§ This Act shall not affect any local rate made before the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, and no alteration in pursuance of this Act of any basis or standard of any local rate or of any valuation list shall be made so as to operate before that date.—[Mr. Lorden.]
§ Brought up, and read the, First time.
§ Mr. LORDENI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The chief reason for this new Clause is that in Committee the Minister of Health somewhat remodelled the Bill, and fixed that the date on which it should come into force should be the 5th day of April, 1923. In the whole of
§ The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 77.
2511| Division No. 195.] | AYES | [1.3 p.m. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Galbraith, Samuel | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Glyn, Major Ralph | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Gould, James C. | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hogge, James Myles | Swan, J. E. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Kenyon, Barnet | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Lawson, John James | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Lindsay, William Arthur | Wignall, James |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Mosley, Oswald | Windsor, Viscount. |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | |
| Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Myers, Tho[...]as | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Polson, Sir Thomas A. | Mr. T. Thomson and Sir D. Newton. |
| Finney, Samuel | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| NOES | ||
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Norman, Major Rt. Han. Sir Henry |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Hamilton, Sir George C. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Barrand, A. R. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Parker, James |
| Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert | Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Hinds, John | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Hopkins, John W. W. | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple) |
| Blane, T. A. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Remer, J. R. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Irving, Dan | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Jesson, C. | Simm, M. T. |
| Bruton, Sir James | Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Lorden, John William | Stevens, Marshall |
| Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes | Lort-Williams, J. | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Taylor, J. |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Lyle-Samuel, Alexander | Waring, Major Walter |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O (R'ding) |
| Frece, Sir Walter de | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Wise, Frederick |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Murchison, C. K. | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Nall, Major Joseph | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) | |
| Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Nield, Sir Herbert | Mr. Marriott and Sir J. Remnant. |
§
London that would mean practically a reassessment of the whole of the premises containing machinery next year. That was something that the promoters of the Bill did not contemplate, and they are in agreement with the Clause providing that it should not come into force until the next quinquennial period has elapsed. That would enable the next quinquennial valuation to come into effect without putting London to the expense of a revaluation at the present time. There is a new Clause on the Paper from the London County Council, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray):
This Act shall not, in its application to the administrative county of London, come into operation until the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, but re-
2513
gard shall be had to the provisions of this Act in framing the new valuation lists to come into force on that date pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.
I presume that that new Clause was not moved because my new Clause is wider in its application, and affects the whole country.
Mr. T. THOMSONI beg to second the Motion. It must be obvious that the change that is to be brought about, whether it be a good change or a bad change, will upset entirely the incidence of rating as applied to industrial areas. Rightly or wrongly, we are going to remove a burden from the shoulders which are accustomed to bear it, and we are going to put it on other shoulders. It is very undesirable that at the present time, when rates have reached an intolerable point in large industrial areas, that we should add further to the difficulty by altering the incidence of taxation in this way. A number of hon. Members waited on the Prime Minister recently on behalf of the local authorities and Poor Law guardians, and complained that the rates had amounted in some cases to 30s. in the £, and that it was a burden which could not be met at the present time. They sought assistance from the Treasury. That gives us an illustration of the difficulties which are encompassing local authorities to-day. This is not the time to take a burden from the shoulders of one section of the community and to add to the burdens of others.
What will be the immediate effect of this Bill, apart altogether from the question of principle? In those areas which are now heavily burdened, you are going to transfer from industry on to the rest of the community a burden which will vary from a few pence to many shillings in the £ on the local rate. You are not relieving the local authorities in the least. You are merely altering the incidence of the burden by taking it from the shoulders of the manufacturers and the owners of large works and putting it on the shopkeepers, the owners of small property and the tenants of houses. Surely, when at the present time there is the greatest difficulty experienced because of the shortage of houses, and when there is great difficulty in getting people to build houses, it is not the time to add to those difficulties, 2514 and add to the rates that are put on cottage property. Under the Rent Restrictions Act, apart from the ordinary play of economic forces, any increase in rates which occurs has to be added to the rent which is charged to the occupier of the house. Therefore, this House must see that the immediate effect, whatever the ultimate effect may be, is to transfer a burden from the large industrial undertakings and to place the burden on the occupiers of small cotttage property. In many towns it will mean a direct increase in the rental of several shillings in the pound, and this at a time when it is almost impossible to get in rents on account of unemployment and low wages. It would be exceedingly foolish at this particular juncture to make this change. I am surprised that the Ministry of Health is not represented. On a matter of such importance which is going to remodel the existing rating system we ought to have their guidance.
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSOnly in certain districts, which are very few, is there machinery rating.
Mr. THOMSONI am afraid that my hon. Friend speaks with very limited knowledge. The difficulty of the situation is the great anomalies which exist to-day on the question of rating. The proposed changes will affect considerably the incidence in a great many localities. The effect will be to transfer from industrial undertakings to the wage earner many pence, and in some cases many shillings, per week in the rent. Ultimately it will have to be found by industry. Wages will have to be raised because rents charged are higher. Therefore industry will not get ultimately any relief, but the immediate effect of the change at a time like the present, when rates are at breaking point, is going to be disastrous. The representative of the Ministry of Health should be here to give guidance on this particular question. Under the Housing Act in 1919 the Ministry are protected by the levy of a penny in the £ on the houses which they are building. The immediate effect of this Bill will be to reduce considerably the yield of that penny, and consequently the Treasury will be the poorer. Another reason for this delay is that further inquiries 2515 should be made as to the effect of the change. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) suggested that the Report of the Select Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland was technically in the hands of Members before the Committee on this Bill sat.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhile the Committee was sitting.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe Scotsmen did.
Mr. THOMSONPossibly we ought to have considered it, but because we did not consider it, we have a right to claim that this date should be deferred. On Second Reading the promoters said that in Scotland everything with regard to rating was working smoothly, and we must have the advantages which Scotland has. But in the Report to which I have referred there is an illuminating paragraph dealing with the very state of things which this Bill seeks to make applicable to this country, and during the years of inquiry which are now suggested there would be time for inquiring into how these defects which are referred to can be remedied. The Committee was a Committee of experts presided over by Lord Dunedin and comprising Lord Weir and other gentlemen skilled in industry and all these problems. In paragraph 105 of their unanimous recommendation they say:
We have had our attention called to the somewhat chaotic state of decision in connection with the rating of machinery and to what items are to be considered assessable in industrial works. There has been a great development in recent times owing to the increased employment of electrical energy to work machinery. Blame has been laid upon the fact that the word 'first' is used before the words 'motive power' in Section 1 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, a fact which it is said has much enhanced the difficulty of decision. The real grievance seems to consist in the varying practice of assessors"—That is the thing from which we were told we were suffering in this country.
Sir A. RICHARDSONIs not the hon. Member making a Second Reading speech, instead of directing his attention to the Amendment?
Mr. THOMSONThe point is that it is most desirable that the effect of this change should be delayed until the Report from which I am now quoting has been considered by the Government, and until they have carried out the recommendations of this Report that another Committee should be set up to inquire into how the defects which they find in the present Scottish system can be remedied. It is very important that there should be some inquiry, so that the evils of the Scottish system should not be transferred to this country. We wart to follow Scotland where Scotland leads, but we want to avoid the mistakes which Scotland has made as shown by this Report. The Report says:
The real grievance seems to us to consist in the varying practice of assessors which makes it, as matters stand, almost impossible for the owner of a works to calculate with certainty what additional burden he may be assuming if he puts in additional machinery and other facilities.That is the condition of things which my hon. Friend who is responsible for this Bill seeks to impose upon the industrial works of this country. The Report goes on:It has been suggested that some fresh definition should be sought, which would ensure reasonable uniformity of practice. We think that is a proper suggestion, but the task of finding such a definition is only possible if a practical inquiry is instituted as to the various classes of machinery employed and the effect of past decisions as applied to those classes. This would involve a separate and lengthy investigation, which must be considered and undertaken by a person or persons specially chosen for the purpose.Finally, the Report says:The law relating to the valuation of machinery requires amendment.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI would remind the hon. Member that the new Clause relates only to the date of application of the Bill.
Mr. THOMSONMy argument is that we should accept this new Clause. During the delay inquiry could be held. I am glad that there is present the Minister of Health. This Bill will make a considerable difference in the incidence of rating. The Minister of Health has said several times that a Cabinet Committee is considering the whole question of 2517 rating. An additional argument in favour of postponement of the operation of this Bill is that we should not deal with the matter piecemeal but should first have the findings of the Cabinet Committee.
§ Sir J. REMNANTIn order to save time, may I say that I gladly accept this reasonable Amendment?
Major BARNESI think the supporters of this Bill are meeting its opponents in an extremely reasonable and moderate spirit. When I moved the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, I put forward two main arguments. The first was that this was not an opportune time for bringing such a Bill into operation. The effect of the Amendment would be to carry the Bill over this time, and so far my objection is met. The second reason I gave was that I thought this problem should be related to the whole problem of rating. The Amendment will give us a period of time in which that can be done. That meets my second objection. On the Paper is a number of Amendments which have for their object the shaping of this Bill upon technical lines, which are thought to be right and proper by those who are expert with the matter. They may lead to a long, and, on the whole, perhaps not a very profitable discussion. After all, this House is not a House of experts. The Scottish Committee which inquired into the matter says that the Scottish law wants amending and that it is a matter for a body of experts. I am sure that every Member of the House who wants this Bill passed and believes in its principle, does not want on the Statute Book a Bill which, after 20 years of experience, the people of Scotland have concluded wants amending. I do not complain for a moment of the attitude of the Ministry of Health. All that the Ministry has done has been to try to get a good Bill. If the Minister of Health could now assure the House that he would set up a Departmental Committee which would look into this question with the assistance of experts, and take into account the decisions already given in Scotland, and the different classes of machinery to which the Bill would apply, and, having done so, recommend to the Minister Amendments which would make this Bill really workable and efficient, it 2518 would help to shorten our discussions this afternoon and lead to good results. If we do not get that assurance it will be necessary for us to proceed with the Amendments on the Paper.
§ Sir J. REMNANTWill hon. Members agree to let the Bill go through?
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSI think the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) is not only most valuable, but also extremely fair, and if some agreement of this kind could be entered into, it would be very desirable. I may point out to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who spoke so strongly on this matter, that in Lancashire, where there is an enormous number of cotton mills, it is only in a few towns that the machinery is rated. The result is that the people with the most up-to-date and the best equipped mills are handicapped in favour of the retrograde and old-fashioned mills with machinery which should not be in operation at all. There are many unions where they do not rate machinery. Disparities and anomalies are numerous, and if this Bill were passed, these would be eliminated.
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSI only desire to add that, during the extra time which is secured under this new Clause, the matter can be considered, and, for my part, I desire to associate myself with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle.
§ The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond)I do not quite follow the procedure suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes). I fully realise, as everybody does, that the subject is full of technical difficulties and the Bill, as it stands, is by no means perfect, but requires considerable alteration from the technical point of view. On the other hand, we are not in any way hostile to the Bill or anxious to prevent it passing the Report stage to-day. There is another place in which Amendments can be inserted of a purely technical character. I understand the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, and those 2519 associated with him, are prepared to withdraw their Amendments on the understanding that the Departmental Committee will go into the technical points with a view to the introduction later on of an Amending Bill. Reference has been made to the Report of the Scottish Committee. This Bill is largely based on the Scottish practice, and I do not believe you will ever have a Bill in regard to which a Departmental Committee will not suggest alterations and improvements. I am not quite so much impressed by the Scottish Report as some hon. Members. I shall be quite ready to undertake to set up a Departmental Committee, as suggested, to go into these points if the general principle be adopted.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONI am glad to hear what the Minister of Health has said and I wish him to go a little further in putting this matter before a Departmental Committee and to ask that Committee to consider the effect on particular industries. I wish to refer specially to the mining industry.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONI merely wished to ask that, in the consideration of this matter, regard should be bad to the interests of the mining industry, which, under these proposals, would be practically faced with ruin. I wish to point out that 33 per cent. of the whole rateable value is in the mining industry, and by this Bill it gets no relief whatever, or practically none.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONThe Bill only seeks to relieve machinery that is removable.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERAgain I would remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have already reminded other hon. Members, that this is outside the scope of the Clause which we are discussing.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONOn another point, Sir, I am glad this suggestion has been accepted, because it allows time for consideration. I trust that the House, irrespective of any Commission or any Inquiry, will carefully consider this 2520 matter having regard to the interests of the principal industry of the country. Probably I am biassed in this matter, but if an additional rate is thrown upon the mining industry, five-sixths of it must be borne by the miners, who are to-day working for less than a subsistence wage.
§ Mr. GOULDThe suggestion which has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) and has been acquiesced in by the Minister of Health should go a long way towards meeting the opposition which has been put up to the Bill. By deferring the operation of the Bill, as proposed in the new Clause, we shall have time to go into the whole question and also into the very crucial difficulty with which the mining industry in particular is faced under the proposed Measure. We do not object to the whole system of rating being reconsidered. We want that done, but care must be taken that the new rating does not press unduly on any one section of the community, and the Departmental Committee will give us an opportunity of avoiding that. The immediate operation of the Bill undoubtedly will have the effect suggested by the hon. Member who spoke last, namely that of depressing wages in the mining industry and making conditions even less tolerable than they are at the present moment. I hope the promoters of the Bill will accept the proposals put forward and take the assurance of the Minister of Health, and subject to that, I, on behalf of the Mining Association, say we will be quite satisfied.
§ Sir J. REMNANTThe last thing in the world which the promoters of the Bill desire is that there should be any injustice or unfairness. There is a great deal to be said in favour of the proposal that the terms in connection with the machinery sought to be exempted from rating, should be defined by experts. There are numerous technical terms with which, with all submission, this House is not quite competent to deal. The object of deferring the operation of the Bill until 1926 is obviously in order to save the enormous amount of expense which revaluation would entail, especially as revaluations have been made in the City of London and elsewhere for the next quinquennial period, and therefore the immediate operation of the Bill would inflict a hardship we are anxious to avoid 2521 If I understand the suggestion correctly, we are to be allowed to get this Bill through. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
§ Mr. RICHARDSONThe Amendments are to be withdrawn.
§ Sir J. REMNANTI understood the Bill was to go through on the distinct understanding that in the period between now and 1926 we are to have the Departmental Committee promised by the Minister of Health to settle all these points and, I hope, meet all the difficulties raised by various Members of the House, and that the conclusions should be put into force by an enabling Bill as soon as possible. That is a reasonable request, which I, for one, would be the last to object to in any way. I think it would meet the difficulties that have been raised, and I hope the House will allow that course to be followed.
§ Mr. TURTONI will be very careful not to go outside the Rules of Order, and I will give no reasons at all for stating why it is perfectly impossible for me to accept the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) and accepted by the Minister of Health. Speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association, I can only say that I am instructed by them, and it is my intention, so far as I can, to take very good care that this Bill should not get its Third Reading this afternoon. I will not give my reasons until the time comes, but I can be no party whatever to the suggestion that has been thrown across the Floor. I look, as a rule, with grave suspicion on these concordats which are arrived at between the promoters of a Bill and a Minister, anxious to save trouble, anxious if they can not to promote any hostility in any quarter, and I can only say that when the time comes, on the Motion for Third Reading, I hope I shall be able to give sufficient reasons to induce the House not to give this Bill its Third Reading.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI oppose this Bill to the utmost of my power. Its object is to transfer burdens from the manufacturing class to the agricultural class.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member began by saying he was going to speak in opposition to the Bill, and I 2522 must point out that we are only dealing with the proposed new Clause.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI think you will see, Sir. that I am going to keep to the point. As an agriculturist, I strongly oppose the Bill. If the arrangement suggested were accepted, that would be admitting the principle of this Bill, that machinery should not be rateable, and on no consideration could I agree to that. If, on the other hand, the promoters of this Bill were really in earnest in wishing this Committee set up and in wanting a real decision of experts as to whether any loose machinery might be excluded from the ordinary law of rating—what ought to be done and could very well be done in the three years provided by the extension of time proposed in this Clause—let them withdraw the Bill and let the Committee be set up, and then bring in a further Bill when the Committee has reported.
§ Sir J. REMNANTWe rely very largely on the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in support of the Bill, so that we are not going altogether without expert knowledge.
§ Mr. CAUTLEYI am only dealing with the suggestion thrown across the Floor of the House. I think the Bill should be withdrawn now, and that the Committee could be set up as has been suggested.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am rather astonished that the promoters of the Bill have accepted this new Clause, because, after all, what does it do? It says:
This Act shall not affect any local rate made before the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, and no alteration in pursuance of this Ast of any basis or standard of any local rate or of any valuation list shall be made so as to operate before that date.The result of that is that for a period of practically four years this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will remain a dead letter.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAs I read the Clause, it means that the purpose of this Act, which is to exempt certain machinery from rating, shall not have effect until the 1st April, 1926.
§ Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISSA revaluation will have to be made.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI really do not understand how that can be done, because the Clause says that
No alteration in pursuance of this Act of any basis or standard of any local rate or of any valuation list shall be made so as to operate before that date.Those words, like most words in an Act, can be made by certain people to mean something which other people will say they do not mean, but, at any rate, they mean that a valuation can be made, but that when it is made it is not to operate, and what is the use of doing that? It is surely a waste of time, and I can see no object whatever in making a valuation list which shall not operate before that date. I have had a considerable number of letters written to me by various people and by various chambers of commerce, and, as I understood their desire, it was that this Bill should be passed in order that they might be exempted from the payment of rates on machinery so placed that it could be moved, but this Clause will stop all that. This Clause says that for three years and nine months you are not to have the advantage of this Bill, and in the meantime some Committee is going to be set up which may or may not do certain things. The Report of that Committee may be entirely against the provisions of this Bill, and then you are met by this extraordinary provision. You pass this Bill, with this Clause in, which is entirely against the object of the Bill, ostensibly for the purpose of allowing a Committee to report. When that Committee reports, who is going to bring in an amending Bill, because an amending Bill would be necessary to give effect to the Report of the Committee? Therefore, we are going to pass a Bill, if we put this Clause in, which shall not come into effect for three years and nine months, and which may, before that, be so altered by an amending Bill that it may never come into effect at all.
§ I am rather surprised, especially at my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), who, I know, is very anxious that the Bill should become law, accepting this Clause. I know very often that hon. Members who are in charge of a Bill are so anxious to get it through that they are almost prepared to accept anything from anybody, but I am not at all sure that that is a wise course, and I should be rather inclined to ask my hon. Friends in charge of the Bill whether they have not acted a little hurriedly in agreeing to accept this Clause. I do not wish to enter into the question of whether the Bill is right or not, and it would be out of order to do so, but I think it is quite evident that the effect of this Clause, if passed, would be to resider the Bill practically of no value.
§ Mr. LORDENAs a matter of explanation, may I point out to my right hon. Friend that in the original Bill nothing was to be done until 1923, and nothing could come into operation until 1924 As a matter of fact, it only postpones the Bill for two years.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt may have been right to postpone it, because you could not help that, as you have to make new valuation lists, but it does not follow that we should insert this new Clause.
§ Major MOLSONI hope there will be a spirit of compromise. I cannot agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). The opponents of this Bill, I think, have met the proposers perfectly reasonably. All that we wish is that the Bill be made the. best possible Bill for England, and I cannot see why, if it has been waiting for 11 years, it cannot wait another three or four years in order that we may get the best Bill possible.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 18.
2525| Division No. 196.] | AYES | [1.59 p.m. |
| Armstrong, Henry Bruce | Bruton, Sir James | Fell, Sir Arthur |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Finney, Samuel |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Burdon, Colonel Rowland | Fraser, Major Sir Keith |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Carr, W. Theodore | Frece, Sir Walter de |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Galbraith, Samuel |
| Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert | Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Been, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John |
| Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h) | Doyle, N. Grattan | Gould, James C. |
| Birchall, J. Dearman | Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.) | Gritten, W. G. Howard |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. W. E. | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Hamilton, Sir George C. |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) | Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hinds, John | Mitchell, Sir William Lane | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Holmes, J. Stanley | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Swan, J. E. |
| Hopkins, John W. W. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz | Taylor, J. |
| Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Murchison, C. K. | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Irving, Dan | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Jesson, C. | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Townley, Maximilian G |
| Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John | Tryon, Major George Clement |
| Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham) | Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William | Vickers, Douglas |
| Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Parker, James | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D. |
| Kiley, James Daniel | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry | White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) |
| Lawson, John James | Perkins, Walter Frank | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Poison, Sir Thomas A. | Wignall, James |
| Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Raeburn, Sir William H. | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) |
| Lindsay, William Arthur | Remer, J. R. | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend) | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Lort-Williams, J. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Windsor, Viscount. |
| Loseby, Captain C. E. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) | Wise, Frederick |
| Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon) |
| Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | |
| M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Stevens, Marshall | Sir J. Remnant and Mr. Lorden. |
| NOES | ||
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Heyday, Arthur | Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hogge, James Myles | Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H. |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Nall, Major Joseph | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Naylor, Thomas Ellis | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) | |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | Royce, William Stapleton | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur | Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Turton. |
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.