§ Sir J. GILMOURI beg to move in page 27, line 19, column 1, to leave out from the word "heritages," to the end of line 25, and to insert instead thereof the words
belonging to or leased by a tramway company or local authority, and valued by the assessor of railways and canals as part of the tramway undertaking of such company or authority.This Amendment is moved because we desire that the Schedule in regard to railways should be followed as closely as possible.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat Amendment comes under the same ruling which has been previously given and it cannot be moved at this stage of the Bill.
Captain BENNOn a point of Order. I have necessarily been absent for some few moments from the House, but I have attended the proceedings throughout the Debate. May I ask you for a specific ruling on my Amendment, in line 8, column 2, to leave out "Twenty" and insert "Twenty-five"? May I submit to you, Sir, that while the Rule says that on the Report stage of any Bill it shall not be competent to move an Amendment which increases the charge upon the subject, this Amendment does nothing of the kind? It reduces the charge upon the subject—in this case the harbour undertaking. I submit, with great respect, that the Rule in regard to the Report stage is against an increase, and 644 should not be applied to an Amendment which is designed to secure a reduction.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIn this case it would secure a reduction in one case and put on an increase in another. I cannot go back on the previous rulings in which this point has already been dealt with.
Captain BENNAre we not entitled, if we are in our places, to move our own Amendments, or must we be governed necessarily by a ruling given on some earlier Amendment? I submit, with great respect, but, I if may, with emphasis, that the Rule against imposing a charge has never hitherto been interpreted in so general a way. It may or may not be—I do not know—that by-increasing this percentage a charge may be laid upon someone; but, in the case of the persons concerned, it certainly does not impose an additional charge, but reduces the charge. I submit that to rule in a general sense that it must necessarily although I do not know whether it may, impose a charge on other people, is an extension of the Rule which would seriously curtail the possibilities of useful debate on Amendments during the Report stage of a Bill.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI cannot at this stage go back on the rulings that have been given. The same ruling which was given on the previous Amendments affects this one.
Captain BENNSurely, a Member in charge of an Amendment is entitled to argue the merits of his Amendment? I am well aware that some Government Amendments were ruled out on the ground that they imposed a charge. If, indeed, this Amendment imposed a charge, it would not be necessary to base a ruling upon an earlier Amendment, but to base it on the general Rule with regard to Amendments imposing a charge; but I most urgently submit to you, Sir, that this Amendment does not impose a charge, hut reduces the charge.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENOn the same point of order. The last Government Amendment that \vas ruled out was a proposal to increase the allowance to a house factor to 5 per cent., which necessarily must impose a charge. This is a totally different matter, and I submit that the former rulings do not 645 cover this case at all. It is precedent run mad to hold that the previous rulings, which had no connection with this case, and each of which involved a different point, must cover this case. As the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) has said, it is a perfect tragedy if, a thing of this kind having been once asserted, the House is to be deprived of the opportunity of discussing and voting upon a particular Amendment. It is a very big restriction of the liberty of the House.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUROn the same point of Order. I submit that the Amendment. standing in my name is also on the same footing.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThis discussion and raising of points of Order is quite out of order at this stage of the Bill. A ruling has already been given, and the Amendment of the Secretary of State for Scotland has already been put before the House. This matter can only be raised again at a later stage.
Captain BENNOn a point of Order. I submit that I did raise the matter immediately, and I certainly did not understand clearly what the ruling was. I did not let the opportunity slip, but raised the question the moment you rose to put the Amendment of the Secretary of State for Scotland on a later line. I would submit, in further support of the argument I am addressing to you, the case, for example, of the Report stage of taxing Resolutions. There is no doubt that, in as much as a certain amount of money has to be raised, if a reduction is moved in a particular tax it must necessarily, by inference, impose a burden on other taxpayers; but that is never held to be out of order on the Report stage, because specifically it reduces, and does not increase, the charge. I urge the same point on behalf of this Amendment.
§ Mr. WESTWOODFurther on the point of order. May I point out that the Amendment on which you gave your previous ruling was to raise a charge of 2½ per cent. to a possible 5 per cent. so far as certain outlays were concerned, and necessarily, if you increase 2½ per cent. to 5 per cent. for outlays, that would place a, burden on the other ratepayers. In this case, however, the same rule does not apply, because no charge is being increased.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONMay I ask if the ruling you have now given is to apply to a subsequent Amendment standing in the name of the other Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) and myself? I submit to you that that Amendment is on an entirely different footing from the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). Different arguments can be adduced in support of it, and it does not have anything like the same effect upon the general incidence as the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith.
§ Lieut.-Colonel THOMFurther on the point of order. May I point out that the cardinal principle, which has been enunciated again and again by the Lord Advocate in the proceedings in connection with this Bill, is that the status quo in Scotland, so far as rating is concerned, is to be preserved? This Amendment is designed to enforce that principle; it is designed to ensure that no person in Scotland shall be charged any less rates or any more rates than at the present moment. In no sense is it an Amendment which will result either in an increase or in a decrease of taxation so far as any citizen of the country is concerned.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is quite clear that we cannot have several different rulings on the same point. Whether these different Amendments have the effect of putting a charge on the ratepayers is not the point at issue; the question is that some may be relieved and a further charge may be put on someone else. If these questions are to be raised, they must be raised during the Committee stage, and not on Report.
Captain BENNI submit that the ruling previously given was not at all in pari.materia with this particular case. It was on a different Amendment and a different case. I further submit I hat it is not a Rule of the House that a re-distribution of charges cannot be discussed on Report. I submit that the Rule of the House is that no increase of charge may be imposed on report, and that that Rule should not be interpreted to mean that no redistribution of charges can be discussed.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThe point was raised in Committee, and the Committee consisted of a limited number of 647 members. This is the whole House, and, if the whole House is not given an opportunity of dealing with a point which was dealt with by the Committee, it is a Closure on the whole House, and a preference is given to the Committee, which is only a section of the House.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEMay I point out that the first Amendment on which a ruling of this nature was given was on page 9, line 14, at the end—to insert
or to that given by the proviso to Section two hundred and sixty-seven of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, or the proviso to Section two of the Burgh Sewerage, Drainage, and Water Supply (Scotland) Act, 1901, which provisos are repealed by this Act—and the ground, as I understood that ruling, was that it was an attempt, on the Report stage, to alter the relief to which certain parties are entitled by Statute at present as regards their water rates. Every alteration of relief in one direction necessarily increases the burden in another. The proposal of the Amendment on which these points of Order are now being raised is to increase the relief given in certain cases, with the result that the burden will necessarily be heavier on other people; and also, in consequence, the total rateable annual value will be reduced, and a further burden will he needed in the matter of rates.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENMay I point out that already the point has been decided—
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI have a different point; it is a new point.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI have had the point put to me several times, and have said the same thing over and over again. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) himself almost took the words out my mouth when he said that this was a redistribution. It can have but one effect, namely, to take the burden from someone and put it on to someone else. That is the whole reason for the ruling I have given on these various Amendments. Anything of that nature must be done during the Committee stage of the Bill, and not during the Report stage.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI should like your answer, Sir, to the question I put with reference to the Amendment in the name of the two hon. Members for Dundee. Already to-night a variation has been given in the case of Greenock by the Lord Advocate, with the consent of Mr. Speaker, and I submit that there are Amendments on the Paper on quite the same footing designed to secure exactly the same variation as was given to Greenock. On the Committee stage only a limited number of Members can take part, and here we are now faced with this situation, and if your ruling is held as you have given it, a large number of Members will have no opportunity whatever of varying the Schedule.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURThe Lord Advocate, advanced, in answer to a question, that the difference would be inappreciable but he would not define how much. The admission was therefore made that a change has been already established in the Bill, and we hold that the same claim can be made for the submission of this Amendment.
Captain BENNIn reference to the Leith case on which you base your ruling, the case of the Clause which was withdrawn by the Lord Advocate, he himself told you just now that that was a proposal to increase the charge in respect of a water rate on a certain class of taxpayer, and it is on that narrow ground that the Amendment was ruled out of order. This is an Amendment to reduce a charge, and I submit that these matters must he decided on a specific ground and not on some general ground that any redistribution is bound to have certain effects.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI cannot agree that this matter must be considered on a specific ground not upon a general one, but whatever effect the Amendment might have, it might increase the charge on some ratepayers.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONMay I ask for your ruling on the point I raised? I do not wish it to be mixed up with the others. The Lord Advocate has given a variation in the case of Greenock. I specifically asked if that meant a financial variation. He answered, "Yes, for five years, but only for an immaterial amount." Therefore, to that extent a 649 variation has been permitted, and I submit that subsequent Amendments ask for a similar variation as that accorded to Greenock. I ask for your ruling on that point.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENOn page 2111, you see an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire (Lieut.-Colonel Thom) asking that a reduction of 10 per cent. should be given. It is the very same point as this except that the sum is double, and it was restricted to five years. That was accepted by the Speaker and by the Lord Advocate. How can we go back on that precedent? The policy of consistency is to take the precedent of the Greenock case and not the others.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI should be extremely inconsistent if I gave different rulings on the same point in the course of half an hour.
Captain BENNIn that ease might I ask you, Sir, whether in view of the obvious hardship which is being inflicted, especially upon Scottish Members, you will be prepared, at the conclusion of the Report stage, to accept a Motion that the Bill be recommitted, to the whole House if necessary, so that we may ourselves move these Amendments then?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThat is a, matter for the Government to decide, and cannot at this stage be moved by a private Member.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI have already asked you, Sir, a question on a, specific point. I submit that the City of Greenock has had a variation permitted to it. I ask on what ground Dundee is to be refused?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI submit that the House has already allowed a variation so far as Greenock Harbour is concerned. I ask you, Sir, for a statement as to why it is that, asking for an infinitesimal part of the variation which has been permitted to Greenock, we should be forbidden to move our Amendment.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI did not really argue the point that is being pressed by 650 my colleague. It is established and agreed that such a step should be taken, and we submit that the allowance should be made either now or at some other stage.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONAm I then to understand that there is to be no reason given why one city gets a variation and another is refused?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I do so in order that further consideration may be given to the point.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI beg to second the Motion.
Captain BENNI do not know if the Government intend to speak on this, but if not, I should like to take advantage of the question being put to raise one or two matters. Obviously, very great difficulties are arising. In the Committee, as the Government well know, it was only owing to the inadvertent absence in their constituencies of some Members that the Government secured their point at all in this what we hold to be grossly unjust treatment of what I may call public utility docks as compared with private railway docks. That being so, we had hoped to have an opportunity to lay the ease before Members of the House of Commons and take their judgment upon it. This is not a party matter. By far the major part of the support for this most just proposal comes from members of parties to neither of which I belong. The Government are in the same difficulty themselves over the ruling given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should like to ask whether they intend to re-commit the Bill, or, if not, whether they will permit me to make a Motion at the end of the Report stage. We have plenty of time. It could be re-committed forthwith, and then we should be liberated from these shackles of the Rules of the House about imposing charges on the Report stage. I suggest that is a reasonable proposal, inasmuch as the difficulty exists and the rulings of the Chair prevent us even dis- 651 cussing a thing which is exciting very great interest in Scotland. Will they either themselves move to re-commit the Bill at the end of the Report stage, or put no obstacle in the way of a Motion for re-committal moved by a private Member?
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOURI hope the Government will try to help us in this difficulty. It is in the interests of the business procedure of the house that they should do so. There is a strong claim to be considered. Some of us have been given our time, especially in Committee, in trying to handle these matters, and also on other occasions with representatives of public bodies, and now we are to be told that we are blocked in the procedure of carrying this Measure. Sorely, that calls for some guidance from the Government. The Government are in a difficulty as well as hon. Members. The House is being held up. We do not want to waste time, but we do want justice done. To say that one town in Scotland shall obtain this concession without any difficulty, and that we are not to have an opportunity now of dealing further with the matter, is most unfair. We have had the case of Greenock being carried through with the assistance of the Government, and now we are told that, so far as we are concerned, the whole thing is blocked. There is necessity for the strongest possible protest.
§ Sir J. GILMOURit is a fact that as far as the ruling of the Chair is concerned, the Government have accepted it, and in so far as that ruling concerns the Government, the Government are not going to recommit these Clauses. I say further that I realise the feelings of hon. Members who are moving these Amendments, in view of the riding. As far as the Government are concerned, we do not propose in ally circumstances to accept these Amendments, and I would beg respectfully to say to the House that the dignified and proper course is to accept the ruling of the Chair.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONOn the question of the adjournment of the Debate and the statement just made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the House will observe that he has carefully omitted to make any statement whatever about the fact that a variation has taken place 652 to-night: that in the case of Greenock a variation has been permitted.
§ Mr. STEPHENI think the Government have taken the wiser course in not recommitting this Bill. However much I agree with my colleagues in regard to these Amendments, I recognise the fact that the Government have a very docile majority behind them, and that that docile majority would have been able to make our Amendments of no effect in this House. The fact that we have put them on the Paper and that we have pressed them seems to me to make our position perfectly plain. I am glad to hear that the Government say, definitely, that they are accepting the rulings of the Chair, and that they are gong to allow the Bill to go through in the form in which it is now. If there were some possibility of free votes in the House, or there being no whipping of parties, and the balance of argument being allowed to decide the matter, well and good, but when we have the party system in operation, I recognise the fact that inasmuch as the Government are accepting decision we cannot expect to be put into a different position in regard to the matter. I hope that possibly in fu[...]me the logic of events will show that we on these benches are right and that the Government will have to introduce amending legislation. It will be for the facts of the future to show. At the same time, I am convinced that the Government have chosen the wiser course and the dignified course in deciding to accept the decision and not recommit the Bill.
§ Mr. WESTWOODI was pleased to hear the statement from the Secretary of state for Scotland that the Government do not intend to recommit the Bill and that they are prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair. That is the reason why I am very anxious that they will try to help us to get over this difficulty, so that we can have discussions on the Amendment which has been the cause of the Motion for the Adjournment. We have already had a ruling from the Chair in connection with Greenock, and that ruling applied to Greenock and in connection with public utility undertakings. Hence, I sincerely trust that, having received a guarantee that the Clauses which deal with increases from 2½ per cent. to 5 per cent. for collecting of rates are not to be recommitted, I trust that the Government will agree to help us out 653 of this difficulty, I recognise that we have to accept the ruling of the Chair. What was the ruling on this particular subject? There is a difference of opinion. Two rulings have been given, one by yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It was bound to make an increased charge as far as the first ruling was concerned, but this proposal will not make an increased charge so far as the total which the ratepayers have to provide in concerned. Therefore, I trust that having had one ruling which allowed us to debate the question as far as Greenock was concerned, the Government will help us now so that the public utility undertakings will not be placed in a worse position than privately owned railways and harbours.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENWhat is the Government's public duty in this matter? Here is a question which, as the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (captain Benn) has pointed out, was only carried by a majority of two or three. In Committee the Lord Advocate misinstructed himself and misled the Committee When he stated that rail-Ways are allowed 75 per cent. deduction On their whole undertaking. That is an entirely wrong statement. Nothing of the kind is the case. It is only on iron rails that this deduction is given. The Lord Advocate misinstructed himself. It is the duty of the Government not to take advantage of a technicality. If they do not give the House an opportunity of debating this matter, all I can say is that it will leave a very bad taste in the mouth. It will give a sort of feeling that, they are prepared to take advantage of a mere technicality or of a ruling. There have been two contradictory ruling, one from the Speaker and one from the Deputy-Speaker on precisely he same point. If the Government shelter themselves behind that, and do not give the House an opportunity of discussion and vote, they will suffer much in the estimation of the country generally, as well as in the estimation of their own supporters.
§ Mr. HARDIEThe whole of this trouble can be summed up in this way. There has never been a clear understanding between Government and the Chair. When you consider what is provided in the Schedule no wonder it makes it very 654 difficult for any Chairman to give a ruling. Take No. 7, in the First Schedule, which deals with sewers, drains or sewerage works. A sewer passing under land which is unoccupied has to pay rates, but the land under which the sewer passes does not pay rates because it is not occupied. Surely if the sewer in the ground is subject to taxation, the land through which it passes should be subject also to taxation. If we are going to provide all these advantages for private enterprise and throw all these burdens on to the ratepayers, surely, in the name of justice and in the interests of the community——
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not now giving reasons why the Debate should be adjourned, but is speaking entirely on the merits of a particular Clause.
§ Mr. HARDIEI think there should be an Adjournment so that the Bill may be re-drafted on the lines I am suggesting.
§ Mr. HARDIEIf we want the Debate adjourned in order that the Bill may be reconstructed, I think we ought to be at liberty to give our reasons in the way I am doing. If the Government are so stiff and want to do it dis-service to the community in order to give a privilege to private enterprise, at a time when private enterprise is more able to pay than the community, well and good, but let them make it plain and not try to hide it under a Schedule like this.
§ Mr. SKELTONIn one word I want to urge the Government to make sure that in another place what is thought to be, and I believe is, a mere error, the origin of which all Scottish Unionists thoroughly understand is corrected in another place, and not to ride off on a ruling which has been given.
Captain BENNDoes the hon. Member seriously mean to advance the proposition that the House of Lords shall have power to impose charges on the taxpayer?
§ Mr. SKELTONI am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, who is so well skilled in constitutional questions. Let me put it this way. I think the Government misunderstands the strength 655 of feelings there is among Scottish Unionist Member in regard to this point. I do not go into the merits of the case, but I urge the Government not to ride off on a technicality, and above all to allow no feelings of pride or Departmental
§ amour propre to prevent them putting right what is clearly an error.
§ Question put, "That further consideration of the Bill as amended, be now adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes 64: Noes, 162.
657| Division No. 503.] | AYES. | [9.1 p.m. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Ritson, J. |
| Amman, Charles George | Hardie, George D. | Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland) |
| Baker, Walter | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Scrymgeour. E. |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Hayday, Arthur | Sexton, James |
| Barr, J. | Henderson, T. (Glasgow) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, G. H. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Bromfield, William | John. William (Rhondda, West) | Stamford, T. W. |
| Bromley, J. | Kelly, W. T. | Sullivan, Joseph |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawson, John James | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lee, F. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Connolly, M. | Lindley, F. W. | Varley, Frank B. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Livingstone, A. M. | Viant, S. P. |
| Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh) | Lowth, T. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) | Macquisten, F. A. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Day, Colonel Harry | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Whitley, W. |
| Dunnico, H. | Naylor, T. E. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Palin, John Henry | Young, Robert {Lancaster, Newton) |
| Gardner, J. P. | Paling, W. | |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Ponsonby, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grundy, T. W. | Potts, John S. | Mr. Westwood and Mr. T. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normenton) | Purcell, A. A. | Johnston. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Albery, Irving James | Everard, W. Lindsay | Locker- Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Fairfax. Captain J. G. | Loder, J. de V. |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Finburgh, S. | Lougher, L |
| Astbury, Lieut. Commander F. W. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere |
| Athoil Duchess of | Foster, Sir Harry S. | Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Herman |
| Atkinson, C. | Foxcroft, Captain C. T. | Lynn, Sir R. J. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E | Macdonald R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) |
| Balniel, Lord | Galbraith, J. F. W. | MacIntyre, I. |
| Barclay-Harvey. C. M. | Gates, Percy | McLean, Major A. |
| Berry, Sir George | Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham | McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Margesson, Captain D. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Grace, John | Merriman, F. B. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Grotrian, H. Brent | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. |
| Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Moore, Sir Newton J. |
| Broun-Lindsay, Major H. | Hammersley, S. S. | Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury) |
| Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hanbury, C. | Murchison, C. K. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Burman, J. B. | Haslam. Henry C. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hawke. John Anthony | Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.) |
| Butler, Sir Geoffrey | Henderson, Capt. R. R (Oxf'd, Henley) | O'Neill, Ma|or Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Campbell, E. T. | Henderson, Lieut-Col. V. L. (Bootle) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. | Penny, Frederick George |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) | Hennessy Major J. R. G. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) | Perkins. Colonel E. K. |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Hills, Major John Walter | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) |
| Christie, J. A. | Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Price, Major C. W. M. |
| Clayton, G. C. | Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard | Rees, Sir Beddoe |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Remer, J. R. |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hume, Sir G. H. | Remnant, Sir James |
| Cope. Major William | Hurd, Percy A. | Rentoul, G. S. |
| Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. | Hurst, Gerald B. | Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. |
| Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.) | Hutchison, G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's) | Ropner, Major L. |
| Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) | Jacob, A. E. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert | Rye, F. G. |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Famham) |
| Dixey, A. C. | Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Sandeman. A. Stewart |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | King, Captain Henry Doublas | Savery, S. S. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity) | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Shepperson, E. W. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Smithers, Waldron | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Wise, Sir Fredric |
| Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Wallace, Captain D. E. | Withers, John James |
| Sprot, Sir Alexander | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Steel, Major Samuel Strang | Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Womersley, W. J. |
| Storry-Deans, R. | Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle) | Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater) |
| Stott, Lieut.-Colonal W. H. | Wells, S. R. | Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde) |
| Streatfield, Captain S. R. | Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) | |
| Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, south) | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Tinne, J. A. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain Lord Stanley. |
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
§ Amendment agreed to.