneak a little bit through.
§ General CROFTLike the Franchise Bill.
Mr. HENDERSONThere was a meeting of the Federation of British Industries. When they came away after reading this Bill they said, "At last this is a piece of Protection!" But you are relying on a broken reed. It is no protection to you; it simply carries out the policy which my lion. and gallant Friend opposite has preached in season and out of season. He is one of these German hunters who have,been after the spies. Every man of 'German name, however old he is, or whatever the matter with him, is a scoundrel, a spy, and a rascal. You should lock him up, and I do not know that you would not go the length of shooting him. You have
§ a few of these to whom you are going to deny a licence, but you are going to give free licences and free markets to anybody else; but you are going to have a little bit of Protection. However, you are relying on a broken reed, unless you rely upon some Government coining in who will go the whole way with you and give you all the Protection that you want.
§ Sir NORVAL HELMEThe traders of this country are most anxious that the trade of Great Britain should be allowed to develop in the future as it has developed in the past. They rely upon its intrinsic vigour to carry it on successfully throughout the world. I would like to remind the Government that there is such a thing as the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, under which we have been accustomed to give authority to the Government to continue the laws that would otherwise have expired, and if it was found that there was need for this measure to be prolonged, then, by all means, let the Government ask for it, and the House of that day will readily grant its consent to continuing the measure which has proved itself to be efficacious. But we must see to it that the executive Government allow the trade of this country as rapidly as possible to pass from under its parental care into the hands of the traders, who in the past have succeeded in making the business of this country the admiration of the world. I beg to support the Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 57.
413| Division No. 142.] | AYES. | [8.24 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynts | Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page | Horne, Edgar |
| Archdale, Lt. Edward M. | Currie, George W. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Hunter-Weston. Lieut-Gen. Sir A. G. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Jardine. Ernest (Somerset, East) |
| Barlow, Sir Montague (Salted, Smith) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, Sir Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Barnett, Captain R. W. | Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Fletcher, John Samuel | Jones William S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, N.) | Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr |
| Boyton, Sir James | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Bootle) |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Lewis, Rt. H on. John Herbert |
| Brassey, Major H. Leonard Campbell | Gretton, John | Lindsay, William Arthur |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich) | Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A. |
| Carew, C. R. S. | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Mackinder, H. J. |
| Cator, John | Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Cautley, H. S. | Harris, Sir Henry (Paddington, S.) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George | Haslam, Lewis | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Henry, Denis S. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Colvin, Col. Richard Beale | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Pease, Rt. Hon. H. Pike (Darlington) |
| Conte, William | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Pennetather, De Fonblanque |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hibbert, Sir Henry | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.) | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Craik, Rt. Han. Sir Henry | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Pratt, J. W. | Swift, Rigby | Whiteley, Sir H. J. |
| Pretyman, Rt Hon. Ernest George | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Thomas-Stanford, Charles | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon) | Tickler, T. G. | Wills, Major Sir Gilbert |
| Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby) | Tootill, Robert | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | Tryon, Captain Geerge Clement | Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge) |
| Shaw, Hon. A. | Walker, Colonel William Hall | Worthington Evans, Major Sir L. |
| Spear, Sir John Ward | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Incs) | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Stanier, Captain Sir Beville | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | |
| Stanley,Rt.Hon.Sir A.H.(Asht'n-u-Lyne) | Wardle, George J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord |
| Stewart, Gershom | Weston, J. W. | Edmund Talbot and Capt. F. Guest. |
| Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | White, Col. G. D. (Lancs., Southport) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ainsworth, Sir John Stirling | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Anderson, W. C. | Hinds, John | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Arnold, Sydney | Holt, Richard Durning | Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Robinson, Sidney |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Jowett, Frederick William | Rowlands, James |
| Black, Sir Arthur W. | Keating, Matthew | Sherwell, Arthur lames |
| Bliss, Joseph | Kenyon, Barnet | Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | King, Joseph | Sutton, John E. |
| Buxton, Noel | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Chapple, Major William Allen | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Madan, Sir John Henry | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Dickinson. Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. | Needham, Christopher T. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Nuttall, Harry | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.) | Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leak) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Helms, Sir Norval Watson | Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding) | |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—M |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham, | Pringle, William M. R. | Leif Jones and Mr. A. Williams |
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.