§ Where the Treasury after consultation with the Board of Trade are satisfied as respects any article which is liable to duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, by reason only that some ingredient or part of the article is liable to duty under that Act, that it is inexpedient, having regard to the nature of that ingredient or part and to the smallness of its value in comparison with the total value of the article, that duty should be charged under that Act, the Treasury may by order exempt that article from duty under the said Act.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move to leave out the wordshaving regard to the nature of that ingredient or part and to the smallness of its value in comparison with the total value of the article.1122 This Clause enables the Treasury practically to reverse the Safeguarding of Industries Act. It gives them a power which we, naturally, on this side of the House want to see them exercise, but it only gives them that power in certain specified cases, and the object of my Amendment is to widen the powers of the Treasury and to enable them to reverse the Act of Parliament with greater facility and frequency than is possible at the present time. In moving this Amendment I am torn between the natural instinct of objecting to a Government Bill and a real desire to help the Government out of a hole. The Government, for good or ill, passed this Safeguarding of Industries Act. They have since found it to be in. convenient even in the privacy of their own Cabinet, and they are endeavouring by his Clause to get round some of the difficulties which they have made for themselves. It does not help them much, and I do not see why we should not give them slightly more ample powers than they are now seeking. Under the Clause they may only exempt articles coming into this country, such as dolls having eyes that are valuable. If the eyes are not of much value, then they cannot exempt the dolls. We would like them to be in a position to exempt anything they think fit, whatever the value of the dutiable part of it. Our proposal would facilitate matters enormously, and it would help the staff, which at present, in the small hours of the morning, are sitting with towels around their heads trying to solve the problem whether certain articles shall come in or be stopped. It would also give a help to the President of the Board of Trade. There he is he has to carry out an Act of Parliament which he does not like. He knows it is his duty to carry it out. This Clause would help him to get round some of his difficulties, and therefore I move the Amendment in order to enable him to do so all the more quickly.
§ Sir R. HORNE
It is a matter of very great regret that I am not able to take advantage of the very unusual 'offer of assistance just made by the hon. and gallant Member. I am bound, however, to refuse that help. I would like to point out, moreover, that his offer would not facilitate the operations of the Government Department. It would rather impose upon it a very much larger burden 1123 of work than now falls to its lot, because the discretion which the hon. and gallant Member seeks to impose upon it is one of a most wide and far-reaching character. It would enable it, in fact, to tear up the Act of Parliament; it would enable the Treasury upon its mere ipse dixit to say that no compound article at all shall be charged the duty. The Safeguarding of Industries Act has been placed upon the Statute Book, and I am sure that the House of Commons would not be prepared to give such a power to abrogate it to any Government Department. When an Act has been passed, it is the duty of the Government Department to carry out the legislation and not to render nugatory any decisions of the House. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his generous offer in this matter, but I cannot ask the Committee to accept it.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I very much regret the decision just announced. I look upon this Amendment as a very serious one. I think it would be an improvement on the Bill as it stands. The Bill gives power to exempt articles where only a small part is subject to the operation of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Under the Clause as it stands, the Government must be satisfied that the part which is subject to the duty is only a small portion in comparison with the total value of the article. But that is a very vague expression, and I think this Amendment would only add to the doubt of the trader whether or not an article is likely to be taxed. It would add to the complexity of the matter, while it would not give the Government freedom to exempt any compound article, whether by reason of the smallness of the duty or by reason of the condition of the trade, or by reason of the size of the part which is subject to the duty. In none of these cases will they be allowed to exempt it under this Clause. The Clause proceeds on the principle that the wording of the Act has shown that some elasticity must be given unless you are to be landed in the most absurd results, as has happened in the case of dolls' eyes, of which we have heard so much recently.
This seems to prove that some dispensing power must be given to the Government, and that is the reason for this Clause. It would be very foolish to confine that dispensing power to the single 1124 case of the smallness of the value of the dutiable part of the article. The immense probability is that this unfortunate piece of legislation, as I look upon it, when it comes to be worked further will disclose still other absurdities, which will make it very desirable to exempt all compound articles from the duty and not only those of which but a small part are subject to the duty. If you are going to give this dispensing power, it is far better to give it in as wide terms as possible, leaving it to the Department to carry out so much of the exemption as may seem desirable to it. This Amendment would make a material improvement in the Bill. There are other reasons which might be advanced for its adoption. The British Government have been represented at an international conference at Genoa. It has been there solemnly repeated, as it was constantly urged at previous economic conferences, that it is of the utmost importance to diminish to the greatest possible extent all barriers to trade between European countries. That has been laid down by every authority one can possibly conceive, strictly technical as well as political authorities. The Government now come down here and have an opportunity of showing, even in a slight degree, that they really do mean what they said at Genoa, and that they desire to diminish artificial barriers to trade between various countries. I venture to hope that this Committee will insist on accepting this Amendment, which seems to me to be a real improvement in the legislation and in some measure a fulfilment of the professions which the Government have made in the name of the House.
§ Mr. KILEY
Twelve months ago, when the Government introduced the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, they were told repeatedly that its administration was impossible. Despite all the advice tendered to them they persisted in putting it on the Statute Book, and now they have found that their arrangements are incapable of carrying it out. That is the reason why even at this late date, instead of bringing a Bill to amend the Act they have brought forward this proposal -in their Finance Bill to help them out of their difficulty. I have no doubt that one of the factors which led up to this Clause was the famous case of the dolls' eyes. In this Clause the Government take power to exempt dolls' eyes when they come in as part of the dolls, but there 1125 are manufacturers in this country who make the dolls but import the eyes, and they have to pay the duty upon them. The Germans, however, can send in dolls with the eyes, and they are exempt. That has been the policy of the Board of Customs for some time, and in order to give it legal authority we are now asked to pass this Clause. I could keep the Committee going for a considerable period with illustrations of the impossibility of administering this Act as it is on the Statute Book at the present moment.
Again, why confine this to the Safeguarding of Industries Act? There are the Import Duties, in the case of which the same problem arises. A question was asked a few weeks back with regard to an electric lighting outfit upon which a trifling amount—something like 1s.—of duty had to be collected, and the apparatus had to be held up for weeks, at a cost of over £1, in order to enable that duty to be collected. There is no provision made in this Clause for such a case as that, because it comes under Import Duties and not under Safeguarding of Industries. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants, as I am sure he does, to assist the Customs, I suggest that it would be better to delete the reference to the Safeguarding of Industries Act and let it, apply to all duties. That would be of some use to the Customs, and, I take it, would be appreciated by their officials. Then there is another factor. Let it be realised that when this power is given there will be no control as to how the Customs will interpret or use it. An interesting question was asked some time ago by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) as to why a toy bagpipe, costing 2s., imported from France, was defined as a musical instrument subject to duty, whereas a mouth-organ imported from Germany, costing the same sum, came in free. The reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was that mouth-organs were expressly exempted from the Customs Duty on musical instruments by a Treasury Order made under Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1915. This Order also covered all other musical instruments the value of which did not exceed 1s. Therefore, a toy bagpipe coming from France, and costing 2s., would not be exempted, but a mouth-organ, costing 1126 exactly the same sum, would be exempted. What nonsense it is to proceed with legislation of this kind.
Perhaps I might give one other illustration. A well-known firm of pickle manufacturers imported glass bottles with their name embossed on the glass. The Customs officials said that the name of the country of origin must also be put on the bottles. The manufacturers said that that would not be right, because their pickles were not made in Holland but in Great Britain. That necessitated a meeting of His Majesty's Board of Customs, and, after a good deal of consideration, they decided that in such a case the bottles might come in despite the fact that they had an English name embossed upon them. All this shows the absurdity of this legislation, but., while the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government insist on its remaining on the Statute Book with all its foolishness, I do not think we can do better than make it as easy as possible for them to conduct their business. I would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is no use his proceeding without taking ample powers, so that, for instance, a doll manufacturer who wants to import the eyes shall not be penalised in favour of the foreign exporter of the complete doll.
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has forgotten the Safe-guarding of Industries Act. His argument just now was on the assumption that the articles upon which the duty was to be levied are definitely stated in the Act, but the Board of Trade have, in the exercise of their discretion, introduced from 6,000 to 8,000 articles that were not named in the Act at all. I should much prefer the matter to be left in the hands of my right hon. Friend. He has a scientific staff at his disposal who could decide many of these cases. For instance, there is the question of gas mantles. The whole question whether a duty was to be levied on gas mantles depended upon whether certain fine chemicals, nitrate of cerium and nitrate of thorium, lost their identity when worked up into the mantles, and any duty would be levied upon that part of the mantle which was composed of oxide of cerium and oxide of thorium—it becomes oxide in the process of manufacture. The question that had to be determined was whether these substances, 1127 after being combined, lost their identity altogether. I can illustrate what I mean by a political allusion. Did the Coalition Liberals, on the one hand, or the Coalition Unionists, on the other, lose their identity when they became merged in the Coalition? That is a question that has puzzled many people. I should not mind leaving it to the discretion of the scientific Department at the Treasury to decide a question of that sort, and that sort of question, having been before the various officials indirectly for some time, might help them to come to a decision as to whether these substances have lost their identity when they are made part of a gas mantle. My sole point is that the right hon. Gentleman is not taking more discretion than the Board of Trade have already. They have already the discretion to put thousands of articles into the Schedule without getting the direct consent of the House of Commons. Here we are not extending to the Treasury any more discretion in applying taxes than the House has already granted to the Board of Trade, and I would much prefer, and I think the House generally would prefer, that this discretion should be in the hands of the Treasury, which is a Department accustomed to decide questions of that sort, rather than of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend is just a little too modest in assuming that he could not do this hit of work better than the Board of Trade. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
§ Captain W. BENN
It is very hard to resist the temptation to take advantage of the rare opportunities that occur for pursuing the investigation of this fascinating Act of Parliament. This Clause in the Finance Bill, apparently, enlarges the powers which the Government already have to exempt various articles from the incidence of the duties imposed by this Act. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one or two questions with reference to that, and to the effect which the proposed Amendment of the Act—because this is in effect an Amendment of the Safeguarding of Industries Act—will have upon the Act itself and upon its somewhat complicated operations. Under Section I (4) of the Act, where an imported article consists of ingredients one or more of which is dutiable it may be freed from duty if such 1128 ingredient or ingredients lose their identity, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) has rightly stated. Is this power intended to assist the Government? Where the question of loss of identity is difficult to determine, does this give them power to decide the question? It says here that if an ingredient is liable to duty, then for certain reasons, although the articles becomes thereby liable—
§ Sir R. HORNE
This Clause does not deal with cases in which the identity of the ingredient is lost, but only with cases in which it is of very small value as compared with the total value of the article.
§ Captain BENN
Exactly. I think I am right in saying that, if the identity of the ingredient is held to be lost, the article is not dutiable. But here, even if the identity of the ingredient is not lost, the Government may for certain reasons waive the duty. The question I want to ask is, Are the Government intending to use this power for the purpose of assisting them in cases such as have arisen, when the Court could not decide whether the identity of the articles had been lost or not?
§ Captain BENN
Let me make clear what I have in my mind. The gas mantle is a case in point.. I understand that there was great difficulty in deciding whether these dutiable ingredients had lost their identity, and I do not know now what is the position with regard to the gas mantle—whether is dutiable or not. In that case, is the Government intending to use the power conferred upon them by this Clause to relieve the gas mantle from the imposition of a duty which would otherwise tall upon it? That, I imagine, is the sort of case which the Government has in mind, and also the very absurd cases which are constantly arising, such as the one we had to-day at Question Time, in which a duty of 11d. was levied on some parcel and the Post Office charged 15s. for opening the parcel in order to ascertain whether it was dutiable or not. That, I imagine, is primarily the kind of case, but would this additional power enable the Government to settle the controversy in regard to gas mantles? That is a question which I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer.
1129 Then there is another point. If hon. Members will look at the Clause they will find that it is not in the least confined to Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act imposes duties according to lists published in pursuance of Section 1 of the Act. Part II allows duties to be imposed by Orders which must he on the Table of the House of Commons. As snowing how fascinating the study of the subject can become, if hon. Members will look at Part II, Section 3, they will find that where an article is partly made in one country and partly in another, or where some of its ingredients are of one origin and some of another, it may escape the imposition of the duty under an Order made by the Board of Trade. Now these Orders are about to be made. Will this Clause enable the Government again to defeat the intention of Parliament when such Orders have received the approval of the House of Commons? That is an interesting inquiry, because, is very difficult really to understand where the trade of the country is under this legislation. Inquiries are held, the results are reported to the Government, long delays take place, and finally Orders are made or promised, and, when they are presented to the House of Commons, and if they receive the approval of the House, apparently, under this Clause, the Government will still, although a Part Order has been made, have the right in certain cases to set aside the decision of the House and of their protectionist followers that the duty shall be imposed. It is obvious from what I have said that it is a subject which, so far from being small or unimportant, deserves the closest study, and I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give answers at least to the two questions which I have ventured to ask him.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL
The Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) to say that he was unable to understand him or to follow his argument. I sympathise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whilst I am talking, and when I sit down, it will be quite competent for him to say that he was unable to understand me. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman has explained to the Committee the purpose of this Clause as it will affect businesses 1130 in this country, no one will he able to understand him, and we shall then sympathise with him. As one reads this Clause, one is bound to ask where is the business in it, and where is the sense in it. There is this discretionary power. Just let us imagine, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to imagine it. Business men, sufficiently harassed by a thousand business and financial considerations, have to be bothered by not knowing whether or not any particular line of goods will recommend itself to the Treasury after consultation with the Board of Trade. The trade of England was never built up by business manufacturers having to bother themselves as to whether, after a consultation between the Treasury and the Board of Trade, and the exercise of certain discretions, they can go ahead or must hold back. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after this consultation has been held and if there is a difference, who is to be the final arbiter and who is ultimately to decide whether or not business men should be hampered or should be free under this Clause?
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question, to which I attach very great importance. Does he not think it a most unfortunate thing, with reference to business matters, that discretionary powers are left either to the Board of Trade or to the Treasury to say how a business is to be affected by Acts of Parliament? Discretionary powers! A flat tariff everyone can understand. An exaction upon a business, a duty upon a business, a Corporations Profits Tax, any tax upon a business, a flat rate, are understandable; but discretionary powers! Vested in whom? Vested in officials who know nothing of the practical conduct of the business; harassing the heads of businesses, who do riot know how the officials will view a thing in January compared with the way in which they viewed it last October harassing cashiers and the financial Departments as to whether they may have to pay so much money in order to get in a certain quality of goods and whether the discretionary powers are with them or against them. I say, with great respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that anyone who tries to speak about this Clause speaks about it in a fog. When he replies, I say with great respect, he will 1131 speak in a fog. No one knows how it is going to affect the practical conduct of businesses, but everyone does know that every business man will resent it. Whilst I have no hopes of any reply the right hon. Gentleman can make, I think this is one of the least workable and least justifiable Clauses included in the Finance Act.
§ Sir R. HORNE
I hope I may be allowed to remind my hon. Friends, after what took place last night, that this Debate has occupied three hours and we have not yet got Clause 8. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is due to your friends!"] I do not think it is fair to this side of the Committee to say that the time has been occupied this afternoon by them. My hon. Friends cannot complain as to the shortness of my speeches or replies. I entirely agree with one remark of my hon. Friend who spoke last, that discretions under an Act of Parliament are not a good thing and lead to uncertainty, and that they are things one would very much rather avoid. The misfortune of this Amendment is that it seeks to increase the discretion and to make the uncertainty still greater than is the case under the Clause at present. I do not think there is a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) apprehends. I believe, while he usually gives very diligent study to these matters, that a little more deliberation on his part would have explained it to him. There is no difficulty about the Act itself in this respect when there is a Schedule of the class of articles which may come under the Act, and there is a provision that the Board of Trade shall issue Schedules of those things which come under the general definition at that time. Therefore, the trader knows where he is in regard to
§ this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
§ On the question of identity, if the identity of the article is lost then no duty is chargeable. What I failed to understand in my hon. and gallant Friend's speech was that part of it wherein he suggested that there were cases in which it would be impossible to tell whether the identity was lost or not. That is really impossible. A decision must be come to in those cases whether identity is lost or not. If the identity is lost, then the duty is not chargeable. On the other hand, if the identity is not lost, there still arises a subsequent question whether the dutiable article is something so small in relation to the whole compound that it is worth charging. That is raised in the present Clause, and we provide that where it is something infinitesimal to all the compounds, although its identity is preserved, it shall then be in the discretion of the Treasury entirely to exempt from duty in that case.
§ Sir R. HORNE
There is no difficulty about that. It will apply to any article under Part II brought within the Act. That is to say that if under Part II the Committee appointed under the Act decides that certain articles coming from certain countries are dutiable, then the other question will still arise whether the amount of the dutiable article in a compound is of sufficient importance really to be charged. The whole object of the present Clause is to decide that point.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 941135
|Division No. 158.]
|Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward
|Bowles, Colonel H. F.
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
|Brassey, H. L. C.
|Armstrong, Henry Bruce
|Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
|Breese, Major Charles E.
|Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
|Atkey, A. R.
|Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence
|Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
|Broad, Thomas Tucker
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)
|Betterton, Henry B.
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
|Birchen, J. Dearman
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
|Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
|Burdon, Colonel Rowland
|Barnett, Major Richard W.
|Blair, Sir Reginald
|Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes
|Barnston, Major Harry
|Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
|Carr, W. Theodore
|Barrand, A. R.
|Borwick, Major G. O.
|Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
|Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
|Casey, T. W.
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
|Hopkins, John W. W.
|Rankin, Captain James Stuart
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J, A. (Birm, W.)
|Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
|Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
|Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
|Cheyne, Sir William Watson
|Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
|Reid, D. D.
|Churchman, Sir Arthur
|Hurd, Percy A.
|Remer, J. R.
|Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
|Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
|Remnant, Sir James
|Clough, Sir Robert
|Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
|Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
|Coats, Sir Stuart
|Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
|Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
|Cobb, Sir Cyril
|James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
|Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
|Jephcott, A. R.
|Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel
|Jodrell, Neville Paul
|Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
|Johnson, Sir Stanley
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
|Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
|Rodger, A. K.
|Conway, Sir W. Martin
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
|Rothschild, Lionel de
|Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
|Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
|Curzon, Captain Viscount
|King, Captain Henry Douglas
|Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
|Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
|Lane-Fox, G. R.
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
|Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
|Larmor, Sir Joseph
|Samuel, Samuel (W'daworth, Putney)
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
|Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
|Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
|Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
|Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
|Dawson, Sir Philip
|Lister, Sir R. Ashton
|Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
|Lloyd, George Butler
|Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
|Doyle, N. Grattan
|Lorden, John William
|Seddon, J. A.
|Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
|Loseby, Captain C. E.
|Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
|Lowe, Sir Francis William
|Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
|Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
|Lyle, C. E. Leonard
|Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
|M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
|Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
|Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
|Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachie)
|Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
|Falcon, Captain Michael
|McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
|Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
|M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
|Stanton, Charles Butt
|Farquharson, Major A. C.
|Macleod, J. Mackintosh
|Starkey, Captain John Ralph
|Fell, Sir Arthur
|McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
|Steel, Major S. Strang
|FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
|Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
|Foreman, Sir Henry
|Macquisten, F. A.
|Magnus, Sir Philip
|Sturrock, J. Leng
|Mallalieu, Frederick William
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
|Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
|Sugden, W. H.
|Fraser, Major Sir Keith
|Martin, A. E.
|Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
|Frees, Sir Walter de
|Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
|Sutherland, Sir William
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
|Middlebrook, Sir William
|Ganzoni, Sir John
|Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
|Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
|Molson, Major John Elsdale
|Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
|Gee, Captain Robert
|Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
|Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
|Moraine, Captain Algernon H.
|Tickler, Thomas George
|Gilbert, James Daniel
|Townley, Maximilian G.
|Glimour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
|Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
|Tryon, Major George Clement
|Glyn, Major Ralph
|Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
|Turton, Edmund Russborough
|Goff, Sir R. Park
|Murchison, C. K.
|Gould, James C.
|Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
|Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
|Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
|Waiters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor
|Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
|Nall, Major Joseph
|Walton, J. (York, W. R. Don Valley)
|Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
|Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
|Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
|Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
|Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
|Greer, Sir Harry
|Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
|Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
|Gretton, Colonel John
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
|Watson, Captain John Bertrand
|Gritten, W. G. Howard
|Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
|Weston, Colonel John Wakefield
|Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
|Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
|Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
|Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
|Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
|White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
|Gwynne, Rupert S.
|Nield, Sir Herbert
|Williams, C. (Tavistock)
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
|Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
|Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
|Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
|Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
|Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
|Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
|Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
|Hamilton, Sir George C.
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.
|Wilson, Col, M. J. (Richmond)
|Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
|Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
|Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
|Winfrey, Sir Richard
|Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
|Pearce, Sir William
|Harris, Sir Henry Percy
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
|Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
|Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
|Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
|Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
|Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
|Perkins, Walter Frank
|Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)
|Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
|Perring, William George
|Wood, Major Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)
|Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
|Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
|Woolcock, William James U.
|Hills, Major John Waller
|Pickering, Colonel Emil W.
|Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward
|Pilditch, Sir Philip
|Yeo, Sir Alfred William
|Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
|Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
|Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)
|Hood, Sir Joseph
|Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
|Hope, Sir H. (Stirling &Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)
|Purchase, H. G.
|TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
|Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
|Raeburn, Sir William H.
|Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.
|Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
|Randies, Sir John Scurrah
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
|Ammon, Charles George
|Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charl[...]
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
|Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
|Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
|Hirst, G. H.
|Royce, William Stapleton
|Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
|Hogue, James Myles
|Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
|Holmes, J. Stanley
|Sitch, Charles H.
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
|Smith, W. R (Wellingborough)
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
|John, William (Rhondda, West)
|Spencer, George A.
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
|Spoor, B. G.
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
|Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
|Sutton, John Edward
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
|Kiley, James Daniel
|Swan, J. E.
|Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
|Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
|Lawson, John James
|Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
|Entwistle, Major C. F.
|Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
|Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
|Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
|Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
|Waterson, A. E.
|Mills, John Edmund
|Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
|Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
|Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
|White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
|Grundy, T. W.
|Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
|Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
|Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
|Newbould, Alfred Ernest
|Wilson, James (Dudley)
|O'Grady, Captain James
|Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
|Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
|Rattan, Peter Wilson
|Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
|TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
|Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Kennedy.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.