HC Deb 11 June 1920 vol 130 cc832-49

Not amended (in the 'Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time.—[Colonel Burn.]

4.0 P.M.

Commander BELLAIRS

This Bill, while it does not raid the State coffers which, as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) said, was one of the advantages of the last Bill, does raid the ratepayers' pockets. I had hoped that my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Burn) who is in charge of the Bill would have said something about it. I do not accuse my hon. and gallant Friend of smuggling the Bill through the House. It was due to his own tactful way and his popularity probably that it has not been discussed. He did his best on the First Reading to draw attention to the Bill, when you, Mr. Speaker, called the Bill and he went through a number of tactical manœuvres, so that the House became interested, and finally presented the Bill. The House of Commons, apparently, is unanimously in favour of this Bill, but it is said that when the House of Commons is unanimous the House is invariably wrong. From that point of view I ask the House carefully to read the Bill and to give some little attention to it. There are three reasons which I have against the Bill. I do not know whether in the first place it will not lead to ligitation, because the Bill enables any Borough or any Urban Council to advertise throughout the country the nature of their borough or district as a health resort. I note the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Major Prescott) and the hon. Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) are backing the Bill. Will Tottenham and Finchley be able to advertise throughout the country as health resorts? If so, perhaps it will lead to litigation, because the ratepayers will have something to say on the matter. Let us have the point of view of the medical Members of the House, for it might be dangerous to give powers to Councils to advertise all over the country the merits of their respective places as health resorts, which may not be health resorts at all.

The second reason I have against the Bill is the question of expenditure. My hon. and gallant Friend limits the expenditure to a penny rate. What has been the history of rates when limits have been fixed? The limits have been abandoned. There is no reason why this penny rate should not become a shilling rate or a ten shilling rate in future. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is not on the war path on this question, seeing that it will lead to increased expenditure and consequent increased rates. I had expected him to rise and denounce the Bill. His silence is enough to make gods weep and dogs bark. My third objection is that the Bill provides for defacing the landscape by ugly seascapes. I do not say that many of these watering places are not beautiful, but the Borough Councils have done their best to desecrate "where every prospect pleases and only man is vile." They all seem to go in for a common pattern in building piers, promenades, concert halls, and so forth. Take Eastbourne, which was owned by the Duke of Devonshire. The Borough Council desired to have trams all over the place, but the late Duke of Devonshire refused to allow them, and now they bless the memory of the late Duke who prevented them from having ugly tramways all over the town.

Another objection to the Bill is that the work is already done. The advertising of these places is done by railway companies, hotels, and private bodies of individuals. Why should they be relieved of the expense which they formerly incurred? As matters stand we know the constitution of Borough Councils. We know that Borough Councils are democratic institutions and are cunningly devised to enable the minority to rule. In places like Brighton there is really a large majority of the residential population which does not want to encourage all these so-called attractions as the borough council is doing. The borough councils consist largely of shopkeepers and hotel proprietors, and they want to advertise these places and to attract large crowds which will enable them to sell their goods. Therefore, they wish to advertise at the ratepayers' expense. It is said that, "Sweet are the uses of adversity." It might well be said, "Sweet are the uses of advertisement" in the eyes of all these borough councils, which consist so largely of shopkeepers. A few years ago the Sultan of Morocco started a newspaper "in order that his praises might be fully sung." Apparently the idea of these borough councils is to be able to obtain powers to advertise in every newspaper, and to shove up placards all over the land, spoiling the beauty of every landscape, in order that their praises may be duly sung. I cannot see why many of these ugly seaside places, which have been made ugly by man, and which were beautiful as nature made them, cannot live on their own demerits, instead of further efforts being made to turn them into pocket editions of Swedenborg's Hell.

Most of these places are places of resort for profiteers. They are open to the rich and the poor in the same sense that the Ritz Hotel is open to the rich and the poor. They are becoming more expensive to live in, and more and more difficult for poor people to go to. On these two main grounds, that the expense is going to be borne by the ratepayers, and that it may lead to litigation, and on the third ground which I have stated, I hope the House will fully discuss the merits and demerits of the Bill. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will tell us what are the merits of the Bill. He has not done so. I doubt if the Bill was discussed in Committee. It went through the Committee as well as this House without any discussion. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will explain whether this expense would stop at a 1d. rate, who are the people he thinks will use this Bill, and in what way they propose to use it when they have got these powers from Parliament.


Like other hon. Members, I was not fully acquainted with the conditions of this Bill when it was introduced. I think it a most interesting Bill, and a Bill on which, before the House passes it, we ought to hear the views of the eminent Members who represent the various watering places I would like to hear not only what the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Burn) who has introduced this Bill thinks about it, but I would like to know the views of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Philip Sassoon) who sits beside him, and who represents another charming residential constituency. I am told that even distinguished Members of the Government are closely affected by the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) knows more about the Bill than he is prepared to tell us. But I think that the Bill may land us in very considerable difficulties. I am very much surprised that when the Bill was in Committee no one moved an Amendment to define what is a health resort or a watering place. I notice that the promoters of the Bill have got a Clause to tell us what a borough is not. What a borough is or is not is common knowledge, but what a health resort is or is not is not so plain. I am not sure that we ought not to have the Bill re-committed in order that this question may be raised.

I can quite understand that to a House which contains so many representatives of the legal profession as this House does a Bill which involves so much doubt will be a perfect godsend, but from the point of view of the ratepayers and of the ordinary person we ought to know where we stand. I want to know whether if Torquay is advertised as a watering place, and if I go there in the hope of obtaining water and am only able to obtain salt water, shall I have an action against the borough council? From the point of view of economy this should be made clear. At the same time I join issue with my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs) who opposed this Bill. I am entirely in favour of giving to town councils the widest opportunity of adding to the beauty of our more dull towns by the advertisements which they put up. Many of us, owing to the high cost of living, are unable to take such holidays at watering places and health resorts as previously we were able to take, and those of us who are not able to afford to go to Brighton, Torquay and Folkestone, are going to be able to see, at the Underground Railway stations, representations of these charming places, representations such that if we knew Torquay perfectly well, we would hardly recognise it for a single moment. Those advertisements give us great pleasure when the train breaks down on the Underground Railway. As we stand hanging on to a strap and looking up to the roof, I do not recognise Torquay, but I recognise something attractive. That is adding to the gaiety of our life, and it is providing employment for numbers of our artists, who will be engaged in carrying out those designs. Owing to the extension of advertisements I have heard it said that, on a modest computation, by the enormous Excess Profits Duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer is providing employment for at least 80 per cent. of the artists, who are at work in producing those pictures which otherwise would not be used. We shall have artists employed, if that is the right name to give them, or, at any rate, draughtsmen and billposters, and we may even be able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put on an advertisement tax. It is said that there should not be advertisements in the newspapers. Why should there not be such advertisements, framed with all the elaboration of which my hon. and gallant Friend is capable? They would be far better than some of the things that are put in the newspapers. If it is said that it is a question of fiction, what does that matter? I think the Bill has many merits. None the less, I should very much like to know what is a watering place and what is a health resort, and whether a borough has to be both a watering place and a health resort, in order to be able to incur expenditure under the Bill? What will be the position of a borough council which advertises a borough as a health resort or watering place, there being no definition in the Bill, and then one of the ratepayers, a crusty and cantankerous person like my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, objects to reasonable expenditure and seeks to have the town council surcharged with the cost of advertising? Will an action lie against the town council and against the clerk of the town council, or will it lie only against the person who gave the order for the insertion of the advertisement in the newspaper? Or do the promoters consider that the Bill in itself, by its very general character, will be a complete defence to any such action? If ever my hon. and gallant Friend leaves this House, I think he will find himself made honorary Mayor of Torquay for the rest of his days, and all hon. Members of this House would hate to think there was any possibility of financial trouble to mar the pleasure of the end of an industrious career.

Colonel BURN

This is a simple Bill, which is there for everybody to read, and to see what is intended by it. I do not intend to be drawn into any legal points. I am not a lawyer, but only a plain soldier. None the less, I have at heart the welfare of the constituency I represent, and also the welfare of all those towns where health and recreation can be found, and where surely the beauties of nature are sufficient to attract everyone who desire a holiday and to regain strength, rather than to go abroad to be robbed. As to the definition of "health resort," it is not necessary for me to enter into any details. A health resort is a place to which the medical profession of this country would order sick people in order that they might recuperate. People who find themselves in that state have only to go to the constituency I represent and they will have their health restored. In asking for this Bill, I am only asking for powers which were given in 1909 to Ireland in the Health and Watering Places Act. Everybody knows that the essence of modern business is advertisement, and when the amenities and advantages of health resorts and watering places are advertised in the papers, then benefit comes to those places, and I am certain everyone resident or connected in any way with business shares that benefit from the visitors. We have places of great beauty and many attractions, and I can assure my hon. Friend who spoke last that he will find baths of all descriptions. As to the question of expense on the rates, surely we all know that local authorities are not appointed for life, and the ratepayers will very soon decide whether the money is well spent or not. Is it not right that those who come to our country should know from advertisements what places they should go to so as to get all they desire in scenery and recreation. Private advertisements achieve a certain amount of result, but advertising on a large scale by the town will benefit the place to the greatest possible extent. This bill is desired by everybody. I have not received a single communication other than those backing the Bill. Town Councils and District Councils have approved of it, as they believe it will increase the prosperity of the towns, which to-day more than ever it is desirable to bring about. Prices are high, and when people find difficulty in getting things going again do we not wish to bring to the towns the greatest possible patronage from those who wish to visit resorts and enjoy the scenery. I think there is everything in this measure to recommend it to the House. We know that much has been done in all our towns of this nature in order to provide the amusements that are desired by the people, and much money has been spent, and surely each town is worthy of getting a reasonable return for the money that has been laid out. After all, it is the ratepayers' money, and the ratepayers would like to see money come back into their town for what has been already laid out. I think there is every reason why this measure should be passed.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY

The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down described himself as a plain soldier, and he represents a health resort. I also represent a health resort and watering-place, but it is not necessary in order to go to a health resort that it should have anything to do with water. I feel sure that it would be a very good thing if the opportunity were given to local authorities to advertise their towns to the extent of a penny rate. The penny rate is recognised in many other directions as well, for we have had it in housing and other matters. It has been rightly said that you cannot live now without advertisement. One hon. Member said you only advertise the expensive places, but you also advertise how cheaply you can live at watering-places, and I cannot see that there is any objection to the Bill. After all, the members of the Council are elected at stated intervals, and there is an opportunity to turn them out if they spend money in the wrong direction. I think the Bill will enable a rising town to secure a larger clientèle and to improve their prospects as a town, and I therefore think the House would be well advised to give this measure a Second Reading.

Sir J. D. REES

My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Burn) may very fairly claim, I think, that his Bill is as clear as possible, and there can be no doubt whatever what it is he wants, for it is clearly provided that any borough or any urban district council may advertise itself as a health resort and a watering-place, and I think any hon. Member of this House who did not claim that his own constituency came under that heading would be very unlikely to be re-elected and undeserving of re-election. But I do not think this Bill is really a good subject for precedent. It is the function of this House to add something permanently to the burdens of the country; it is for that very purpose that the Friday sitting exists. I would agree with every argument of my hon. and gallant Friend if I could accept the principle of his Bill, and I hope he will not think my opposing his Bill will in any way break in on the most friendly relations of a lifetime, but when he said that councils come and councils go, and that a council which imposes a rate does not live for ever, he forgets that the evil which they do lives after them. When once they have imposed a rate, you never can get it off. We have seen in this House penny rates for libraries, and in the very height of the War, when the country was assuming every day more and more staggering burdens, we actually had Bills coming forward to raise them to twopence. Upon the model of Ireland, that well-known exemplar of everything that is legal and law-abiding, we are asked to give powers for the imposition of a penny rate in boroughs in England, Scotland and Wales. I really must part company with my hon. and gallant Friend here. Some of us would profit by this. Of course, a Member who represents a city which has the bright title of the "Queen of the Midlands," for instance, no doubt might profit by this; but, even if that is so, for my part. on every occasion I would get up here and vote against giving the council of my own constituency the power to impose any more rates than are absolutely inevitable. Cheltenham, Leamington, Bath, Torquay and other places—I am not really going to speak for any places of this special character, but, power can only be given if it is given to all. You may have a town of a particular character which is always ready to grab some place on the coast, and to advertise that little bit of land on the coast which is near the parent town, and impose a heavy rate on all the inhabitants of the whole town, at a time when everybody in and out of it is suffering under a load of taxation, which they are only willing to bear for the benefit of the whole country.

This Bill was introduced by three Members, two of whom sit for Middlesex. I should not have thought that Middlesex, amongst its many merits, was famous for health resorts and watering places. I have never come across them, and where the health resorts and watering places in Middlesex are I really do not know. As to what is a health resort or not must be merely a matter of opinion. For instance, there is Torquay, which is eminently a health resort. Many would say it is a most unhealthy resort, because of the relaxing nature of the climate. My hon. and gallant Friend must forgive me, but every man in a matter of this kind must speak from his own experience, and I protest that a day in the bright, bracing climate of the Midlands is worth a year in the damp, relaxing climate of the South Devonshire Coast, which is admirable for invalids, but most unsuited to those who are in the most robust health. It is with the utmost regret that I find myself opposing any Bill introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend, whom I regard as far more than a Parliamentary character, but I do believe, with all my heart, that almost every Friday this House sits, it sits not but, to adapt the words of the Psalmist, it does mischief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quote it fully!"] I could quote all the passage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—but I have some regard for the feelings of the House. At present there is no function that any Member in any part of this House can perform which is so valuable as that of checking expenditure. It is no use to say that this is merely a rate. A rate comes out of one pocket and a tax comes out of the other; but both pockets of individuals are being rapidly emptied with the connivance of, and, on Friday, with the absolute encouragement of the House of Commons. I regret very much that I cannot support my hon. Friend.


I support this proposal very heartily, and let me say why I intervene. I happen to be chairman of the Association of Health Resorts and Watering Places of the country. They are heartily supporting this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Obviously!"] This Bill is optional. We do not make places spend if they do not wish to do so, but they are given the right if they wish to spend. At the present moment Blackpool has this power to spend. If Blackpool, why not Scarborough and other places. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not Manchester?"] Certainly, Manchester if it wishes to, and other places. I am very much surprised at the talk indulged in in opposition to this Bill. Hon. Members have not read the Bill. Before the War, in July, 1914, we invited a large number of visitors from France and Belgium to visit our watering-places and health resorts. They went back to advertise the attractions of these places, and to bring people from the Continent to this country. It is not proposed to spoil the beauty of these places, but to advertise them in the steamships that come from America and so on. Those with whom I am associated strongly support this Bill, and desire to give the option to the councils to spend this money if they are desirous of so doing.


I find myself in temporary disagreement with certain of my hon. Friends who say that the ratepayers ought not to bear the burden of advertising their own health resorts and watering-places. I am of opinion that that is exactly what they ought to bear. I have known of many attempts to advertise these places. They have been made by certain individuals, probably prominent tradesmen in the health resort or watering-place, and the bulk of the ratepayers paid nothing whatever towards these expenses. The whole of the ratepayers ought to bear the burden of advertising their own town. It would be very much fairer if the burden were more equally divided. I quite agree with my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hinds) who said that the time had arrived when we should advertise our own watering-places and health resorts. A great deal of advertisement has been given to foreign watering-places and health resorts with the result that great numbers of people have gone from this country to other countries and spent their money there. An opportunity to advertise our places might, and possibly would, bring people from other countries who would spend their money here to the advantage of the community in general. I strongly support this Bill which the hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) has brought in. Torquay is a very salubrious place which I am very fond of, but there are other places. I represent a place where the air is also very salubrious, and where a great many people find pleasure in spending their summer holidays. If these places were advertised we should not only get more of our own people, but more would come from foreign Countries.

The Isle of Wight advertised a great deal before the War, not through the rates, by individual subscriptions, and a great many people came there from Germany, in fact the hotels were full of Germans. Of course we do not want to attract Germans, but we should be very pleased to receive visitors from those countries which fought side by side with us during the War. An hon. Member stated that the advertisements of certain watering places were very interesting and attracted a large number of people, and Blackpool was mentioned. That town has been advertised all over London, in fact the Strand is often illuminated by a large advertisement of Blackpool. I have never seen, however, any advertisements of the Southern watering places. We have been told that Blackpool is a very important place for bathing, but I can assure the House that there are many attractive watering places for bathing both for ladies and gentlemen in South Devon. The constituency which I have the honour to represent possesses a beautiful sea front and splendid places for bathing. I strongly urge the House to support this measure.


I am very much divided in my mind in regard to this Bill. I have sat here for some time expecting to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, who has so often been the watchdog of the public purse, give us a long and detailed criticism of this Bill. I hope that when I sit down the right hon. Gentleman will give me his guidance and advice, because on these matters of public expenditure his experience is so valuable that it must have a great influence on the minds of young Members like myself. I will not speak too long; I will give him at least five minutes in order that he may place his views before us. I am sure that I shall have him with me when I say that I am strongly opposed to this Bill. We need not only to protect the taxpayer but also to protect the ratepayer. I myself am a great sufferer by the increase in the rates in my district, and, if it were suddenly decided that the neighbourhood of Gower Street were a health resort within the meaning of this Bill, I should suffer considerably, because under the terms of my new contract for my flat every increase in the rates goes on to my rent. Therefore, I have a personal interest in this Bill, but I take a wider view. I believe that if our counties and boroughs would only show broadmindedness in the conduct and development of our health resorts and watering places there would be no need to put a penny on the rates in order to stimulate interest in the show places of this country. Before the War a great deal was done by the railway companies in order to stimulate interest in them. We had advertised what is called "The Cornish Riviera." The railway companies tried to prevent people going abroad and to keep them within our own shores, and a most wonderful work was done without a penny of expense to the ratepayers. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, will tell me that the railways at this moment are very hard hit, and that they find it very difficult to squeeze the dividend guaranteed by the Government, but I am sure that he will agree with me that these are matters which should be left to private enterprise. If once we give a new licence to local authorities to spend money, we do not know where it will stop. I am quite aware that the more we attract the foreigner here the better for this country and for the good understanding and peace of the world, but at the present time I am not anxious to see Germans once more over-running our watering places and making their guttural noises in places where we want to go. I want England for the English, but at the same time we must put a stop to this sort of thing. It is really preposterous that on a Friday afternoon, when so many indiscreet things are done in this House, a gentleman should come here from Torquay, and, because he wants to benefit Torquay, should ask us to pass a Bill which will allow spendthrift extravagance on the part of the local authorities of the United Kingdom.

If these watering places would only show a better understanding of the needs of visitors, there would be no occasion for the spending of this money. Take the matter of Sunday games. I know that matter does not come within the purview of this Bill, but I am trying to illustrate that there is no need to give these powers if the local authorities will only take a broad-minded human view of things. In one watering-place you find that they will allow golf on Sunday, but nothing on earth will induce them to allow tennis. There are hundreds of thousands of people who only have an opportunity for exercise and recreation at the week-end, and they would go to these watering-places in far larger numbers if they could have the liberty that they desire in regard to Sunday games. I will not touch on the question of bathing. But I say good entertainment and good bands are essential; they are a great humanising influence, and if, instead of giving us imitations of foreign bands with a strong suspicion of German in their brass, they give us good bands, healthy entertainments, good roads, good bathing, and good Sunday games, I believe our English health resorts would soon be over- flowing with visitors. The cost of travelling to a seaside resort is now almost prohibitive to an English M.P. on £400 a year, but if you are going to authorise this addition to the rates it will be so much more to be extracted from the pockets of visitors. We ought to hear from some Member of the Government how it is proposed to define a watering place. Any place might be so defined by a capricious council—a labour council, for instance, which desired to advertise itself. Of course, newspapers and bill posters would welcome this extravagance, but I do not think it right that, on a Friday afternoon, we should be devoting a great deal of time to a Bill which is not really needed by the country.

Take the case of my own constituency. There yon have a wonderful mountain and most gorgeous scenery. I should strongly object to the local council flaunting its virtues all over the place at the expense of the rates. I have in my pocket at the present moment a piteous plea from the sanitary inspectors, complaining that they are ill-paid and have no security of tenure; the road-men in my constituency too are complaining that they are on starvation wages, and I do not think I ought to support in this House a Bill which will add a penny to the rates for the fantastic purpose of advertising the place while many of my constituents are banging at the doors of the local council for more money. I feel I should not be properly representing them if I voted for this Bill under such circumstances. I hope the House will mark its disapproval of this fantastic legislation. There are many places in this country of which the average Englishman knows nothing. I am in favour of popularising England. I would do anything possible to prevent people going abroad in search of health when there are so many beautiful places at home where it can be obtained. I would support any action in that direction. I think it is a wrong move. It is so easy to put this penny on the rates. As has been already mentioned, we know what it did in the case of the free libraries. I go into the free library, and I see that it is used almost solely for purposes of betting.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"1—Yes. I am not saying a word against the free library, but it means a penny rate, and in many districts people resent it. They take out the most frivolous and stupid books, and men simply go in to turn over the papers and see who is giving a "nap" or a "spot," or whatever it is. I earnestly say to this House that we are the guardians of the public purse, not only in the matter of the taxes, but of the rates. It is our duty to view with grave suspicion a Bill of this kind, which, I say, is not intended in the interests of the country, but is promoted simply to do good to one or two places whose members are enthusiastically anxious to do the best for them. I hope we shall divide against it, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), will rise, as he usually does when these stupid attempts at wasteful extravagance are put forward, to reinforce what I am saying, and that he and I will tell against this Bill on its Third Reading.


While the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is thinking out his speech, I should like to ask one question of the promoters of this Bill. In the Memorandum it is stated that the object is to give the same powers to the County Boroughs of England and Wales as is given to Irish authorities, and further on it says that in its application to Scotland it shall be subject to certain modifications. The Bill, however, as far as I can understand it, does not specifically say that it does apply to Scotland. According to the Memorandum, the object is that it shall apply only to England and Wales. Perhaps, after all, my hon. and gallant Friend thought that the health resorts in Scotland did not need any artificial advertisement, and I quite agree, but sometimes they want to be in the fashion, like the people of England, and to advertise themselves. The men and women who come back from Scotland are sufficient advertisement in themselves. All the same, I should like to know whether Scotland is or is not included in the Bill. Perhaps the Secretary for Scotland will be inclined to say whether it is to be included.


As a Member for a constituency which does not need any artificial advertisement, I rise with very great pleasure to support this Bill. My constituents, most unselfishly, have asked me to support it, because they know that there are many places which do need artificial advertisement, to assist them in competing with foreign spas. I know that, unless this Bill is carried, there are many health resorts that will not be able to carry on.


I should like to ask why the expenses of advertising these so-called health resorts are to be thrown upon the rates. The ratepayers are supposed to benefit by the crowds of tourists who are drawn, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Burn) referred to the advantages which would be obtained by these places through the introduction of tourists. My own experience is that in most of these places a very large majority, at any rate, of the private residents do not want this larger influx of people. Those who are going to make money out of them are the people who should pay, and I do not see why it should not be done, as it perfectly well could be, by the association of tradesmen and others who are going to benefit by it, and in the interests of ratepayers generally, who will not, as a body, make money or get any benefit from the adver-

tisements, I strongly support the opposition to the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE

I want to raise two points which have not been raised, and to ask those in favour of the Bill for an explanation on the subject. In the first place, it is proposed that boroughs and urban districts only shall be allowed to advertise in this way. It is quite certain that urban districts and boroughs are much larger and have much greater development, but why should not rural districts, which often have far superior attractions to urban districts, be allowed to have the same privilege themselves?

Colonel BURN

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 13.

Division No. 135.] AYES. [4.58 p.m.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Gilbert, James Daniel Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John Pulley, Charles Thornton
Baldwin, Stanley Goff, Sir R. Park Purchase, H. G.
Barnett, Major R. W. Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) Rankin, Captain James S.
Barnston, Major Harry Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Barrand, A. R. Greig, Colonel James William Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Barrie, Hugh Thom (Lon'derry, N.) Hanna, George Boyle Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Haslam, Lewis Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas Henderson Major V. L. (Tradeston) Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Holmes, J. Stanley Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Breese, Major Charles E. Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Brown, Captain D. C. Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) Seager, Sir William
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's) Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) Seddon, J. A.
Cape, Thomas Jodrell, Neville Paul Stanton, Charles B.
Chadwick, R. Burton Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Stewart, Gershom
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sutherland, Sir William
Cope, Major Wm. Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.) Lindsay, William Arthur Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) Loseby, Captain C. E. Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) Lynn, R. J. Thorne, G. R.(Wolverhampton, E.)
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P. Tryon, Major George Clement
Dawes, Commander McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester) Waring, Major Walter
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) Wason, John Cathcart
Dockrell, Sir Maurice Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Whitla, Sir William
Duncannon, Viscount Mallaby-Deeley, Harry Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.
Edge, Captain William Mallalieu, F. W. Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Matthews, David Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Edwards, John H. (Glam., Neath) Moles, Thomas Wolmer, Viscount
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) Yate, Colonel Charles Edward
Farquharson, Major A. C. Murray, John (Leeds, West) Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Foxcrolt, Captain Charles Talbot Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Galbraith, Samuel O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Parker, James Colonel Burn and Mr. Hinds.
Bottomley, Haratio W. Herbert, Denis (Hertford, Watford) Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Inskip, Thomas Walker H. Surtess, Brigadier-General H. C.
Burdon, Colonel Rowland Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Cautley, Henry S. Lorden, John William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Mills, John Edmund Sir Henry Craik and Commander Bellairs.
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.