§ Mr. WELLOCK
I beg to move, in page 15, line 19, to leave out paragraph (a).
This is particularly in the interests of the professional class. We on these benches do not see why this very large class should be removed from the advantages of this Bill. Perhaps it may be that they are having to suffer for the position of splendid isolation that they have occupied up to the present time, but, if we inquire into the circumstances of the situation, we see how absurd this condition is. Take, for example, the case of a property on which there are, say, three sets of premises standing adjacent to one another, where you have a stationer's shop, next door a solicitor, and then a typewriting business. A man goes into the first shop and buys one or two forms, on which he may make out a will. He goes into the next premises, and gets made out by the solicitor his last will and testament; and then he goes into the third premises and gets this statement duplicated. He pays for the service on each occasion; there is the same sort of business transaction in each case.
Then suppose that each of these three businesses, after a number of years, prospers in its own way, and that at the back of the premises there is opportunity for extension in the form of a huge yard. The first man, by reason of his persistency and skill, requires further premises for his enlarged business, to accommodate his stock and so forth. The solicitor next door, by virtue of his power to improve his professional business, also requires to departmentalise, and he also develops his premises in the yard behind; and the same occurs in regard to the third business. When it comes to compensation under this Bill, the first and the third of these three 559 persons is able to gain compensation, but the person occupying the middle premises is not able to do so. Just because there is a technical difference between what is called a profession and what is called a business, persons belonging to the professional class are not able to claim compensation. We think that that is very unfair. Furthermore, there is the point that there is something in location in regard to the professions. A man may make certain improvements, and the landlord, when the lease terminates, may be able to get into the premises another person of the same profession. Solicitors, and more particularly doctors, have come together in certain areas in almost every town, and it is possible for a landlord to turn out one man and bring in another, and thus gain the advantage of any improvements that have been made. It is for these reasons that I move this Amendment.
§ Mr. HARDIE
I beg to second the Amendment.
In the claims made by those coming under this Measure, there are various sections in which difficulties are bound to arise. The difficulties of trying to segregate different professions or businesses in one building will be obvious to all. Although this Bill does not deal with rates or local taxation, we have to realise, in considering this Clause, the difference between various forms of expenditure. The business man who is selling over the counter has, in most cases, longer hours than the man upstairs in what is called a professional line. The Bill, as I have said, does not deal with that, but we are bound to take into consideration all the circumstances. Leaving these aside, and dealing with the Clause as it stand's, there is no reason why, since the Bill is dealing with business tenants, any part of the business carried on in any building should be excluded. The question of the power to extend business premises behind a frontage is one that will, under this Bill, come under the purview of the tribunal, but, when that is before the tribunal, the whole extension will be based upon lease and rents. Paragraph (a) says that premises shall not be deemed to be used for carrying on a trade or business 560by reason of their being used for the purpose of carrying on thereat any profession.2.0 p. m.
It is even more difficult to-day than it used to be to distinguish between businesses and professions. We have, for instance, the consulting engineer, who is considered to be in a profession distinct from the engineer downstairs, who may be making apparatus at the back of the premises and selling it in the front. It is no use our accepting a Clause lightly, because I think all of us in this House are trying to do our best to see that whatever Measures pass through the House shall fall with as equal justice as possible on all classes.
This is a question of distinguishing between the professional man and the business man—what is called the practical man, because that is the only other word in English of which I know that conveys what is in my mind—the practical man ' downstairs making articles behind his shop and bringing them into the shop in order to sell them. He is included in this Bill as not being professional. It would seem to me that, unless we have some very distinct definition of what is professional and what is not professional, it is not going to be possible in this Bill to get a sense of justice to apply right through these divisions. The condition laid down in paragraph (b) is:by reason that the tenant thereof carries on the business of sub-letting the premises as residential flats,and so on. Is that going to be called a profession? We are bound to get to know whether the sub-letting of flats is going to be included in the word "profession." The further words of paragraph (b) are:whether or not the provision of meals or any other service for the occupants of the flats is undertaken by the tenant.The House will see how complicated the whole thing becomes, and that is the reason why we ask that paragraph (a) should be left out. Upstairs in Committee, when this matter was being fully discussed, nothing was said from the Government side that gave the slightest indication that they could clear the matter up. The phrase:by reason of their being used for the purpose of carrying on thereat any profession561 is a most vague accumulation of words. I have tried my best to get to know what could be implied, in a case coming before the tribunal, by these two lines, and I cannot grasp it; unless we are going to have a special Section defining what a profession is, I cannot see how it is going to be applied.
The position of a professional man is quite different from the position of what is called an ordinary business man. The whole tendency of debate in Committee and here has been to show that what is in people's minds is that a business man is someone who has a shop and is selling something; that has been the whole idea so far as I can make out. We have not had any definition of what a professional man is, and there is no definition here. I see every day, as I pass through London, premises where several distinct things are being done. There is a man on the ground floor, and his window contains what this Bill would call the business premises on that ground floor; but when you pass in beyond the ground floor you come to an office where you find a professional designation engraved on the door-plate, and in there you will find something altogether different from what we accept as the definition of the business man to whom this Bill relates. When you pass further on, you come to another door where another designation of a professional man is given. How can you possibly deal with that state of circumstances? The only one way of dealing with it is to delete, as we ask, that part which seems to mix up the whole of this Clause 16. If we are going to take the relations between the business man's and professional man's claim to the tribunal, what is going to be before the tribunal? All the other parts of the Bill deal with what is called the business man, and you have nothing at all to relate (a) under Clause 16, to the other parts of the Bill. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to comply with this request and make the Bill even better than it is.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. It was discussed at very great length in Committee, and we came to a compromise that the professional man should have compensation for improvements, but, for the present at all events, we would not seek to overload the Bill by intro- 562 ducing the principle of compensation for goodwill. There is quite a distinct difference between the goodwill of a doctor and the goodwill of an ordinary tradesman. We are introducing a new principle into English law, the principle of compensation for goodwill. The principle of compensation for improvements has long been accepted under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and it is now in operation throughout every landed estate in the country. It was agreed in Committee that the professional man should have compensation for improvements. When we come to an entirely new principle which has not yet been extended beyond the ordinary business tenure, there is of course the claim for its extension to the professional man, and there is or may be a claim for its extension to agriculture, but for the moment I say frankly that this is a new idea in English law, and I want to see how it works and whether it is successful.
We may say the time of a Parliament is short in the history of a nation, and this Act of Parliament, if we pass it, will, we hope, run for years, perhaps centuries,, providing compensation to a business tenant who has been compelled to give up his business, and whose goodwill inures to the landlord. In a very few years' time we shall see the working of this Measure. We shall see whether there is much litigation. We shall probably find in the course of a few years that one or two test cases will settle many difficult points which, with all our industry in Committee, we were not able to notice and which we have not been able to include in definite and precise language in the provisions of the Bill. It is possible that after a few years, when those test cases have taken place, it may be necessary to pass an amending Bill. It would be very much better to see how the Act runs and see whether it is a success and after a few years' experience it will be time to consider the introduction of a further Bill extending it to different classes of society. The whole matter was very fully considered in Committee and we agreed, as a compromise, to extend compensation for improvements to professional men, and the Amendment for compensation for goodwill was withdrawn with the full consent of the Committee. The settlement was accepted unanimously. I ask the House to support the Committee, and 563 then in a few years it will be time enough to see whether this is a success and whether it is desirable to carry it further.
§ Mr. DALTON
I had the feeling, while the Home Secretary was speaking, that in his heart he was sympathetic to the Amendment and would not have been sorry to accept it, but for various reasons did not feel able to go quite so far. An appeal has been made before to-day unsuccessfully, and was made successfully yesterday, to leave certain questions which might be described as being on the border-line between different groups of thought to a free vote of the House. Is there any reason why we should not have a free vote on this Amendment? The question was discussed at considerable length in Committee, but hon. Members opposite who are opposed root and branch to the Bill—whether they will have the pluck to vote against its Third Reading remains to be seen—have not felt bound by any compromise reached in Committee by any general understanding to abstain from reintroducing proposals which, if accepted, would kill the Bill. In view of that situation, I suggest that we might be allowed to leave this Amendment to a free vote of the House and see what the judgment of the House upon it may be. In support of the Amendment on merits, the chief point I desire to submit is that although it is true that originally the professional man was wholly excluded from the benefits of the Bill, and is now partially admitted in respect of compensation for improvement, though not for goodwill, yet the professional man under this arrangement is getting a good deal less than half of what he is, in my judgment, reasonably entitled to.
The professional man—dentist, doctor or solicitor—does not as a rule make large structural improvements to his place of business, and his claim is much more a claim for the goodwill that he creates by his skill, and, if he were to be given the choice, if he were told he could only have one of two things, if he were entitled to have the choice between being brought in to participate in the right to compensation for improvements, on the one hand, or the right to compensation for goodwill on the other, I have no doubt that he would choose the latter. It is the latter which this Amendment 564 proposes to give him. I have, as I dare say other hon. Members have had, a large number of letters. On this one point, I have had as many as on any other—the question of the professional man who feels unfairly treated in comparison with the tenant in the narrower sense as defined by the Bill. I feel on merits that the professional man has a very strong case indeed to be included, and should be allowed to retain to himself some part of the goodwill which he has created and which, if he be not allowed to retain it, will simply pass into the greedy maw of the landlord, who has done nothing to entitle him to it. I hope that the Home Secretary will not put on the Government. Whips, but will allow us to vote according to our convictions and our view of the merits.
§ Sir P. PILDITCH
It must have been rather a broad borderline the hon. Member had in his mind when he referred to this being on the borderline of our discussions upstairs. My recollection is that it was one of the biggest issues that was raised in Committee
§ Mr. DALTON
I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand me. I meant on the borderline of decision in the sense that opinion was rather equally divided.
§ Sir P. PILDITCH
I cannot even go quite so far as that. As a matter of fact, as I recollect the matter, it was recognised as being a very important question of principle whether the Bill was going to be extended so as to cover more than the class of cases which had always been argued on Second Reading and in Committee upstairs, namely, the business people, the retail trader. No one thought that the retail trader or the wholesale trader was not to come within the provisions of this Bill, but to embark upon the whole question as to whether this Bill is to be extended to residential properties, as all these properties are that will be occupied by professional people, is, I think, quite another thing. I think it was the view taken upstairs, and it is the view taken now, that cases in which the professional man possesses a goodwill of the kind which is compen-satable under this Bill, that is to say, the goodwill which remains an appurtenance to the premises and which may increase the value of the premises to the 565 advantage of the landlord, must be very few indeed. I am a member of a profession myself, and it is inconceivable that I should want to take my present office to another place, however far that might be. I could not carry the whole thing with me, and that is what? think is general.
The hon. Member said that the compromise come to in Committee was one which did not do justice to the professional man. He agrees that there was a compromise, as undoubtedly there was. We all agreed finally, having admitted the right of compensation for improvements by professional men, that that was as far as the Bill should be stretched. Who were the professional men that we had in mind at that time? They were principally the doctors and the dentist. They were thought to be the men who really might be given facilities for obtaining the consent of the tribunal for putting up such a building as a garage. There was no reason why such facilities should not be given. Exactly for the same reason as I opposed the Amendment of my hon. Friend opposite just now, namely, that it goes right away from the general aim and intention of the Bill as it left the Committee upstairs, I shall oppose this Amendment. I shall oppose any other Amendment of the same kind from whichever quarter of the House it may come. I am very pleased to hear that on this and other points the Home Secretary means to stick to the Bill as it left the Committee, and I shall gladly support him.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I desire to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter with regard to allowing the question at issue to be decided by a free vote of the House. After all, it would appear to me that on a matter like this, in a House in which the Conservative party is in such a great majority, the Members' opinion with regard to the merits of the case might be the deciding factor in the matter. It seems to me that the Home Secretary is obviously in sympathy with the Amendment, but, as a Minister having to face the responsibility of putting the Measure through the House, he is inclined to treat it as a matter which, for the sake of getting his Bill, he is prepared to let go. He states that there is a new principle being introduced here in 566 the law of this country. It is a principle which is being introduced only in favour of a certain section, and his argument is that if it is successful with regard to that section for which provision is made, then there would be an opportunity for further amendment, and others who would have an equally good claim considering the merits of the case could be included later on. The Home Secretary knows as well as anybody how difficult it is to get an amending Measure through this House. It would be difficult for the professional classes to get the same right extended to them as is being extended to the business section by this Measure. It might take an agitation lasting over months. There are the interests that are opposed to this measure of justice to' the people, and it would take ever so long to get amending legislation.
I would like to give this illustration of the difficulty. There is the business section in my own country of Scotland who are in the same position as the business section in England. The business section in Scotland are in precisely the same position in this matter with regard to improvements and goodwill in connection with their businesses as the people are here in England. But the Secretary of State for Scotland, in spite of the fact that representatives and prominent members of his own party are pressing for a similar Measure for Scotland, absolutely turns a deaf ear to all the requests that are made. The Home Secretary looks rather incredulously at me when I say that, but I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in this House whether there is any proposal to introduce similar legislation in Scotland, and he said, "No"—and he is aware of the volume of agitation which is in favour of it. To-day I have received a letter from a big retail merchants' organisation asking for similar legislation for Scotland and urging me to support the Bill for England, and yet there is no disposition on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland to grant us such legislation.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I was not looking at the hon. Member incredulously. I did not wish to show by my looks that he was saying something that 567 was not correct. He wishes to attack my Bill because he cannot get a Bill for Scotland.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I most certainly object to the Home Secretary's statement that I want to impede the passage of his Bill.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I am not anxious to take up very much time in hindering the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. I am very anxious to see the Bill, limited as it is, on the Statute Book as a partial measure of justice to these people. At the same time, I would like the Home Secretary, in view of the great difficulty of getting such legislation through this House, to allow a free vote in a House with over 400 Conservatives to decide on the merits of the case in regard to these professional people. The last speaker referred to the dentists and the doctors as a case in point that has been discussed in Committee. He would not say for a minute, although he is a professional man himself, that he could shift his business say 10 miles out and that his clients are so overjoyed at having him to look after their interests that they would follow him. He would not say that of a dentist in a busy thoroughfare who had to shift from that busy thoroughfare and was not able to get into premises within 300 or 400 yards. The thing is absolutely preposterous, and no one knows it better than the hon. Member who preceded me in this discussion. Anyhow, if there be any real argument for this limitation surely, in a House of over 400 Conservatives so many of them interested in the protection of landlordism, there is no danger in leaving the matter to a free vote.
§ Mr. ERNEST BROWN
It seems to me that the arguments advanced from the Government side are really in favour of this Amendment. The Home Secretary argues that this might introduce vast changes and that the magnitude of the financial compensation is so great that it is dangerous to move before we have had experience. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch), who, despite the Home Secretary's reminder to his party on Second Reading that we are not now in the eighteenth century, seems to be back in the fifteenth century, says that it is inconceivable that in the case of professional men like himself, however far they may remove from their existing premises, they would take the goodwill with them. The arguments from the benches opposite against the Amendment seem to be mutually destructive. It must not be understood, as it seems to be understood by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, that because the Government have introduced this Bill, which we are glad to see, because we wish justice to be done between landlord and tenant, we are merely interested in the welfare of the business tenant. He must not think that the country outside is not concerned with protection for the professional man and the tenant in the home, as well as other classes of tenant. I support the Amendment gladly.
§ Mr. WELLOCK
May I ask the Home Secretary whether Clause 16 (3), in the case of a doctor in a well-known doctor's area would cover compensation in respect of the doctor's dispensary?
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 183; Noes, 95.569
|Division No. 322.]||AYES.||[2.37 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Cassels, J. D.|
|Ainsworth, Major Charles||Berry, Sir George||Cautley, Sir Henry S.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Blades, Sir George Rowland||Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Boothby, R. J. G.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J .A (Birm, W.)|
|Apsley, Lord||Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Clarry, Reginald George|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W||Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Clayton, G. C.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Briggs, J. Harold||Cobb, Sir Cyril|
|Atkinson, C.||Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George|
|Balniel, Lord||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks. Newb'y)||Cohen, Major J. Brunei|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Buckingham, Sir H.||Cope, Major William|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Burton, Colonel H. W.||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Remnant, Sir James|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Hume, Sir G. H.||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||Hurd, Percy A.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Rye, F. G.|
|Davies, Mai. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Salmon, Major I.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Sandon, Lord|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lamb, J. Q.||Savery, S. S.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Dixey, A. C.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Loder, J. de V.||Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Edmondson. Major A. J.||Looker, Herbert William||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Smithers, Waldron|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Stott, Lieut.-Colon I W. H.|
|Finburgh, S.||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||MacIntyre, Ian||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||McLean, Major A.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Gates, Percy||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Margesson, Captain D.||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Greene, W. P. Crawford||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Wells, S. R.|
|Gunston, Captain D. W.||Moreing, Captain A. H.||White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-|
|Harrison, G. J. C.||Murchison, Sir Kenneth||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Hartington, Marquess of||Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Nelson, Sir Frank||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Hawke, John Anthony||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Nuttall, Ellis||Withers, John James|
|Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. Willliam||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Wood, E. (Chester. Stalyb'ge & Hyde)|
|Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich W.)|
|Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Holt, Captain H. P.||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Hopkins, J. W. W.||Power, Sir John Cecil||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.||Price, Major C. W. M.||Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hardle, George D.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Scurr, John|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hirst, G. H.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Baker, Walter||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Barnes, A.||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Batey, Joseph||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Kelghley)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)|
|Brlant, Frank||Kelly, W. T.||Snell, Harry|
|Broad, F. A.||Kennedy, T.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Bromley, J.||Lansbury, George||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Lawrence, Susan||Stephen, Campbell|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lee, F.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Cove, W. G.||Mackinder, W.||Vlant, S. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||MacLaren, Andrew||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||March, S.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Dennison, R.||Maxton, James||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Montague, Frederick||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Naylor, T. E.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Owen, Major G.||Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attereliffe)|
|Gillett, George M.||Paling, W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Gosling, Harry||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W||Windsor, Walter|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Wright, W.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Potts, John S.||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool,||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Groves, T.||Ritson, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grundy, T. W.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Rose, Frank H.|