HC Deb 22 June 1948 vol 452 cc1195-207
Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

I beg to move, in page 25, line 18, at the end, to insert: or in the case of property transferred to the British Transport Commission under Part III (Transport of Goods by Road) of the Transport Act, 1947, the liability remains the liability of the transferor. I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time, the consequential Amendments to lines 19 and 23. This' is another attempt to persuade the Government to see sense and justice in the claim for balancing charges for assets taken over under nationalisation measures. We discussed the wider aspects of this subject yesterday on the question of the handing over of profits in the case of road hauliers. Unfortunately, the Paymaster-General was left to deal with the matter and I do not think that he was aware of the full facts. I hope that today the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reply. I see that the Paymaster-General has returned to the Chamber: I do not know whether or not he is to assist us.

The principle involved is that where a haulier has assets which are transferred to a nationalised industry, and those assets stand at a higher price than had been allowed for under wear and tear, then the money is subject at present to Income Tax. We suggest that that should not be so. We say that because, if the State takes them over on the same basis as that on which the shares were taken over, then the State is relieved of the necessity to pay the Income Tax. The reply of the Minister was that it would be impossible for the Government to undertake a valuation of all assets taken over purely on a share valuation. There are instances where wagons and lorries are taken over on a valuation basis. There the Government say that a valuation has taken place and that they can easily assess the Income Tax which is due.

We suggest that that is unfair. The first reason for that suggestion is that if one refers to what happened under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act where similar circumstances existed—where wagons were taken over and paid for in stock, as lorries are to be taken over and paid for in stock in this case—the Treasury saw fit to say that the owners of the wagons need not pay this Income Tax in those circumstances. I appreciate that at that time there was an arrangement between the Minister of Fuel and Power, the Mining Association and the Treasury. Under that arrangement it is fair to say that the wagons were taken over at a slightly lower price than the Mining Association otherwise would have claimed should be their valuation. In other words, a certain amount of latitude was allowed; but that is nothing like the 50 per cent. which would accrue to the road hauliers. It was possibly a 10 per cent. reduction on wagons taken over in the case of the coal industry.

Here the effect will be a reduction of practically 50 per cent. We cannot see any reason why the road hauliers and the coalowners should be treated differently. I appreciate that this Amendment would take away entirely the liability of the transferee for Income Tax in this respect. If the Government were to say that they would be prepared to deal with this matter in the same way as they dealt with wagons from the coal-owners, and that they would allow some deduction in price to be agreed between the parties concerned, that would not be unacceptable.

The main point of the argument I used yesterday was that the Government are compulsorily taking over assets and, therefore, the Treasury are stepping in and taking money which otherwise they would not get. When the State takes over assets and pays compensation for shares, then it is admitted by the Government that no tax is payable; but if they take them over on a valuation then they say that tax must be paid. That is unfair. This procedure was not followed by the Government when wagons were taken over on the nationalisation of the coal industry. We suggest that that procedure, or something like it, should be followed. When the State steps in and makes a compulsory transfer, then those people who have to hand over their assets should not have to pay Income Tax which otherwise, if the Nationalisation Bill had not been passed, they would not have had to pay.

Mr. Eccles

I beg to Second the Amendment.

I only wish to add one argument to those so clearly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts). Our Amendment is designed particularly to help the road haulier. Suppose that a man bought a lorry before the war for £400 or £500 and that he has written it off completely in his books. Now, the British Transport Commission comes along and forcibly takes him over. It may well be that the price of the second-hand lorry today is above even the original cost price before the war, so much have prices changed in the market. It may be that compensation value is £600. This man is therefore going to be called upon to pay Income Tax on the difference between the £400, the original cost, and £600 which is the valuation on compensation.

6.45 p.m.

We say that that would not be unfair if the man were making a voluntary sale, because, after all, in business occasionally, assets are sold at a profit over and above what they cost, and it is reasonable to take that into consideration for taxation. But here is a man who never intended to sell his lorry at all. He wanted to continue in the road haulage business. He was a prudent man, and so, when the new lorry which he wanted was going to cost him much more than a pre-war lorry, he wrote his old lorry down, tacked his money away and never intended to take the secondhand value profit on that old lorry, but, instead, was going to run it until it was finished and then buy a new one.

The strong argument for our Amendment is that this man would never have taken this profit, on which he is now going to be taxed, had it not been for nationalisation, and I cannot really see why the Government should make a distinction in the case of coalowners and let them off all but a fraction, and also in the case of railway equipment taken over under Part II of the Transport Act, and yet, under Part III of the Transport Act, these wretched road hauliers are to be caught.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice)

Three points have been made in support of this Amendment, and I will try to deal with each of them separately. The first was that, where assets are being taken over by buying out the shareholders, the system of a balancing charge has not been incorporated; that is to say, the transferor has been let off. The second point is that there was an arrangement made under the coal nationalisation transfer which it is said could be adopted for the purposes of taking over the road hauliers' undertakings. The third point is that the transfer is compulsory and not voluntary in the case of road haulage undertakings.

May I first say a word about the transfer of the collieries? That scheme cannot be incorporated for the purposes of the road haulage undertakings for a variety of reasons. Quite shortly, as I said during the Committee stage, there was an overall scheme, which embraces the colliery undertakings, under which the National Coal Board and the colliery undertakings mutually gave away various rights, and there was a complicated system of agreed concessions which worked out in the end equitably to both sides. That was a very large and elaborate scheme, and, for a number of detailed reasons which I have not time to explain here, it would be very difficult to reproduce that scheme in the case of the assets of road haulage undertakings now being taken over.

Mr. P. Roberts

May I interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman? I know something of this matter with regard to wagons. The point was clearly made that, in principle, it was unfair that this tax should be paid on wagons taken over for a different kind of payment. That principle was agreed by the Treasury at the time. What we want to know is why the Government are going away from that principle now

The Solicitor-General

I cannot agree that that principle was agreed It was a scheme whereby rights were mutually foregone on both sides, and that situation is not analogous to the present case. It is said that in the electricity and main railway undertakings, the transfer is being effected upon the basis of the shareholders being paid the value of their shares. There, the balancing charge is not possible, so that that again is entirely distinguishable from the case we are now considering. There was a going concern, and the State concern took over the enterprise of that private going concern by paying out the shareholders, taking it over as a going concern and taking over its liabilities. Amongst those liabilities were any liabilities there might be in respect of balancing charges.

It so happens that, as a result of Section 60 of the Income Tax Act, 1945, as a matter of law, transfers of that kind would have brought about consequences which nobody really desired. They would have been that, in respect of each of the assets of a private concern taken over under that general transfer of these enterprises, a notional sale would have been deemed to have taken place, and the balancing charge and balancing allowances would have had to be computed by reference to that notional sale It Section 60 had been applied to that transfer, it would have had to take place with every single asset transferred in the general transfer, and each would have had to be separately valued, the market price ascertained separately in relation to it, and, for every asset, a balancing charge imposed, computed by reference to whatever that market price was found to have been. That would have led to an almost infinite process of calculation and valuation and to a great deal of work.

The reason why we introduced Clause 33 was to prevent Section 60 operating in that way, and, in relation to these transfers, to avoid what was really a completely unnecessary valuation, and to scale down the allowances to which the State concern would be entitled. Accordingly, the balancing charge is not being made, and that was to facilitate the process of transfer by cutting out a great deal of completely unnecessary labour. For the assets of road haulage undertakings the system of compensation is entirely different. The shareholders of the road haulage undertakings are not being bought out. Individually, the assets are being bought by a process of compulsory sale, compensation being paid which is computed in general terms on the value of the lorry that is taken over. These people are, in other words, selling their lorries and being paid compensation prices equal to the value of the lorries computed in a certain way when sold in a compulsory sale. There the valuation has been done, and it is easy to compute the balancing charge.

Not only that, but the process of transfer is not in any way analogous with that of the railway and electricity undertakings. The undertaking is taken over as a going concern, and the transferee takes over the obligations and debts, but, in road haulage undertakings each and every individual asset is being bought separately. In those circumstances, is there any reason, when we have a separate sale of each asset and there is a compensation price which represents its value, why the Income Tax Act, 1945, should not operate as it was intended to operate, and a balancing charge or allowance should not be imposed?

It is said that the reason why that should not take place is because the sale was compulsory. That, I respectfully submit, is no reason whatsoever. I should like to quote in support of my argument what the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who introduced the Income Tax Act of 1945, himself said when he was explaining the principles of that Act. He dealt with the question whether there was really any distinction, so far as balancing charges and balancing allowances were concerned, between a compulsory sale and a voluntary sale, and this is what he said: If we accept that the purpose of this Bill is to write off capital expenditure incurred in earning profits—and inasmuch as the rate at which the expenditure is written off must inevitably be more or less arbitrary, it is an empirical rate—we have, therefore, to introduce, in order to avoid inequalities and injustices, the conception of a balancing charge, or a balancing allowance, the two being co-relative, for the purpose of correcting in the light of ascertained facts, the operation of the empirical allowance which is given year by year after the initial allowance. That is the purpose of it. If that principle is accepted, it seems to me that it is applicable in just the same way to the case of compulsory acquisition as to the case of voluntary acquisition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th. June, 1945: Vol. 411, c. 591.] What he was saying—and I should like to adopt that argument myself—was that the Act provides for certain writing-off allowances, which are empirical allowances. We do not know, when we get to the end of the user by the particular taxpayer of the particular asset, whether too much or too little will have been written off. A certain arbitrary allowance is made. Therefore, when reaching the stage when sales of that asset or parts of it take place, we have, by looking at the amount he receives, to determine whether he has had too much or too little written off. If it is too much, he has to pay a balancing charge. If it is too little, he gets a balancing allowance.

That applies with exactly the same force if it is a compulsory sale as it does if it is a voluntary sale. In either case, we have to correct the allowance which had been given under the Income Tax Act, by either charging him or making him a further allowance, and in that respect a compulsory and a voluntary sale stand on precisely the same footing. There is no distinction whatever. If the allowances have been too big he has to pay a charge. If they have been too small he gets an allowance. Those were the three points made in support of this Amendment, and in view of what I have said I hope the House will agree that it should not be accepted. When one examines the arguments individually, in my submission to the House they have no validity whatsoever.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)

This problem has been discussed in Committee and I submit that the Solicitor-General has spent a great deal of his time explaining something which we already fully appreciate, and that he has not met our objections that there is discrimination—unfair discrimination—between one type of enterprise taken over by the State by one method and another type of enterprise taken over by the State by another method.

He told us that where undertakings have been taken over by the transfer of shares no balancing charge would arise because there were no assets transferred. That we quite clearly realise. He went on to say that in another case, I think the transfer of certain coal assets, certain cross concessions had been made as between the State and the coal industry. He said, therefore, that there should be in that case no balancing charge either, but we say that there should equally be no balancing charge payable on assets such as road transport vehicles which perfectly well should get the same type of concession as was made in the assets transferred to the Coal Board. Because in one part of British industry it is convenient for it to be taken over in one form, and in another part of British industry it is convenient for it to be taken over in another form, is no reason why one part should be subjected to this form of taxation. That is unfair.

It would, perhaps, not have been unfair if in the price, or the system of assessment for road vehicles, there had been something to set off against this balancing charge, which is the subject of our discussion and the Amendment, but there is no evidence that this was so. Indeed, it may be said that where the system of taking over is one of Stock Exchange market value of shares, those taken over on that basis are rather better off than those where we split up an asset on an individual basis, proceed to pay the individual value of that asset, and then subject it to a balancing charge afterwards. Stock Exchange figures, in fact, allow for a measure of good will, which the other method does not, and there is no deduction from the Stock Exchange values for a possible and potential balancing charge which it was never considered likely to be made at the time the Stock Exchange quotations were taken. I suggest, therefore, that a concession of the kind we have asked for—that is, the elimination of the balancing charge in the case of road transport vehicles—has been abundantly made out.

Mr. Stanley

There is no need for me to say we are disappointed with the reply of the Government. We knew beforehand that we should be disappointed. I rise only to deal with one point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. Out of a mass of verbiage with which he clothed a complete unwillingness to face the actual points which had been put to him, apparently he found great comfort in some words of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). I am far from wishing to discourage him from such an excellent practice. The more he learns

from the precedents established or the principles laid down by my right hon. Friend, the better he will find himself in the future, and he must not take what I now say as throwing any censure or the least discouragement on the practice he has decided to adopt. I think it is only fair, however, to make this point clear.

The words which he quoted were used by my right hon. Friend in 1945. That was before the advent of this Government. My right hon. Friend is a man of great experience, but in some ways he is also a man of almost ingenuous honesty of character. In the speech which has been quoted he referred, of course, to transactions of the normal standard of commercial honesty. He would not have anticipated—as a man of his character would not—that in three years there would be in power a Government which did not compulsorily acquire the assets, but stole them. If he had known that, the words he used would undoubtedly have been different.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes,282.

Division No. 238.] AYES. [6.59 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Howard, Hon. A. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Amory, D. Heathcoat Hurd, A. Sanderson, Sir F.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Savory, Prof. D. L.
Astor, Hon. M. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Scott, Lord W.
Barlow, Sir J. Jarvis, Sir J. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Bennett, Sir P. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Birch, Nigel Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Smithers, Sir W.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Spearman, A. C. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Langford-Holt, J. Spence, H. R.
Channon, H. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Linstead, H. N. Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lipson, D. L. Sutcliffe, H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Crowder, Capt. John E. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Donner, P. W. Mackeson, Brig H. R. Turton, R. H.
Drewe, C. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Vane, W. M. F.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Wadsworth, G.
Duthie, W. S. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Eccles, D. M. Mellor, Sir J. Walker-Smith, D.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Molson A. H. E. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'cester) White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Gammons, L. D. Odey, G. W. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Granville, E. (Eye) Orr-Ewing, I. L. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Gridley, Sir A. Osborne, C. York, C.
Grimston, R. V. Pickthorn, K. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.) Pitman, I. J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Raikes, H. V. Mr. Studholme and
Hogg, Hon. Q. Ramsay, Maj. S. Major Conant.
Hollis, M. C. Rayner, Brig. R.
Acland, Sir Richard Foot, M. M. Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Adams, Richard (Batham) Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Freeman, J. (Watford) Mellish, R. J.
Alpass, J. H. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Messer, F.
Attewell, H. C. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Middleton, Mrs. L.
Austin, H. Lewis Gibson, C. W. Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Awbery, S. S. Gilzean, A. Mitchison, G. R.
Ayles, W. H. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Monslow, W.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Gooch, E. G. Moody, A. S.
Bacon, Miss A. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Balfour, A. Grenfell, D. R. Moyle, A.
Barstow, P. G. Grey, C. F. Murray J. D.
Barton, C. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Nally, W.
Battley, J. R. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Bechervaise, A. E. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Belcher, J. W. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Gunter, R. J. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Benson, G. Guy, W. H. Noel-Buxton, Lady
Beswick, F. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Oldfield, W. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hale, Leslie Oliver, G. H.
Bing, G. H. C. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Binns, J. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Palmer, A. M. F.
Blenkinsop, A. Hardy, E. A. Pargiter, G. A.
Blyton, W. R. Harrison, J. Parkin, B. T.
Bowden, Flg. Offr H. W. Haworth, J. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A (Kingswinford) Paton, J. (Norwich)
Bramall, E. A. Herbison, Miss M. Pearson, A.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Hicks, G. Peart, T. F.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hobson, C. R. Piratin, P.
Brown, George (Belper) Holman, P. Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Popplewell, E.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Horabin, T. L. Porter, E. (Warrington)
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. House, G. Porter, G. (Leeds)
Burden, T. W. Hoy, J. Pritt, D. N.
Burke, W. A. Hubbard, T. Pryde, D. J.
Callaghan, James Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Pursey, Comdr. H.
Carmichael, James Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Randall, H. E.
Chamberlain, R. A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Ranger, J.
Champion, A. J. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Rankin, J.
Chater, D. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Rees-Williams, D. R.
Chetwynd, G. R. Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Reeves, J.
Cluse, W. S. Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Cobb, F. A. Janner, B. Rhodes, H.
Cocks, F. S. Jay, D. P. T. Richards, R.
Coldrick, W. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Collindridge, F. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Collins, V. J. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Rogers, G. H. R.
Colman, Miss G. M. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Cook, T. F. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Royle, C.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr G. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Scollan, T.
Cove, W. G. Keenan, W. Scott-Elliott, W.
Crawley, A. Kenyon, C. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Crossman, R. H. S. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Sharp, Granville
Daggar, G. King, E. M. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)
Daines, P. Kinley, J. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Kirby, B. V. Shurmer, P.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Simmons, C. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lee, F. (Hulme) Skeffington, A. M.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Leonard, W. Skinnard, F. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Leslie, J. R. Smith, C. (Colchester)
Deer, G. Levy, B. W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Delargy, H. J. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Snow, J. W.
Diamond, J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Solley, L. J.
Dobbie, W. Logan, D. G. Sorensen, R. W.
Dodds, N. N. Longden, F. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Donovan, T. Lyne, A. W. Steele, T.
Driberg, T. E. N. McAllister, G. Stross, Dr. B.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) McEntee, V. La T. Stubbs, A. E.
Durbin, E. F. M. McGhee, H. G. Swingler, S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McGovern, J. Sylvester, G. O.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) McKay, J. (Wallsend) Symonds, A. L.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) McKinley, A. S. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) McLeavy, F. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Mainwaring, W. H. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Ewart, R. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Fairhurst, F. Mann, Mrs. J. Thurtle, Ernest
Fernyhough, E. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Tiffany, S.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Timmons, J.
Follick, M. Marquand, H. A. Titterington, M. F.
Tolley, L. Weitzman, D. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Wells, P. L. (Faversham) Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Turner-Samuels, M. Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Ungoed-Thomas, L. Westwood, Rt. Hon. J. Willis, E.
Usborne, Henry Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Vernon, Maj W. F. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.) Woods, G. S.
Viant, S. P. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Wyatt, W.
Walkden, E. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Yates, V. F.
Walker, G. H. Wigg, George Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Wilkes, L. Zilliacus, K.
Warbey, W. N. Wilkins, W. A.
Watkins, T. E. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Watson, W. M. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Mr. Hannan.