HC Deb 10 November 1926 vol 199 cc1200-11

I beg to move, in page 14, line 42, after the word "company," to insert the words or any canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour undertakers. The purpose of the Clause as it stands is to enable railway companies to obtain indirect supply in bulk at what is practically cost price. Railway companies have been singled out for this privilege and the purpose of the Amendment, which has been put down at the desire of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, is to give the same privilege to any canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour undertaker. There seem to be two justifications for the Amendment. First, it is difficult to see any reason why this privilege should be given to railway companies and denied to other undertakers carrying on competitive work of the same character. Secondly, I presume the object of this concession to railway companies is to enable them to lower their freight charges. That, no doubt, is a good aim but it applies equally to a canal company to which cheap electric haulage is at least as important as it is to a railway company. On those two grounds, my submission is that there is no reason whatever for differentiating between the two types of transport, and with a view to securing justice for another type of undertaking which carries on precisely the same work as the railway companies, I beg to move this Amendment.


I beg to second the Amendment.

I contend that the justification for giving this concession to dock and harbour authorities is even greater than for giving it to railway companies, because the railway companies are in most cases limited liability concerns, distributing profits and dividends, whereas most of the harbour authorities do not distribute any money in dividends, and any concession they may get in respect of the cost of their electrical power is simply for the benefit of the reduction of the working expenses of those harbour authorities, and cheapens the handling of goods to the general benefit of British trade.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon)

I am sorry to have to resist the endeavour of my hon. Friend to obtain a concession for the harbour and dock authorities. The House will appreciate that the function of the Board is not with individuals or companies or with anybody except authorised undertakings, but in Clause 12 we have included railway companies, and consequently I think it is only right that we should justify our reason for putting the railway companies in a very special place. It is the desire of every one in the country to see our railways electrified as much as possible. The railway companies have always taken a very independent view when considering taking current for electrification, and in many cases in the past they have taken the line that they would not electrify at all unless they could have their own generating stations. The power they consume is very large, and it is a particular load which is of great advantage in coming upon the ordinary authorised undertakers. They have a load factor of about 30 per cent., which would enable undertakers, if they had that load, to produce current at a very low price. The Electricity Commissioners have power to stop the building of new stations or to stop extensions, and they have in the past done their best always to prevent the building of a station which would be segregated entirely for traction purposes. Consequently, the railway companies have in a sense a claim that they should be put in a special position relative to the supply of electricity from the Board. It is for that reason that we have thought it wise, in order to encourage electrification for the benefit of railways and the ordinary consumer, that the railways should be put in that particular position. If we start down the slippery path of including other commercial undertakings, canals, docks, and so on, we shall have the claims of big works, and we shall then no doubt be a State trading concern, and not merely trading with authorised undertakings.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY

I am very pleased indeed to hear that the Government intend to resist this Amendment. It is all very well for the Manchester Ship Canal to seek preferential rates over the smaller manufacturers and householders of the district. We have got a large super-station at Salford, erected at a cost of £1,500,000, and if this Amendment were carried, it would mean that the Ship Canal would get a cheaper supply from the Board, which would give them a preferential rate over the manufacturers and small householders of the district. Therefore, on behalf of the ratepayers and the manufacturers, I am very pleased that the Government are not accepting this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.


On a point of Order. Is it possible for me to move the Amendment standing in my name, which is on the Paper immediately before the Amendment just disposed of—in page 14, line 42, after the word "company," to insert the words "or tramway company"?


No, we cannot go back. I took the decision of the House yesterday on a similar question.


I beg to move, in page 15, line 11, to leave out from the word "that" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words where the supply to such other authorized undertakers or railway company is given in pursuance of a contract entered into before the passing of this Act, either party to the contract may require a revision thereof, and thereupon such contract shall be revised by agreement between the parties thereto or, failing such agreement, by arbitration, and subject to such revision the contract shall continue for the period for which it was made. The last Amendment was to grant certain privileges or benefits that may accrue as a result of this Bill to canals, docks, and harbour undertakings, and it seems to me that that Amendment rather implied that certain advantages were bound to accrue when the full application of this Bill is felt in the country. That being the case, my Amendment has for its object the granting of permission for anybody to change the terms of their contract after a period, on the application of either one of the two parties concerned in the contract, so that the advantages under this Bill, should there be any, can be evenly distributed among those people who have had sufficient foresight to make lengthy contracts. The solitary argument used by the Attorney-General in Committee against this proposal was that he did not think we ought to attempt to tamper with contracts that had been made by people with their eyes wide open. We submitted on that occasion, and we repeat to-day, that it is merely penalising any local authority, for instance, which happened to have the foresight, for the purpose of securing a supply of electricity for industrial undertakings in their area, to make a lengthy contract, that now, because they had that foresight and made suitable arrangements over a long period, they should be deprived for the next 20 years, perhaps, of any benefits that may accrue as a result of this Bill. That is totally unfair. What are the terms of this Bill? Some £33,000,000 of public money may be expended in the co-ordinating of schemes and the general preparation of a comprehensive reorganisation of electricity supply, and if public money is to be provided, it seems to me that the benefits ought to be evenly distributed and that those areas which are receiving a supply of electricity under a long-dated contract, if the price is likely to be reduced, ought to be permitted at the end of a period to call for a revision, which would be determined by the arbitrator referred to in the Amendment.

The question of sanctity of contract scarcely enters into this Amendment. It is not a question of breaking contracts. Here is a new scheme which a few years ago no local authority could have foreseen. Each authority will have to pay its own proportion towards any capital outlay, and to that extent each authority ought to be permitted to receive its share of any advantages that may accrue. It does seem to me that a public company which is in business exclusively for profit, having made a contract with a local authority for a bulk supply of electricity for 10, 15 or 20 years, if it is to receive any benefit as a result of this national organisation, it ought not to complain if its customers expect to receive some portion of the benefit that will accrue as a result of the application of this Bill. Therefore, I suggest it is not a question of breaking contracts in the ordinary sense. It is a question of distributing equally any advantages under a national Bill, which can only be made possible as the result of the expenditure of large sums of national money, and to that extent each district will be equally entitled to share in any benefits there may be.

The Attorney-General in Committee was in some measure of doubt as to whether he should resist this Amendment. Although his first mind was to allow the Committee to have a free vote on the question, on the whole he felt that, since contracts ought not, except in very extreme cases, to be disturbed, it was better to support his own Amendment, but the hesitation in his mind at least compelled us to persist in our proposal, and that is why the Amendment is now being moved. I hope the Mover and Seconder of the last Amendment, and those who usually speak for municipalities, those who desire to see fair play all round, those who have eulogised municipalities for their wonderfully efficient schemes, those who have proclaimed that the municipal authorities have looked far into the distance and made ample arrangements, not only for domestic, but for industrial purposes, will support this Amendment. Many Members who sit opposite, I believe, also were supporters of this Amendment in Committee. We expect that they and their friends will support us this evening, and I hope the Minister will by this time have changed his mind, will have seen the equity of this proposal and will be willing to accept it.


I beg to second the Amendment.

10.0 P.M.

I want to point out, first of all, that this Amendment is not a question concerning either company interests against municipal interests, or municipal interests against company interests. It is simply a matter between the givers and receivers of bulk supply. You have contracts made to give and receive bulk supplies, and those contracts may arise in various circumstances. What has been one of the commonest reasons for taking bulk supplies in late years has been the action of the Electricity Commissioners. In pursuance of their policy—the right policy, I think—of not encouraging the extension of uneconomic stations, in many cases they have forbidden authorised undertakers to extend their stations, and have said, "You must try to get a bulk supply." In many cases, there has been only one possible source of supply, and the authorised undertakers, whether company or municipal, have been practically in the hands of the sole generating authority. They have, therefore, to fix up contracts, and perhaps they cannot get a contract fixed except for a considerable term of years. The ordinary bulk supply contract generally does have a clause contemplating revision in certain circumstances, but I do not think it contemplates a revision for the case which arises under this Bill, that is, that the giver of the bulk supply is receiving a specially cheap supply owing in the operation of this Bill, and I think it would be unfair that where a contract has been fixed up in such a case as this a case, really, of force majeure—that for a long period of years those people taking the bulk supply, should have to pay the original price, although the undertaking giving a bulk supply is receiving the full benefits of the Bill.

When this matter was discussed upstairs, the point was made that we should be upsetting the sanctity of contracts, and so forth. In a Bill of this nature, you cannot help affecting contracts of one sort or another, and the relationship between the people concerned. But I do not think there is anything seriously dangerous in this upsetting of contracts here. What is proposed here is that the conditions for a bulk supply should be subject to a revision, that the case should go to an arbitrator to see whether, as a fact, those people who have entered into this contract are not entitled to some other terms. I am not at all concerned to see that this should be a one-sided contract. If, as is not generally anticipated by those in charge of this Bill, but is anticipated, I gather, by some of their supporters, the price of electricity is going up and not down as a result of this Bill, and that even then persons are forced to take a supply, then I agree the terms should be revised. The authority with which I am connected is not an authority taking a bulk supply, but is an authority which gives a bulk supply, and, therefore, my own authority would suffer in the almost unthinkable circumstances of the Board being able to supply electricity cheaper than we can produce it ourselves. But I do submit there is a clear case here, and it would be a mistake if people of this country who happened to be served by authorised undertakers, who by circumstances, in many cases forced on them, have had to enter into disadvantageous contracts should be cut out from all the benefits of cheap supply provided by the working of the Bill.

Colonel ASHLEY

An Amendment in practically the same terms as this was moved upstairs by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in a long speech, which, to a certain extent, was convincing. But he said that the learned Attorney-General had some measure of doubt as to what his course would be. I do not think that is quite a fair way of putting the matter. I think it was that the learned Attorney-General had very strong predilections in favour of maintaining contracts, and he listened to the hon. Member and his friends to see whether they advanced any overwhelming arguments to induce him to agree to tearing up contracts. In the end, my right hon. Friend was not convinced, and, as the hon. Gentleman will recollect, the proposal was defeated by some 31 votes to seven.

An argument put forward in favour of the Amendment was that if we do not do something, the giving undertaker will get a big advantage, and it is not fair that he should have that advantage. I would remind the House that, under Clause 29 a power company has to submit to a revision of maximum prices, that under Clause 30 a sliding scale is imposed upon it, and that under the Fifth Schedule there is a revision of the revenue which may be obtained by a municipality. Therefore there are, with regard to all giving undertakers, conditions in the Bill to prevent any undue profit being made by these companies out of any circumstances such as those. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will it apply in the case of a contract?"] Certainly. But I do not base my main argument on that; I base my argument on this, that unless it can be proved undoubtedly and clearly that a serious injustice will be done to anybody, it is most inadvisable to tear up or break a contract. These contracts have been made with the full knowledge of the people who entered into them; in many cases they have periods of revision, and the Government is clearly of opinion that the overwhelming balance of advantage is to maintain the sanctity of contract.


I should not have risen but for the suggestion of the Minister of Transport that this Amendment means the tearing up of contracts. Surely the opportunity given by this Amendment for a revision of whatever is the contract, which has to be mutual, cannot be referred to as a tearing up of a contract. It is really carrying the point too far and endeavouring to create prejudice against the Amendment. We are asking that in the event of such a change coming by reason of this supply—a national supply, but not a nationalised supply in the sense that we understand it—that in the event of conditions showing an enormous surplus, the people should have an opportunity of revising the prices they had agreed on—prices arranged by people who had no knowledge that you were going to bring forward such a Measure as this to-night. Surely that is a businesslike and safe proposition.


This part of the Clause is another illustration of the lack of confidence on the part of the Government in their own Bill. I would have thought that if a Government thought this Bill was going to give an immediate cheap supply of electricity to the country, this Clause would not have appeared in it with the words in it: "Provided that this Section shall not affect the price charged." Does that mean that there is going to be a reduction in price? Why do they resist an Amendment that would bring into immediate action the relief brought about in industry by the reduction in price? If the Bill means anything at all in reduction of price, it means its immediate application. Why then should people who have made contracts prior to the passing of this Bill—and the Bill proves to be what the Government claims and a reduction in price takes place—why should not that find its way into business and have immediate effect in reducing the price of articles produced? I would ask the Attorney-General to explain to us why this should be retained, and why the Government should resist the Amendment suggested in view of the claims made for the Bill. If it is going to do something to cheapen electricity why have they not the confidence to put that into the Bill? The Attorney-General had to admit in cross-examination that everything was purely speculative in this connection. In fact, I think the word he used was hypothetical—that we could not tell until this thing was on a working basis whether we were going to have an increase or decrease in price. But here you have a definite statement made in this Section which proves that the Government has no confidence in the Bill. If the Government believes it is going to be a means of cheapening electricity why do not they accept the Amendment and give the public the right to have the benefit immediately?


I would like to stress the point in connection with the question I asked the Minister of Transport. Does he mean to indicate to the House that in spite of these words, "Provided that this Section shall not affect the price charged for any supply of electricity given in pursuance of a contract made before the passing of this Act," that there are ways and means contained in this Bill of the price of electricity being lessened to people included in contracts of this description? His answer seemed to indicate that there were ways of doing it. If there are not, I should like to say that this is a very one-sided thing indeed. It is begging the question to say that these are contracts which were made by the people with their eyes open. Here is the Government doing something on a national scale intending to benefit the whole of the consumers of electricity, but here are these people with a contract that might have to run five, 10 or 15 years in the future, and they will have to be penalised because they did not know what the Government was going to do. If electricity is going to be cheapened it has got to be cheapened at the expense of the whole community. Where people have made a contract apparently this is not going to apply. I would like an assurance from the Minister of Transport that these people will have an opportunity of benefiting if electricity is cheapened.


Might we press the Minister of Transport to amplify the statement he made when he drew our attention to Clauses 30 and 39, and said that if a reduction took place these people would secure the benefit.

Colonel ASHLEY

They would not get much benefit from a reduction, because they have the sliding scale.


Then the right hon. Gentleman does not deny that people who have made a long-term contract will not get any benefit from the Bill?


I wish to add only a word or two. There are a number of authorities who are in receipt of a supply of electricity under contract, and they are

apprehensive because they feel that the undertaking from which they get the supply will be able, under this Amendment, to ask for an increase in price. Undertakings in that position are just as apprehensive of the Amendment as undertakings which furnish the supply and think they may lose a contract. Hon. Members opposite should not run away with the idea that, one way or another, every benefit resulting from this Amendment will be enjoyed by consuming authorities. As I say, there are quite a number receiving supplies from other authorities who fear their interests will be prejudiced if this Amendment be passed.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 217 Noes, 93.

Division No. 452.] AYES. [10.16 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hilton, Cecil
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ainsworth, Major Charles Curzon, Captain Viscount Hopkins, J. W. W.
Albery, Irving James Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester) Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Davies, Dr. Vernon Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Dawson, Sir Phillip Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hume, Sir G. H.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Duckworth, John Hurd, Percy A.
Astor, Viscountess Edmondson, Major A. J. Hurst, Gerald B.
Atholl, Duchess of Elliot, Major Walter E. Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Atkinson, C. Elveden, Viscount Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley England, Colonel A. Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Everard, W. Lindsay Jacob, A. E.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Fairfax, Captain J. G. Jephcott, A. R.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington).
Bennett, A. J. Fenby, T. D. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Bethel, A. Fermoy, Lord Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Fielden, E. B. Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Finburgh, S. Kindersley, Major G. M.
Blundell, F. N. Ford, Sir P. J. King, Captain Henry Douglas
Boothby, R. J. G. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Forrest, W. Knox, Sir Alfred
Braithwaite, A. N. Foster, Sir Harry S. Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Briggs, J. Harold Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Little, Dr. E. Graham
Briscoe, Richard George Fromartle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Looker, Herbert William
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lord, Walter Greaves
Bullock, Captain M. Glyn, Major R. G. C. Lougher, L.
Burman, J. B. Grace, John Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Burton, Colonel H. W. Greene, W. P. Crawford Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Butler, Sir Geoffrey Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Campbell, E. T. Gunston, Captain D. W. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Cassels, J. D. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Macintyre, Ian
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry McLean, Major A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Harrison, G. J. C. Macmillan, Captain H.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Hartington, Marquess of Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Christie, J. A. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Clayton, G. C. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Macquisten, F. A.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hawke, John Anthony Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Colfox, Major William Phillips Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Conway, Sir W. Martin Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Merriman, F. B
Cooper, A. Duff Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie) Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Cope, Major William Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Courtauld, Major J. S Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Murchison, C. K.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Crawfurd, H. E. Hills, Major John Waller Neville, R. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Rye, F. G. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Waddington, R.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney Wallace, Captain D. E.
Nuttall, Ellis Sanders, Sir Robert A. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Sandon, Lord Warrender, Sir Victor
Oman, Sir Charles William C. Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Shaw, Lt. Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Wells, S. R.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame) Skelton, A. N. Wiggins, William Martin
Pilcher, G. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,'C.) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Preston, William Smithers, Waldron Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Price, Major C. W. M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Radford, E. A. Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Raine, W. Stanley Lord (Fylde) Wise, Sir Fredric
Ramsden, E. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Withers, John James
Rees, Sir Beddoe Storry-Deans, R. Womersley, W. J.
Remer, J. R. Streatfield, Captain S. R. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Rentoul, G. S. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)
Rice, Sir Frederick Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.) Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)
Roberts, E. H. G (Flint) Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) Tinne, J. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Ropner, Major L. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Captain Margesson and Captain
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Bowyer
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hardie, George D. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hayday, Arthur Saklatvala, Shapurji
Baker, Walter Hayes, John Henry Scrymgeour, E.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Scurr, John
Barnes, A. Hirst, G. H. Sexton, James
Barr, J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Batey, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West) Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Bromfield, William Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Sitch, Charles H.
Bromley, J. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Kelly, W. T. Smillie, Robert
Buchanan, G. Kennedy, T. Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Cape, Thomas Kirkwood, D. Snowden, Rt. Hon, Philip
Charleton, H. C. Lansbury, George Stamford, T. W.
Clowes, S. Lawson, John James Stephen, Campbell
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Lee, F. Suillvan, Joseph
Compton, Joseph Lowth, T. Sutton, J. E.
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Taylor, R A.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) MacLaren, Andrew Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Tinker, John Joseph
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) March, S. Varley, Frank B.
Day, Colonel Harry Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Viant, S. P.
Duncan, C Montague, Frederick Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Gibbins, Joseph Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watson W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gillett, George M. Murnin, H. Welsh, J. C.
Gosling, Harry Naylor, T. E. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Oliver, George Harold Windsor, Walter
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) Paling, W.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Potts, John S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Groves, T. Purcell, A. A. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.
Grundy, T. W. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Smith.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Riley, Ben

Question put, and agreed to.