§ Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill follows upon the lines of the Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Colonel Sir C. Yate). That Bill had been approved in another place, and was modelled on the Bill that was passed in 1914, when only 14 Members voted against it.
Last year only eight voted against it, but owing to the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Bartley Denniss), that Bill did not get through Committee. The principle of the Bill has been approved by the House on 10 or 11 occasions, and it is only owing to the vagaries of fortune that it is not now on the Statute Book. Therefore I do not propose to go into all the questions that have been so well discussed and settled beforehand. I would merely remind the House that in 1908 a House of Lords Select Committee inquired most carefully into this question, took evidence on all the points, and found unanimously in favour of the principle of the Bill. That evidence is conclusive. One point which will weigh with hon. Members is the question of employment. On that I only wish to say that the greater part of the trade in feathers is ostrich feathers, and only a small percentage of the total importation would be affected by this Bill. It is the opinion of many people in the trade that, though they might lose employment on fancy feathers, there would be more employment found in the ostrich feather trade and in the other kindred trades which go to the ornamentation of ladies' headgear. Therefore probably the effect of the Bill would be rather to increase employment, and employment which is not in sweated trades, as in the case of this particular trade.
§ Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS
It is a pity at a time like this, I suppose the greatest 1229 crisis that has ever overtaken this country, that we should be discussing the question raised by this Bill. I am extremely sorry for another reason, because it is a surprise that the Bill is taken to-night. We have not had an opportunity of hearing from my hon. Friend who moved the Second Beading of the Bill any reasons in support of his Motion. Not a single reason was given. Matters have changed very much since the Plumage Bill of 1914 was introduced and since the Plumage Bill of last year was introduced. We have not had a word from the hon. Member who introduced the Bill as to what has happened in the meantime. All that he has told us is that only 14 voted against it on some occasion. I believe on the last occasion only eight voted against it. In 1914, I think, there, were only 14, because 1 was a Teller on that occasion. That Bill went to Committee, and was months in Committee. It was backed by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary for India, and by Lord Buck- master, who has been Lord Chancellor, and was then Solicitor-General, while it was introduced by Sir Charles Hobhouse, who was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It was a Government Bill, and yet, with all that splendid backing and all that great advocacy, it, was kept in Committee for two or three months. There must be something very wrong about the principle of a Bill if that is possible—
Would the opposition have kept that up against the Government for two or three months unless the Bill were wrong in principle? When this Bill was brought in last year eight Members voted against it, yet it was in Committee for many months. Although a large number of Members voted for the Bill on the first occasion, in 1914—I think some two or three hundred—in 1920 only a few, about 60 or so, voted for it. Yet, when it got into Committee they could not maintain sufficient interest in the Bill to keep a quorum. There were four consecutive occasions on which there was no quorum, and the supporters of the Bill were not there. It is the duty, I take it, of the promoters of a Bill to see that there is a quorum of its supporters present. As the quorum is only 20, it 1230 shows that there must be something very wrong with the principle of the measure. What is it? It is that the Bill, the purpose of which is the protection of bird life and the prevention of the extermination of birds, of birds becoming rare, and even of birds being in danger of becoming rare, does not serve its purpose. It will have exactly the opposite effect to that anticipated by those who bring it forward.
If the hon. Member will allow me, that is just what I am going to do. That is the whole object of my speech. The first part of my speech will be directed to that.
The second part of my speech will be directed to something quite different. This Bill will not protect the life of a single bird. It will do worse, for it will prevent this country ever being in a position to protect the lives of birds that do not exist in this country, but live in foreign lands. I beg the House to remember that all through the observations that I make on this Bill. First of all, the Bill will not protect the life of a single bird, and secondly it will prevent this country ever having the power which it might have, if it would, of protecting the lives of birds abroad. The Bill says, thatSubject to the provisions of this Act a person shall not import into the United Kingdom the plumes of any bird.That means that birds will be killed just the same in foreign countries in the future as they have been in the past, and that instead of being imported into England they will be imported into another country which has not the same feelings, ideas and prejudices against the killing of birds, or which does not care so much as we do about the danger of the extermination of birds. If this Bill passes as it stands and the feathers of only two birds are allowed to be imported—ostriches and eider ducks—the firms in this country, which number 34, will transfer their businesses to Paris immediately, and the feathers will be imported there just the same as they are imported now into this country.
How will that affect the life of a single bird? Our great object should be, and my great object is, to protect the lives 1231 of birds absolutely and thoroughly, and by a plan which, if the House will permit me, I will reveal to it in a few moments, in which I have the support of some of the greatest naturalists in this country and the world. As long as the feathers are imported into England and into no other country in the world—this country, I should mention, is the entrepôt for the feather trade, all the feathers come to England and those not used in the industry in this country are then despatched abroad—we can always, by Act of Parliament, regulate the importation of the feathers of birds which have been obtained either by cruel methods or which come from birds in danger of becoming rare. That is quite clear. We can keep our grip upon the feather trade of the world so long, and so long only, as they come all to this country. The moment you pass this Bill the entrepôt of the trade in feathers goes abroad and you lose your opportunity of doing that.
The hypocrisy of the English is incredible. It would be better to set an example of common sense and to protect the birds, and not to set an example of idiocy, as in this Bill, and to prevent the birds from being protected.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. I have no objection to the hon. Member calling me an idiot, but I do not think he ought to impute to me hypocrisy as well.
I think the hon. Member's remark was applied to the Bill, and not to the right hon. Baronet.
§ Viscountess ASTOR
On a point of Order. Could I ask the hon. Member a question, because I am really anxious to know? How is he going to protect these birds? Suppose England started—[HON MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I am asking the question for information—
The hon. Member had better wait, and reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Denniss) in the ordinary way.
I know that patience is not a virtue common to both sexes, but if that virtue could be exercised for 1232 a little time on this occasion only, I should be much obliged.
If the House is only seized of the point that it could keep and control the trade here, then half my case against the Bill in its present form is made out. The next thing is, what form should control of the trade take when once we have got it here? I have suggested to the authorities who at the present time are in control in the natural history world that the real solution of this plumage question, which has vexed the country for so many years, is that a Bill should be brought into this House, and passed by the Government, in preference, because it will be able to find the necessary money, which this Bill cannot. This Bill would set up a permanent Committee which would always be in session. It would consist of three naturalists appointed by the British Museum, as being head of the National History Museum. The trustees of the British Museum contain among other distinguished personages Lord Rothschild, who is one of the greatest naturalists in the country or in the world. Sir Sidney Harmer is the Director of the Natural History Museum, and Dr. Percy Lowe is one of the great bird naturalists in the Natural History Museum. I have suggested to them, and they have favourably entertained my suggestion, that this committee should be formed of three persons such as they, three persons in the plumage trade, and three persons nominated by the Board of Trade, who probably would be people who have been interested in natural history in some official capacity or other. That committee shall prepare a list of birds which can be imported into this kingdom because they are not in danger of extermination and are not obtained by methods of cruelty. From time to time they may add to that list birds which they discover are not in danger of becoming rare, or strike out birds which are in danger of becoming rare.
That suggestion has commended itself not only to the authorities of the British Museum but to a great many of the great naturalists in this country, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that at present there are negotiations between them and the trade for the purpose of preparing a list of birds which can be 1233 imported into this country without infringing any of the principles which this Bill lays down. Having once achieved a situation in which this country has the grip over the whole of the feather trade of the world with this Committee, which will see that none of the feathers which have come from foreign parts are obtained by methods of cruelty or from birds that are in danger of becoming rare, you will have done all that can be done by this country in the way of protecting birds. You can never do it by saying that birds are not to be imported into this country. I have asked 34 firms in this country which are engaged in this trade what they would do if this Bill passed and they said, "We should go to Paris." So the birds would be killed just the same. We should not stop there for that would not be sufficient. We should endeavour to get all the other countries in the world which import feathers from England or export feathers to England to pass legislation identical with that which would be passed in England, and in that way we should get international security for the birds and a perfect system of protection which this Bill does not give. I have now outlined what I first proposed in my speech in April, 1920. Since then I have laboured in this matter. I have no interest in the plumage trade.
Until 1914 I never knew that there was a plumage trade. I never knew anyone in connection with it.
§ Viscountess ASTOR
You say you are not interested in the trade? Is it not true that you are barrister for the trade? I would like the House to understand that.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE
On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to address a question to another hon. Member, and not to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
In answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), I have never had any interest, professional, industrial, pecuniary or otherwise, of any kind, sort or description, in the plumage trade. I do not suppose that I ever shall, and I am certainly without any reward of any kind.
§ Viscountess ASTOR
I accept that, and I am very glad to have that answer. I have heard the suggestion, and I only wanted to know whether you are speaking from your heart or your pocket.
All the time I have been endeavouring to protect birds by this international system. I said it in my speech in April, 1920. I was determined that the Bill of 1920 should be killed because it would not only not preserve the life of the birds but it would drive the trade abroad and take it out of our control, and I have had tremendous difficulties with members of the trade to get them to agree to this scheme of a Committee which would agree upon a schedule and alter it from time to time, and then to get the League of Nations to take the case up, as they have already taken up several Bills brought into this House, such as the Poisonous Industries (Women and Children) Bill. They are the best medium for bringing in a General Plumage Bill for all the nations which import and export plumage. Having taken all that trouble all this time and brought the matter nearly to fruition, it is humiliating to me to have it said that I am only a paid barrister. A barrister cannot act except through a solicitor. It is impossible for a barrister to take any fee or reward in connection with a matter of this description. The insinuation made is one of a most provocative character.
I hope it has now been dispelled for ever. My object in opposing this Bill is to oppose a Bill which will bring about the opposite effect to that intended. I am sorry that this Bill has come on suddenly to-night, because, naturally, I am not as prepared to speak as I should otherwise have been. I knew only an hour or so ago that the Bill was coming on, and I am entirely without the notes that helped me on the last occasion.
I spent time for a reason that was perfectly obvious to the whole of the House. May I read to the House what I said to the authorities, because it is most germane to the matter before us. I told the authorities of the Natural History Museum:The questions on which I think I have got a consensus of the opinions of opponents of the Bill are:
- (1) The Schedule of the Bill should contain the names of the birds which, for many years past, have been regularly imported in considerable quantities by the trade into this country. These appear in the books of the Port of London Authority, and the presumption as to these is that they are not rare or in danger of extinction. There are about 25 kinds and 21 varieties.
- (2) That a Committee should be formed of three expert naturalists to be nominated by the Board of Trade—"
I was only reading the terms of what I sent to the Natural History Museum. I suggested that the Committee should hold an inquiry, and decide in the first instance what birds should be struck out of the list on the ground of cruelty, and so on, and that from time to time further inquiries should be made. Some additional Amendments to the Bill would be necessary, including the date of its coming into operation. It is proposed that the Bill should not come into operation for 12 months from the date of its passing to give time for the schedule to be prepared and settled by the Committee. As London is the entrep00F4t of the feather trade of the world the above arrangement would secure the aim of the promoters far more effectively than the present Bill, which will merely kill trade and employment in this country and divert it to Paris and Berlin, and will neither prevent cruelty nor extermination. If the result of the inquiries were ultimately made the subject of on international agreement through the Council of the League of Nations, the birds would be protected throughout the civilised world against cruelty and extermination. There is a note at the end that the Commercial Manager and Secretary of the Port of London Authority said that the staff attached to their feather showroom at Cutler Street warehouse are accustomed to the trade, and that the warehouse can accommodate all the plum- 1236 age that comes into this country, which can be kept under Customs' lock and key pending its release.
I saw someone at the Natural History Museum, and the result was that these proposals, which I made on 18th February, were submitted to a conference, which was held at the museum on 23rd February between representatives of the museum and members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Although, of course, the matter is private, to a certain extent, and the museum authorities are in no way bound to this scheme—they have a perfectly free hand in the matter—they have up till now approved of the principle. This is what happened: They suggested that an attempt should be made to arrive at an agreement, that a committee should be formed on the lines indicated by me, that the postponement of the date on which the Act should come into operation should be a period of at least 12 months from its passing. They had certain objections to the scheme. They would not assent to the importation into this country of feathers which are prohibited from exportation by the countries of origin. That was the only difficulty in the case. The egret and the bird of paradise are the only two birds about which there is the most controversy—the egret because they say it is obtained under circumstances of cruelty, and the bird of paradise because it is in danger of becoming rare. With regard to the egret, the charges of cruelty can no longer be substantiated. There is no instance given, at least during the present century, and no instance can be given—I have inquired at the museum and of other experts—of any egret being obtained in circumstances of cruelty. Cruelty might have occurred in the last century, but now it does not exist. Then there is the question whether it is possible for the egret to be exterminated. It is so plentiful that it exists in many millions in various parts of the world, and not merely in a wild state. It is bred on account of the value of its feathers. In Venezuela the birds, if not farmed, are preserved in much the same way as are our pheasants. I have here a letter to the "Times" from the Minister Plenipotentiary of Venezuela, dated June, 1920. He says:In view of the statements that have been made? before the Standing Committee now dealing with the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill and of the important Venezuelan interests affected by the 1237 measure, may I be allowed to set forth the facts with regard to the trade in egret feathers, so far as they affect my country and my countrymen. For several years past, the laws of Venezuela have prohibited the shooting of egrets. These laws have been enforced with increasing efficiency and success, especially in the State of Apure, which is the centre of the plumage industry. The Government does not hesitate to prosecute offenders and to punish them with severe penalties. Their policy is based on the belief that these beautiful and valuable birds are a source both of public and private income, and that their multiplication is an object of national concern. In the maintenance of this policy the interests of the State and of the private landowners go hand in hand.He goes on to give a description of the heronries where the birds build their nests and bring out their young. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bead it!"] I will read it if you wish:The heronries where the birds build their nests and rear their young during the rainy season are private property, and are classified for the payment of taxes. The owner of any land which the birds may have chosen as their roosting place profits by the collection and sale of the feathers which they shed, and is naturally anxious, not only that they should return to his property in the following year, but that they should be properly protected and preserved.
§ Mr. INSKIP
Is it in order for the hon. Member to read a letter which has appeared in the public Press from the newspaper?
I was doing so. If my hon. Friend is anxious for some reason or another for me not to read the letter, I shall not do so, but I wish to point out a further matter. This gentleman writes that practically the whole of the Venezuelan trade consists of the gathering of the feathers shed naturally by the birds every year. This has been investigated by the authorities here, and they find that 90 per cent. of the egret feathers are not taken from live birds and not taken from dead ones, but are shed naturally at the end of the breeding season, and that the number of egrets killed in Venezuela is an almost negligible quantity. The authorities over here are able to say from the feathers the age of the birds and whether the feathers have been shed naturally or not. He adds:The people and the Government of Venezuela have given ample proof during recent years of their desire to hare a closer commercial relationship with Great Britain. 1238 The Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill, if it becomes law, will not kill the Venezuelan plumage industry. It will merely divert it from London to the Continent. Permit me to say my countrymen would deeply regret any legislation which closed Great Britain to one of the natural products of Venezuela and compelled them to seek a market elsewhere.10.0 P.M.
With regard to the Indian egret, a smaller and very valuable egret which is imported in large numbers, what has happened since the first Plumage Bill came up and since the last Plumage Bill was brought in by the hon. Member for Melton Mowbray (Sir C. Yate). It has been proved that the egret is farmed in India just as the domestic fowl is farmed here. This was disputed by the hon. Member in his speech on the Second Reading, but it is now, I believe, proved up to the hilt. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India whether he would have any objection to the feathers of these egrets being exported if they were proved to come from the farms, as the feathers are a source of considerable income to the natives of India. The Secretary of State for India said he had approached the Indian Government. They were prepared to pass such a measure, but he wanted some authentic information. The difficulty of funds was the only difficulty which stood in the way and the representatives of the plumage trade are prepared to find the money in the course of a short time if the exportation of egret feathers from India will be permitted in future. Furthermore, an offer has been made by the owners of the heronries in Venezuela to defray the cost of an expedition to that country to confirm the existence of those heronries and the adequate protection afforded to the birds. That expedition is now about to go out.
I am extremely sorry this Bill has come on so unexpectedly and so quickly or I might have had time to put these facts before my hon. Friend who is promoting it, as I put them before my hon. Friend who promoted the last Bill. I think he would now be perfectly willing to help in bringing about an agreed Bill which would really preserve, as far as possible, the lives of all those birds which are in danger of becoming rare and prevent the feathers being obtained by cruel means. The objection raised in regard to the birds of paradise 20 years ago was that they were becoming rare and were in 1239 danger of extinction, but now, after 20 years, the feathers are coming in in increasing numbers. The Dutch Government, which controls New Guinea, where these birds are found, has passed very stringent laws for their protection, and there is a close season such as we have for our pheasants. Only the male birds are shot, because they are the only possessors of the brilliant plumage, and they are not shot until they reach four years of age, when the plumage is most brilliant. I have here the Regulations of Butch New Guinea for the protection of wild birds certified by the Acting British Vice-Consul at Batavia on 9th July, 1920. Under the Regulations published in the "Official Gazette" it is forbidden to catch or kill any wild animal or bird or to have in one's possession, dead or alive, any wild animal or bird or part thereof. Power is given to the Governor-General to determine to which animals or birds this prohibition shall not apply or in regard to which it shall be suspended. Power is given to abolish the prohibition in regard to certain dangerous animals and birds of prey. Further powers are given permitting the hunting of scheduled birds at specified periods under licences, the possession of firearms without licences is prohibited. There are strict regulations for the granting of licences and for their possession. The licences are only for a definite period and have to be renewed. Shooting is only permitted of such animals as are from time to time put in the schedule, and of birds which are not in any danger of becoming rare. Persons not provided with licences cannot import birds kins at all and even bird-skins acquired in a lawful way and destined for private use must be registered within six week of the close of the season with the responsible heads of the local government. The transport of bird-skins has to be covered by a written permit delivered by a Government official on the spot. The officials of the Customs and Excise service are authorised to bring to the notice of the Government any infringement of the regulations.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE
On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill has not been seconded yet, and does not a Bill brought in while Mr. Speaker is in the Chair require to be seconded?
May I for one moment revert to the question of an international settlement of this matter? In 1914 there was an International Congress for the defence of the feather industry held in Paris, and the following countries were represented through their trade organisations or chambers of commerce:—Argentine, France, Greece, Russia, Austro-Hungary, Germany, Holland, Spain, Belgium, Great Britain, Italy, and the United States, and a resolution was passed calling on the British Government and Legislature to abandon the Plumage Bill in its present form and to postpone all legislation on this subject having international bearings until an international agreement has been arrived at, and suggesting a conference impartially conducted and representing all parties concerned, to inquire into the whole subject. The representatives of the Governments of the countries present were asked to request their Government to present this resolution to the British Government without delay. That was in June, 1914, after the Plumage Bill of 1914 had been brought in. I do not entirely agree with that. I think we should first pass legislation in this country, and not wait for other countries to do it.
I say not wait for other countries to pass identical legislation. I hold that we should keep England as the entrep00F4t and the distributing centre for feathers for the whole world. We should first pass legislation and then get other nations to pass identical legislation, and thus prevent foreign countries taking the trade away from England. There is another aspect of the question which must not be lost sight of. This is a perfectly respectable industry, perfectly legal, perfectly honest, and very useful. It involves a large number of people indirectly and a very considerable number directly. A petition, signed by 2,000 women, was presented to this House when the last Bill was brought in, praying that they should not be deprived of their livelihood. In short, the prayer of the petition was:We, the undersigned plumage workers and dyers in the City of London, firmly 1241 believing that under existing laws of countries of origin the collection of plumage is controlled and obtained without cruelty or danger of extermination, humbly beseech you in the interests of labour to oppose the Plumage (Prohibition) Bill until thorough investigation of the facts has been made. "We have no doubt that a Bill could be drafted which, while protecting bird life from risk of cruelty, would not cause us to lose our employment.That seems to be very fair and very reasonable, and I hope that sooner or later the House will adopt that view. Matters have considerably changed since the Plumage Bill of 1914 was introduced and even since the Bill of last year was brought in. There is a chance now if this Bill is dropped of a Bill being brought in by the Government with the necessary Clauses appointing a permanent Committee such as I have indicated with power to revise the list of birds from time to time. The plumage question, so far as this country is concerned, would thereby be completely settled and the protection of birds would be assured. We need not stop there. Bills have already been passed for the protection of women and children which through the agency of the League of Nations have led to identical legislation in all countries belonging to the League. Why should not a Plumage Bill be passed by all the nations? I apologise to the House for having occupied more time than I otherwise might have done had I had time to prepare my facts and condense them, but the Bill has come on very suddenly and I had no time to properly prepare my remarks. I hope I have said enough, however, to convince the House that my views are the correct views, and I ask the promoter of the Bill before he insists on a Second Reading or even after it is read a Second time, if it should be, to carefully take into consideration the facts I have put before the House, showing that there is a better method than this of protecting birds which I am just as anxious to do as he is.
I am afraid I am not gifted with the eloquence or the tremendous amount of knowledge which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss) has displayed on this subject. But I think he was a little extreme when in the earlier part of his oration be referred to the hypocrisy of Englishmen, evidently alluding to some of us who feel very strongly in regard to this Bill. Now, I do not happen to be an English- 1242 man, but I am very closely connected with a considerable number of Englishmen, and I really deeply resent an imputation of that sort against any section of my fellow Britishers. I very much regret that such an accusation was made. I find myself, as I have always done as regards the Bill, in the position of being a neutral. Last year I voted on behalf of the Bill. I then wished to see it referred to a Committee of the whole House. Also upstairs in Committee I dealt, as far as I could, without very much skill, perhaps, but still with what little power I possessed, to get the Bill amended in Committee in certain vital ways. Those who proposed this Bill were not quite so fortunate in Committee as they might have been. I do not know that if they had accepted one or two of my Amendments their luck might not have been a little greater. The first principle—a very important principle, as I understand it—is in the beginning of the Bill, where I do think that you should not only prohibit the importation of plumage, but you should go further. If there is anything at all in this cruelty proposition, which I am willing to accept for the sake of argument, then you should go further than prohibit the importation of plumage, and you should absolutely prohibit the advertisement of plumage as well. I cannot see why, if it is wrong to bring the stuff here, it should be right to allow firms to use our hoardings for the purpose of advertising what is said to be wrong? That is the first point to which I should like to draw the attention of the promoters of the Bill, in the hope that they will see their way to give us some form of Amendment in due course in this matter.
With regard to the second Sub-section of Clause 1, I would like to ask what would be the approximate cost of administration, because there is no doubt you would create some work for the Customs authority, and, considering the vast amount of time, money, and energy in promoting the Bill, I would also like to know from whoever is representing the Government in this matter, if he could give us some small enlightenment as to what effect it would have on the Customs authority. Then we come to the second Clause, and I want to know quite frankly why there should be any exceptions at all under this Bill. I said at the beginning of the few remarks I have to make 1243 I was comparatively a neutral so far as the Bill is concerned, because I think it is a bad Bill. It does not go far enough in many ways, if there is any cause for having the Bill at all. I should like to draw attention to Clause 2, Sub-section (I.b) in regard to birds imported alive. We hear a lot about cruelty in these days. In the last few days a considerable amount of attention has been drawn to the export of horses. I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), who I know can make as brilliant an oration on this subject as anyone in this House, and perhaps he will deal with this point. You allow birds to be imported alive, possibly from long distances oversea, possibly caged up. It must be some form of cruelty; they cannot possibly arrive here without some form of suffering. I would like to ask the promoters of the Bill whether they cannot see their way to prohibit birds coming some distance to this country in a living state. Come to the second Sub-section of the Bill—and here I think most hon. Members will agree—we are on very different ground. The main point and purpose of this Sub-section is to allow people who, say, go across to France to buy hats or whatever the article of apparel may be, with feathers in it, and to come back here and wear them. I am glad to see two or three Labour Members here, and I would like to point out to them that as the Bill now stands—and I think it is particularly wrong as regards this point—it does make it very much easier for wealthy, or comparatively wealthy, persons to take advantage of their position and wear the feathers that we are told it is wrong to wear. As a mere man, I would not like to venture an opinion as to whether or not it is suitable apparel; and I would not do so, even if I were speaking to a whole meeting of women—perhaps it would be easier then to a few. Probably I might throw the apple of discord amongst them, and they might dispute the point. My hon. Friend for the Western Isles says that women never dispute anything—
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend has had such a fortunate experience, which, I think, must be only equalled, so far as I am concerned, by the women of the 1244 West of England. I should like to know precisely and quite clearly, so far as this is concerned, whether it is really necessary for the people who are supporting the Bill to give a preference to those who can afford to go abroad and buy their stuff in another country over those who are less well off?
Let me say why I believe it is quite possible to accept the Bill, and, in the event of it being accepted, enormously strengthened in Committee. One point which has certainly not been emphasised with anything like sufficient strength is that in the event of its becoming law, as it stands, it will be a deliberate inducement to the slaughter of many of the most beautiful birds in this country. That has not been disputed in any of the arguments that I have heard, and I have listened to a good many; and I have had no little correspondence on the Bill one way and another. I should like to draw the attention of the miscellaneous band who have drawn up the Bill to that point, and to ask why they could not have done something in this matter. I appeal to them—to their hearts—whether they cannot do something to prevent the wearing of the feathers of British birds by ladies, or, it may be, by gentlemen in the future in this country. I have noted some of the ways in which I consider this Bill may be improved. There is another point which has been mentioned, and which I tried to get brought in in Committee last year. This Bill might very easily at the present time be referred to the League of Nations to be dealt with. The League of Nations is a fairly miscellaneous body covering a great part of the world. The hon. Member for Nottingham is, I believe, one of the strong stalwarts in support of the League. I do not want to make other Members jealous of his capacity, but, seeing he is so strong a supporter, perhaps he will tell us why the League of Nations would not quite easily deal with this Bill, the expense being borne out of the gigantic funds at its disposal! I feel very strongly that the opponents of the Bill have got a tremendous weapon in their hands in being able to point out that in the event of this Bill being passed it will cause a considerable amount of unemployment. In the event of the League of Nations taking this question up they can do it in the widest 1245 and best way by getting other nations to come in. As far as the Bill is concerned I am neutral. I would, however, like to have some explanation of Clause? of the Bill which says "for the purpose of scientific research." I want to know how wide an interpretation the supporters would allow of that particular provision. If it is given a wide interpretation it is obvious that it would mean that there would be a loop-hole for just that which we are trying to prevent.
I have to make up my mind within the course of the next half-hour as to what I am going to do with regard to this Bill. Perhaps it is advisable for me to take up a neutral position. If I am able to escape from the influence of my hou. Friend I wish I could only get the hon. Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) to tell the House the whole of the points that can be made in regard to this Bill so that I should know in which lobby I should go.
§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary. Overseas Trade Department)
I think I can give the last speaker one assurance that will enable him to vote for this Bill, and it is that it will not add one penny to any Government charge or add to the expense of a single official in a Government Department. I will not go over the arguments which have been used time and again in this House for and against this Bill. I will only say that I believe this Bill in its present form carries out in a thoroughly fair and practical way a proposal which certainly a great majority of hon. Members of this House, irrespective of party, would very gladly see passed. That feeling has grown steadily during the many years in which Bills to carry out this purpose have been brought forward. I think the supporters of this Bill have been very economical in the time they have occupied and I do not think that their arguments are any worse on that account. Really, no argument has been put forward which requires an answer. The Bill if it is to be carried out at all must necessarily stop a certain section of trade, but this Bill is so designed that it carries out its proposals in the fairest possible way to all concerned. I should like to make clear what the position of the Government is. We feel entirely in sympathy with the objects of this Bill and shall be very glad to see it pass. We 1246 propose to leave the Bill to the free vote of the House, and I have not the least fear that if the House has an opportunity of expressing its opinion it will do so in no uncertain manner. We shall be very glad to see it receive a Second Reading. The House knows what the condition of public business is. If the Bill goes to a Committee we shall be very glad to see it pass into law; but I am sure the House will understand that I cannot give an undertaking that if it comes back at a late stage, and there is great pressure of business in this House, time can be found for its final stages. I do not know whether it is too hopeful to appeal, but after all appeals are often made to the common sense of this House and to a common measure of agreement, and I would appeal to those who have opposed this Bill strenuously in the past to give the measure a chance now, and I feel certain that if the measure passes into law the fears which they have expressed, either of its interference with international relations or with the trade of this country will prove to be entirely without foundation.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE
We have just heard a very interesting request that we who oppose this Bill should withdraw our opposition, and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said that he does not think our fears as regards employment and so on will prove to be well founded. He forgets, however, that there is another matter that this Bill interferes with very strongly, and that is the liberty of the subject. For a great many years women have been in the habit of wearing feathers in their hats, and long before I found out that I had a lot of feather workers in my constituency I intended to oppose this Bill whenever I had an opportunity. It was only last year that I discovered that a very large number of people in my constituency were interested, that something over 1,100 workers in the feather trade live or work in my constituency, and they sent me a petition. I should like to say in that connection that a great deal was said last year about the workers being aliens and about the firms which were engaged in the feather trade being alien firms. That is not the case at all. These workers are nearly all English people, and if hon. Members could have seen the petition which I had last year they would have seen English 1247 names all the way down and they would have seen that there is not a shadow of foundation for the suggestion that the workers are aliens. Not only that, but I took the chair at a meeting at the Farringdon Street Memorial Hall, at which something like 1,500 of these workers were present, and there was not the slightest doubt, from the demeanour of the audience, as to their nationality. I fully share their view that if this Bill were to pass their living would be very seriously affected.
This Bill has not, on this occasion, been supported by argument. The hon. Member who introduced it made no speech in explanation of it, and gave no reasons why it should be passed. It was not seconded, and we have heard nothing except the few remarks of one hon. Member, who is entitled to his opinion, in favour of the Bill. Last year it passed by 60 votes to eight in this House on a Friday afternoon. It then went to a Committee, and on four consecutive occasions it was found impossible to get a quorum, such was the lack of interest of hon. Members in the Bill. I suggest to the House that, at this time, in view of what is going on in the country, it is an absolute waste of the time of this House to bring a Bill of this character before it. We are wasting the time of the House and of the country in even discussing it, and I do not believe that if it goes to a Committee there will be any more interest in it than there was last year.
The Bill is based on two grounds. One is the ground of cruelty and the other that of extermination. On the cruelty plea, it is sought to exclude the plumage of all birds except the ostrich and the eider duck. As regards cruelty, there is at least one other bird which has its feathers extracted in the same manner as the ostrich, that is to say, the feathers are pulled out of the live bird. The bird I refer to has not been mentioned before in this Debate, and it certainly is one which ought to be included in the Schedule of the Bill. It is the bird called the paille-en-queue, which has one long red feather in its hindquarters. It is found in Mauritius, and is sought for its feathers. The inhabitants of the island place a hat over the head of the bird while they extract the red feather. It is a very peculiar bird. It does not lay its eggs in a nest like other birds, 1248 but digs a hole in the sandstone rock with its beak—which is very sharp—and lays the egg outside the hole. The egg is hatched by the heat of the sun, which is retained by the rock through the night; and when the newly hatched bird comes out of the shell it goes down into the hole which has been dug for it by its parent.
Again, with regard to the question of cruelty, I should like to ask hon. Members opposite who are so glib on this question whether they can justify the wearing of, say, silver fox furs, or black fox furs? I am sure that the hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) must know many ladies who wear furs purely for adornment, and not for warmth. Let me remind hon. Members that these foxes are very often killed under circumstances of great cruelty. During the summer I was in New Brunswick after the Plumage Bill was dead, and I was offered a black fox farm for 150,000 dollars—between £30,000 and £40,000—containing 120 black foxes. I went over the farm with a view not to buying it but to seeing the foxes, and on inquiry I was told they killed them by kneeling on them and crushing them to death. That is how the skins are obtained without a hole in them. That is a very cruel way of killing any animal. It is much more humane to shoot animals and birds. I fail to see any cruelty whatever in shooting them when they are killed with the first shot. A person who has been knocked unconscious has practically no recollection whatever, after he comes to, of the blow that knocked him out, and I do not think there is any cruelty in killing an animal or bird at one shot.
The question of extermination comes in, and we are asked by the Bill not to allow the importation of any feathers except those of the ostrich and the eider duck. We are not to allow the importation of seagull feathers. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) has already given way on the question of seagulls. Last year an hon. Member said the protection of seagulls was carried out in the United States, and the people of Utah had been obliged to bring in special laws to protect them. I pointed out that Utah was an inland state, and seagulls were probably more common on the sea coast than inland.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE
No, it was another hon. Member. In New Brunswick I was staying in a cottage by the sea, and one night acres of water were covered by sea-gulls; there were at least 10,000 of them. In that part of the world they are a perfect pest, and the more that are shot the better. There are many parts of the world where they are so numerous that they are really harmful to the fisheries, and there is not the slightest harm in killing a certain number in order that their feathers, which are very pretty, should grace the heads of the female sex. Though there may be some difference of opinion as regards the feathers of the parrot on a lady's head, most ladies look a great deal better with sea gulls' feathers on their heads.
There is one bird as regards which it is a matter of dispute, and the case of that bird is one upon which this Bill is very largely supported. It is the question of the egret. There has been a great deal of propaganda carried out by a very active little body of people outside this House. One always sees the same names when this Bill comes forward. There is a great propaganda in the "Spectator" and other papers, written by two or three gentlemen, and I compliment them upon the pertinacity with which they keep up the agitation. They get a very large number of ladies to agree with them because those ladies have not heard the arguments of those who are against the Bill. I always find that ladies when they have heard the arguments against a Bill are very speedily converted to the views of the opponents of the Bill rather than those of the supporters. As regards the egret, there is some question as to whether these birds are deprived of their feathers under conditions of cruelty in Venezuela; and the hon. Member for Oldham has said that a committee of some sort is going out there to investigate the conditions. Therefore I think we ought to be satisfied with that. May I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that if this Bill had not come on so unexpectedly to-night probably some arrangement might have been come to between the feather trade and the people who are responsible for bringing forward 1250 this Bill, because some sort of negotiation is going on between the feather trade and certain representatives of the Natural History Museum. The Bill has come forward at a very inopportune time for everybody. So far as the egret is concerned, possibly there may be some ground for investigation; but a great many of the arguments which were brought forward last year as to cruelty in depriving the egrets of their feathers have been blown out of the water in Committee. Even the hon. Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate) has admitted, in regard to India, that there are cases where these birds are actually farmed and kept in captivity under perfectly proper conditions. If it can be proved that in Venezuela the birds are not destroyed in very large numbers, but that the feathers are picked up, as is stated by the Venezuelan Minister and others, that, I think, would knock the bottom out of the case against the importation of the egret feathers. I have a letter written last year by a friend of an hon. Member of this House who had been in Columbia in 1914. He said:I stayed in the house of an Englishwoman who farmed a few egrets. They are a blue bird like the heron. It had been my impression that the egret was a plume which was on the top of the head and which came out at breeding time; but little white plumes push out from the feathers at the back of the head. Though it is only my recollection, I think the feathers show themselves full size and drop off in the course of a few days. They only come on during the breeding season. Speaking from recollection I rarely saw a bird showing more than four or five feathers at a time.He then went on to say that there was no cruelty as regards the egrets; that they were kept in captivity, and that the Indians there made money out of selling the feathers. He said he did not think that the feathers were pulled out of the birds while they were alive—which is another statement often thrown at us by the supporters of the Bill—because the bird had a big strong beak, and was very capable of protecting itself. If any hon. Member tried to pluck the feathers of a swan he would require to get the swan tied up first. It is the same thing with a bird like the egret, which has a powerful beak and is not a tame sort of bird at all.
There are hundreds of other sorts of birds which would be excluded if this Bill were to pass. Take the humming- 1251 bird for instance. There are no less than 400 different species of humming-bird. They extend, as regards their habitat, from Tierra del Fuego, which is right in the south of South America, as many hon. Members know, up to Alaska, which is in the North of America. I have myself seen them in Brazil, and there are, as hon. Members know, myriads and myriads of these birds, I think, the largest is about 8 inches long and the smallest 2 inches. They belong to the tribe known as the Trochilidae. There is one very interesting fact I ought to mention about them. The hen bird only lays two eggs—[Hon. MEMBERS:"Shame!"]—and although the hen bird is very solicitous in the care of the eggs, unlike other birds the cock bird does not seem to care about them at all. Another great point which has been brought forward in favour of this Bill, and which has been alluded to by other speakers, is that the Bird of Paradise will be exterminated. That argument has been brought forward year after year when this Bill has been introduced into the House. As long ago as 1908, one of the principal supporters of the Bill said it would be exterminated in three years. It is now 13 years since then, and not only has it not been exterminated but it exists in large quantities. The bird of paradise was hunted as long ago as 1760. Linnaeus mentions it as having been imported in 1760. It was known as the Apoda, because, at that time, they thought it had got no feet. The reason was that the Indians cut the feet off before sending the birds to Holland, or wherever they were sent, and so it was called the Apoda, or "without feet." This is a most interesting bird. In the first place, it is not a polygamous bird at all.[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] It is just the opposite; I think it is polyandrous. The fact of the matter is that the cock birds exceed the hen birds by something like ten to one. There is naturally great competition to attract the attention of the female birds, and what happens when the birds are killed is this. About ten of the cock birds get up on the boughs of the trees and dance in front of the hen bird. I assure the House I have studied this subject. The bird of paradise, as a matter of fact, is the crow of New Guinea; it is like the common or carrion crow in England, except that it 1252 has beautiful plumage, but the same form of beak. These cock birds get up on the boughs and dance, and the Indiana climb into the trees and shoot them with blunted arrows, so as to prevent the plumage from being hurt. They say that these foolish cock birds are so amused with their jazzing that even when they see several of them knocked out they still go on dancing. That bird is protected in New Guinea by the Dutch Government. New Guinea is now partly Dutch and partly British. Australia, I understand, has the mandate for the British part of German New Guinea. As Australia does not allow any export of their birds, I suppose that their laws are applied to the mandated territory, so that we have only got to deal with the Dutch side. I have here the regulations made for the protection of birds of paradise by the Dutch Government.
Mr. T. THOMSON
rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE
They were sent to the Secretary of the London Chamber of Commerce last year by a certain Mr. King, who was directed by His Britannic Majesty's Minister at The Hague to transmit them. I have here the translation of the official version. It says:In the name of the Queen, Governor General of the Netherlands, etc."—and it goes on to say that it is considered advisable to make regulations in reference to birds of paradise and birds of the parrot species in New Guinea, and then the regulations follow. The first says that a licence must be obtained by anybody wanting to obtain their skin, and these poor natives who shoot these birds have to pay no less than £3 10s. for a licence, so that they have to be very skilled. Therefore the licences are only taken out by skilled hunters. The licences are issued marked in consecutive order by the head of a local Government. Whatever hon. Members may say about certain South American Governments it cannot be said that the Dutch Government is not as particular about its laws as the British Government. There are several pages of these regulations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read!"] They are too long to read.
1253 [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] But the birds of paradise are properly protected by the Dutch Government and there is not the least question of their extermination or of cruelty in the way in which they are hunted.
Mr. T. THOMSON
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ favour of this Bill to remember the old Latin proverb "In medio tutissimus ibis." The ibis is a very important bird—
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 25.1253
|Division No. 71.]||AYES.||[10.59 p.m.|
|Ainsworth, Captain Charles||Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Astor, Viscountess||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Pratt, John William|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Hartshorn, Vernon||Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hayday, Arthur||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.|
|Barlow, Sir Montague||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Hirst, G. H.||Renwick, George|
|Barnett, Major R. W.||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Holmes, J. Stanley||Robertson, John|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hood, Joseph||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hurd, Percy A.||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Bruton, Sir James||Jephcott, A. R.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Johnstone, Joseph||Sexton, James|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Cape, Thomas||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)||Spencer, George A.|
|Clough, Robert||Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.||Stanier, Captain Sir Beville|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)||Sugden, W. H.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Swan, J. E.|
|Copte, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Lunn, William||Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lynn, R. J.||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.||Thomas-Stanford, Charles|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Thomson, T. (Middiesbrough, West)|
|Davis, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Macquisten, F. A.||Thorn G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Davis, Major D. (Montgomery)||Mallalieu, F. W.||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Davies, Thomas (Cironcester)||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Waddington, R.|
|Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)||Mason, Robert||Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.||Waterson. A. E.|
|Edge, Captain William||Mills, John Edmund||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelltyj||Molson, Major John Elsdale||White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.||Whitla, Sir William|
|Evans, Ernest||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Wignall, James|
|Fildes, Henry||Morgan, Major D. Watts||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Forrest, Walter||Mosley, Oswald||Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Winterton, Earl|
|Ganzoni, Captain Sir F. J. C.||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||Wise, Frederick|
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Myers, Thomas||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Goff, Sir R. Park||Neal, Arthur||Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Gregory, Holman||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry||Captain Elliot and Mr. T.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike||Griffiths.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Blair, Sir Reginald||Hinds, John||Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hopkins, John W. W.||Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Waring, Major Walter|
|Gould, James C.||Kiley, James D.||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Gretton, Colonel John||Manville, Edward|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hallwood, Augustine||Poison, Sir Thomas||Mr. Bartley Denniss and Lieut.-|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander||Colonel Archer-Shee.|
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Steel, Major S. Strang|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
|Division No. 72.]||AYES.||[11.9 p.m.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.||Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike|
|Ainsworth, Captain Charles||Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Astor, Viscountess||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Pratt, John William|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Hartshorn, Vernon||Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hayday, Arthur||Renwick, George|
|Barlow, Sir Montague||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Hirst, G. H.||Robertson, John|
|Barnett, Major R. W.||Holmes, J. Stanley||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Hood, Joseph||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hurd, Percy A.||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bruton, Sir James||Jephcott, A. R.||Sexton, James|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Johnstone, Joseph||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Cape, Thomas||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Spencer, George A.|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)||Stanler, Captain Sir Beville|
|Clough, Robert||Lindsay, William Arthur||Sugden, W. H.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.||Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)||Swan, J. E.|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Lunn, William||Thomas-Stanford, Charles|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lynn, R. J.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clltheroe)||McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)||Mallalieu, F. W.||Waddington, R.|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Mason, Robert||Waterson, A. E.|
|Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)||Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)||Mills, John Edmund||White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Molson, Major John Elsdale||Wignall, James|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Evans, Ernest||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Morgan, Major D. Watts||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Forrest, Walter||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Mosley, Oswald||Winterton, Earl|
|Ganzonl, Captain Sir F. J. C.||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Wise, Frederick|
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Goff, Sir R. Park||Myers, Thomas||Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Neal, Arthur||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Gregory, Holman||Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)||Captain Elliot and Mr. T.|
|Grundy, T. W.||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry||Griffiths.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Poison, Sir Thomas|
|Blair, Sir Reginald||Hinds, John||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Hopkins, John W. W.||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Flides, Henry||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Klley, James D.||Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.|
|Gould, James C.||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)|
|Hallwood, Augustine||Manville, Edward||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Phllipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)||Mr. Hartley Denniss and Lieut.|
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."—[Mr. Kiley.]1256
§ The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 24.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 126.
|Poison, Sir Thomas||Thomas-Stanford, Charles||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)||Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.|
|Sturrock, J. Leng||Waring, Major Walter||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)||Mr. Kiley and Lieut.-Colonel|
|Astor, Viscountess||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hartshorn, Vernon||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Hayday, Arthur||Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Renwick, George|
|Barlow, Sir Montague||Hirst, G. H.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Holmes, J. Stanley||Robertson, John|
|Barnett, Major R. W.||Hood, Joseph||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Hurd, Percy A.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Inskip, Thomas Walker H.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Jephcott, A. R.||Sexton, James|
|Bruton, Sir James||Johnstone, Joseph||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Cape, Thomas||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)||Spencer, George A.|
|Clough, Robert||Lindsay, William Arthur||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.||Stanier, Captain Sir Beville|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)||Sugden, W. H.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Swan, J. E.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Lunn, William||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Lynn, R. J.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Mallalieu, F. W.||Waddington, R.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Mason, Robert||Waterson, A. E.|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Mills, John Edmund||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Evans, Ernest||Moison, Major John Eisdale||White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Farquharson, Major A. C.||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.||Wignall, James|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Forrest, Walter||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Mosley, Oswald||Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)|
|Ganzoni, Captain Sir F. J. C.||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Winterton, Earl|
|Glbbs, Colonel George Abraham||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||Wise, Frederick|
|Graham, D, M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Myers, Thomas||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato|
|Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Grundy, T. W.||Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike||Captain Elliot and Mr. T.|
§ Bill committed to a Standing Committee.