§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £75,620. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the expenditure in respect of public buildings in Ireland, for the maintenance of certain parks and public works, and for the maintenance of drainage works on the River Shannon, and for grants in aid.
Colonel NEWMANIn reference to Item A, Ministry of Transport, £5,500, I would like to know what that sum means and how it has been spent?
§ Mr. WATERSONI would draw attention to the amount under Item B, Peace 765 Celebrations £860, which it is rather surprising to find in reference to Ireland, and I would like to know how that money has been spent?
§ Mr. BALDWINFor those new Departments extensive accommodation is wanted in Ireland just as in England. Suitable premises are being arranged for. The actual premises acquired are in Westland Row, Dublin, and the money set aside in the Vote for it is for the acquisition of those premises and fitting them up. In reply to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson) I have looked carefully into the account for the Peace Celebrations in Ireland and can give him the information which he requires. There was a stand provided at a cost of £267 where the Lord Lieutenant took the salute of the troops as the King took the salute of the troops in the Mall at the time of the Peace Celebrations in London. Also £500 was spent on flags and decorations, which flags remain ready for further use.
§ Mr. W. THORNEWould that be when Home little is granted to Ireland?
§ Mr. BALDWINThat will be for the Government of Ireland to decide. £110 was spent en fixing them on piles. Although this amount, £870, may seem large, yet on similar purposes in England we spent £70,000, which was chargeable on the Votes and passed by this House.
§ Mr. WATERSONAfter the explanation, I am more astonished than ever. That the taxpayers of this country should be paying £500 merely for flags for purposes of this kind is not in keeping with the spirit of the age, which is one of economy. As far as Ireland is concerned, peace has not been established, and when the hon. Gentleman began to tell me that all this was necessary in order that troops could pass by and salute, I began to wonder which troops were they, whether they belonged to the North Ulster army, the Sinn Feiners, or those attached to the Empire as a whole. It seems to me to be a piece of hypocrisy to be celebrating peace and spending the taxpayers' money in this manner when there really is no peace in Ireland. We have heard from the Chief Secretary that the country is full of chaos and conflict. As a Member who has to some extent to safeguard the interests of the country, I deprecate anything like this being done, as it is not in the interests of the nation or of peace.
§ Captain REDMONDI beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5,000.
9.0 P.M.
My object is to elicit further information as to who is responsible for this Irish expenditure. It is strange that we should be asked to vote this money for expenditure in Ireland, and that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should have charge of the matter in this House. Great as his financial experience may be, and wide as his financial know-lodge is, and adequate as he has always shown himself in that regard, yet I fail to see what connection he has with Ireland. Does he really know how this money is being expended in Ireland? I am one of the very few representatives left in the House of the Irish taxpayer, and I would like to know on what authority it is proposed to expend this money. The reduction that I have Moved is in respect of Sub-Heads A and B. Under Sub-Head A there are four items in respect of the erection of barracks for the Royal Irish Constabulary, and a similar one under Sub-Head B. I would like to make it clear that, personally, I have no fault to find with the general body of the Irish Constabulary. In fact, I rather sympathise with them in the position in which the Government has placed them. It is no fault of the police that they are in that position. I am sure they are doing their duty as good, honest Irishmen, and they are a fine body of men, who, if properly controlled and paid by a local administration, would be a great asset to the country.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall)We must not discuss the general policy of Administration of the Irish police force. We can discuss only this Supplementary Estimate.
§ Captain REDMONDI was not proposing to discuss the general policy of the Government in regard to the Irish police, but was prefacing my remarks for fear that anything I said later might be misconstrued. I wish to say I have no fault to find with the Irish police, and that if properly administered the police force would be an asset to any governing country. It is indisputable that there is martial law in Ireland to-day. My reason for objecting to this extra Vote for the erection of police barracks is that it is not the police who are ruling Ireland but the military, and that the military are 767 being employed in doing police work, which work, as I know from conversation both with soldiers and officers in Ireland, is most distasteful to them. Why, then, should there be extra police barracks erected? Ireland is not being governed to-day civilly; it is being governed militarily. We have martial law in its naked and unabashed form. As far as I am aware, there is no necessity for the erection of these barracks. For the last few months huts and barracks have been demolished and have been evacuated by the police throughout Ireland. There are to-day large tracts of land in Ireland which are entirely unprotected by the police. I want to see protection for people in Ireland, but protection from the proper source, and that is from the police. It is the soldiers who are called in to protect the people in Ireland to-day. We had a demonstration near Westminster Bridge a day or two ago by a certain number of demobilised soldiers. If that procession had taken place in Ireland it would have been met not by the police, but by soldiers with fixed bayonets.
I see one item here dealing with the Dublin War Pensions Committee. That Committee is allotted the colossal sum of £297. The Dublin War Pensions Committee is supposed to deal with the pensions of the 25,000 fine young Irishmen who went from Dublin. It was mentioned to-night that thousands of Irishmen rose in rebellion in Ireland during the war. It may interest the Committee to know that from the City of Dublin, where there were not more than 1,500 men engaged in the rebellion, no fewer than 25,000 men came forward voluntarily, enlisted for service abroad, and fought in the Dublin Fusiliers to secure freedom for small nationalities. Where is this sum of £297 going to land the Dublin War Pensions Committee in dealing with all the intricate subjects which concern the welfare of the soldiers and their dependants? I say that the Treasury might have been a little more munificent, and have reversed the order of things by giving the larger sum to the Pensions Committee and allowing a smaller sum for the erection of barracks. I see also that new public offices are in progress in Dublin, and that £14,000 are to be allotted for the purpose. What are these new public offices? Are we to pass this Vote without knowing where they are, 768 what they are, and what they are for? Are they for the new Treasury that is going to be established in Dublin or for some other agency of the iniquitous Castle system? I would particularly like to know whether this £14,000 is to be used in replacing the General Post Office in Dublin. It should have been replaced several years ago. The Dublin General Post Office to-day is in a very backward quarter. If that is the object of the Vote I certainly will support it.
We see here "Sundry Royal Irish Constabulary Barracks (Protection), £5,450." I want to see the Royal Irish Constabulary well paid, well pensioned, and well protected. If they are not, it is no fault of mine; it is the fault of the Government. I would like to know what" Sundry Barracks "means. Does it mean that the police are to be all huddled together in two or three centres, or are they to be properly distributed over the country, not only for their own protection, but also for the protection of the population at large? We now come to the really cynical statement at the bottom of Sub-head B. The Irish taxpayers are to be asked to pay £860 for peace celebrations. That is really very interesting. What peace celebrations? Are the Irish people to be taxed for a peace which exists in every other country but their own? Are they to be taxed for a peace which they have largely brought about by the blood and bone and sinews of their lads who voluntarily enlisted and went to the front? Are they to be taxed £860 for a peace which does not exist in Ireland and for a war which is a violation of the Treaty of Peace signed at Versailles? We were asked in Ireland to enlist and fight for small nationalities, for the peace of the world, and to make this country and our own fit for heroes to live in. We did so. Docs anybody mean to say that it is anything but a cynical disregard of the facts of the situation and a blatant insult to the Irish race to ask them to contribute £860 for celebrating a peace which they, by their brawn, sinew and blood succeeded in gaining for every country but their own? It is nothing but an insult to the Irish people, and the hon. Gentleman can never have surveyed, these Estimates very minutely or he would never have made the proposal.
The present state of Ireland has been luridly described by the Chief Secretary this afternoon. We are supposed to have 769 all the crimes of creation. Ireland has been described as a country not fit for human beings to live in, a country where a man's life is not safe. Yet that country is asked to contribute £860 to celebrate peace. When peace does come, we will celebrate it and we will vote more than £860 to do so. Irishmen are really not such fools in matters of finance as people perhaps may be led to think, and to ask them to vote £860 for the celebration of peace is ludicrous. We have been told tonight that there are two hundred thousand men in Ireland under arms, and that they are as well trained—the Chief Secretary rather jibbed at the word "equipped" and as well armed as the British Army. I do not believe a word of what the Chief Secretary said; I do not believe that there is anything like that number. These men, we are told, are ready at any moment to smash this country and Empire, and yet the people of Ireland are asked to vote £860 for peace celebrations. Was there ever anything like it out of Bedlam? Was there over anything more rampantly ridiculous? It is another instance of the utter inefficiency and impossibility of people here in this country, with all their gifts and intellectual attributes, to govern a country like Ireland, about which they do not know oven the first rudiments or elements of fact.
The whole of these proposals come from, and are supported by, a Minister who, as far as I know, has never visited Ireland. I should like to see him there, because I should like to show him the need that we have in Ireland for financial assistance for many useful works for the benefit of that country and its neighbour, this country. If he comes, we will give him a very warm reception. He can take that as he likes. For him to be the Government representative, and to propose that we on these Irish Benches, scantily manned as they are, should pass without protest this Vote for the celebration of peace—well, all I can sec is that it bangs Banagher. It is only another instance of the earnest endeavour of this Government to bring peace to Ireland. If the Government want to bring peace to Ireland, they can, but, great and powerful and omnipotent as the Coalition think that they are, they should not charge the Irish people for celebrating peace before they have the courage and the power to bring proper peace to that 770 country. I do not know whether I shall be supported in my Motion, but I fail to realise how any real Liberal or any Labour representative can acquiesce in the passing of a Vote to celebrate peace in the country which they know is not at peace, but is in a state of war with this country. I hope and trust that I will have some support in the Lobby, and, if so, I will go to a Division, as it will show how futile and ridiculous in the eyes of the world is the attempt of the people in this great land of Great Britain to understand, and thereby to rule, a country which they, probably, have never seen and of which they know practically nothing.
Colonel NEWMANThe hon. and gallant Gentleman referred specially to the £860 for peace celebrations and described this as a cynical Vote. In doing so he showed great disregard of the right of minorities. Out of a population of about 4,000,000 people in Ireland, you have something over a million Loyalists, and does he really mean that we Loyalists in Ireland should be denied our peace celebration?
§ Captain REDMONDWhy should we pay for them?
Colonel NEWMANWhy should not those million people have their peace celebrations as well as the millions in this country? That is a cynical disregard of the rights of minorities and shows what we have got to expect in Southern Ireland when they get a Parliament in Dublin. This Vote is an instance of cynical treatment by the Government of the taxpayers of this country. It is obvious that 10,000 men of the Royal Irish Constabulary can not possibly keep down 200,000 well-armed trained men. Therefore huts had to be constructed, and iron shelters and barbed wire and trenches and bombs and hand grenades supplied to the police. Surely the Irish ratepayer, who is largely responsible for this state of things, should pay and not the English taxpayer. I am speaking now as an English Member.
§ Captain REDMONDI must protest against the statement that it is the English taxpayer who is paying for this. It is not. It is the Irish taxpayer. The revenue in Ireland to-day exceeds the expenditure by over £20,000,000, and, therefore, it is the Irish taxpayer who is paying.
Colonel NEWMANThat is more disregard for minorities. Why should the Ulster taxpayer have to pay a share of this? This is a matter for the Irish ratepayer. If law and order cannot be preserved in those parts of Ireland where barracks have had to be erected and bombs given out to the police, the Irish ratepayers should pay.
§ Sir W. WHITLALike the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond), I do not quite understand what this Vote means. We in Belfast had our own peace celebration, and I do not think it cost anything. Perhaps it may interest hon. Members to know that in our Peace Procession in Belfast more men walked than in the procession in London, and every one of them had served in the trenches.
§ Mr. BALDWINI think after the excursions which have taken place a mere Englishman may be allowed to devote five minutes to the actual Estimates before the House. We had some little discussion before the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) came in, and if he had been in his place at the time I should have made a longer explanation. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke about the erection of new barracks. I could understand him being carried away by the Peace Vote, on which he spoke with much eloquence and feeling, but this is not for the erection of buildings but for the acquisition of barracks already in existence. In Ireland, as has happened in this country, it is often found desirable to buy premises at this juncture which you have hitherto rented. These places, which appear in the Vote, whose names I shall not attempt to pronounce, are places where existing barracks have hitherto been rented. The item of £1,500 for general constabulary buildings is to provide as much money as we expect will be required for certain cases of hired barracks which the Government may be able to acquire by purchase before the end of the financial year. We are advised by the Office of Public Works in Ireland that, there is a general desire on the part of house builders to realise their property at the present time. That is apparently the reason why these premises have come into the market and the Office of Public Works are taking advantage of it. There was 772 one little item to which the hon. and gallant Member referred—namely, £297 for the Dublin War Pensions Committee. If these Estimates were printed in more detail it might be a good thing or a bad thing, but it would cost a great deal more, and I find it to be cheaper to make an explanation of them here than to use additional type in printing the Estimates. The £297 is a small additional sum required to acquire on favourable terms the leasehold interest in certain premises occupied by the Dublin War Pensions Committee, and the transaction has now been completed. That is all that has been referred to. The bargain is considered good. I explained the item of the Ministry of Transport to the best of my ability, in answer to the hon. Gentleman who followed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford. I will not repeat that, lest I should be called to order by the Chair. In B there is an item for new works of £14,000. These are what are called the new buildings in Dublin, which are meant for the housing of the Department of Agriculture and of Technical Instruction in Ireland and of the Local Government Board. They have been in progress for a good many years past although they have been held up during the War. Up to the 31st March, 1919, something over £100,000 has been spent. This work has been got on with faster than was expected, and a large quantity of constructional steel has been delivered this year, and an additional £14,000 has had to be provided for the payment of this, and to enable more rapid progress to be made. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the fact that all building cost more, the cost of labour and so on has gone up, and I think these two reasons together fully amplify this small extra sum.
§ Mr. BALDWINI do not think the Post Office comes into this Vote. Then there is the question of protection for the Royal Constabulary Barracks. I am sure not a single Member of the House will cavil at that, or that if a request comes from any department in control of the police, whether in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales, asking us to take any measures for the protection of their servants, we should support them with every means in our 773 power. With regard to the peace celebrations, that has been explained in various quarters. I gave an explanation, and again I am afraid of the Chair if I repeat what I said. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, though they had had what he should esteem to be peace in Ireland, he would have a great celebration, and it may be some consolation to him to know that the flags that were purchased with £500 of this money will be available for this purpose. I hope that after this explanation the Committee will enable me to get this Vote.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I ask a question with regard to Item C? Extensive works at the coastguard stations in Ireland are referred to. Cavalry huts are lumped together with the coastguard stations in a very objectionable way, and we cannot separate them. The cost is given as £38,000. I do not know what the future of the coastguard in this country is going to be, but my own personal opinion, which is the opinion also held by the Admiralty, is that the old-fashioned coastguard station is absolutely no use in war, and why in Ireland they are spending this money on coastguard stations it would be interesting to learn. Unless we can get some explanation with regard to this expenditure, I shall certainly feel compelled to support my hon. and gallant Friend as this is a big item.
§ Mr. BALDWINI quite agree that this looks a large amount, but perhaps I may explain it in a way that will be satisfactory to the Committee. During the War a large number of coastguards were withdrawn for various purposes. Of course, what is done with them, whether they are withdrawn or put back to their old station, has nothing to do with my office or the Office of Public Works in Ireland. If they are there they have to be housed. They are now gradually returning to their stations. While the men were away there was practically no expenditure on those places, but a good deal of money has now to be spent to make the premises fit for pre-occupation for the men and their families. This is going on throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, and the additional amount of that Vote is £7,000.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIt is not new building?
§ Mr. BALDWINNo, not new building. I am coming to that. About £8,000 will be spent on the huts for temporary construction which were occupied by the Irish Constabulary. Primarily it will be putting them in a condition of better protection than they are at present, and in cases where the huts are arranged singly or in pairs so to dispose them that the men may be in rather larger numbers for their own protection, in districts where they are now going about in terror of their lives. The large amount of £15,000—it is not a large amount in the circumstances—is wanted for the ordinary maintenance and repair of the enormous number of Government buildings throughout Ireland that come in under the control of the Irish Public Works Department. That has arisen in exactly the same way as the smaller items of maintenance have arisen in England, owing to the additional cost of materials and labour. Of course, it includes fuel and lighting in the buildings and all repairs, decorations, and work of that kind. I do not think that, in the circumstances and having regard to the amount of buildings under the control of this Department, that that additional Estimate is a matter of very serious concern.
§ Captain REDMONDI should like an answer to the question with regard to the Peace Celebrations. What peace was celebrated in Ireland? Was it peace in Ireland?
Captain BENNNo one grudges £5,000 to the protection of the police barracks. In common with everyone, we deplore the outrages on the police, but it is a sinister comment on the administration in Ireland that the Government have to ask for £5,000 for fortifying buildings which, in this country, where public opinion is behind the Executive, do not require to be more than ordinary houses. With regard to the Peace Vote, why is there a Supplementary Vote at all? The War came to an end in 1918. Everyone knew the Peace Celebrations were going to take place; they were discussed everywhere. Surely it would not have been impossible to have had them in the main charge rather than by the objectional method of Supplementary Estimates? There is one other point. Under Vote A, the Ministry of Transport has a sum of £5,500. I understand these are new buildings.
§ Mr. BALDWINPerhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in the House when I explained that these were not new buildings, but acquired property in West-land Road, Dublin.
Captain BENNYes, I heard that, but that does not affect it. The Ministry of Transport is going to be a service administered in Ireland. Is it wise to take a large sum of money and commit in advance the Irish Transport Minister to buildings, and possibly to a policy, which he thinks are not the best in the circumstances?
§ Mr. ATKEYThe hon. Gentleman seemed to think he might incur the displeasure of the Chair if he referred to the £5,500 in respect of the Ministry of Transport. I heard his first explanation,
§ and he seemed to pass very skilfully over it as regards detail. I would like to know for what purpose this £5,500 is intended to be spent. The Government ought, of course, to carry out their pledges with regard to economy. I am painfully aware that they exercise economy sometimes in very improper directions, and I think it is within the knowledge of Members of this House that they have rigidly exercised economy to the annoyance and inconvenience of many thousands of people in the city I represent.
§ The CHAIRMANIt would not be in Order on this Vote.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £70,620, be granted for the said service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 153.
777| Division No. 33.] | AYES. | [9.42 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. | Grundy, T. W. | Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough) |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | Spencer, George A. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hartshorn, Vernon | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) | Hayday, Arthur | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hirst, G. H. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Lawson, John J. | Waterson, A. E. |
| Briant, Frank | Lunn, William | Williams, John (Glamorgan, Gower) |
| Bromfield, William | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Cape, Thomas | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Myers, Thomas | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) |
| Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Newbould, Alfred Ernest | |
| Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Royce, William Stapleton | Captain Wedgwood Benn and |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy. |
| Glanville, Harold James | Sitch, Charles H. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Haslam, Lewis |
| Amery, Lieut. Col. Leopold C. M. S. | Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. |
| Atkey, A. R. | Curzon, Commander Viscount | Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T. | Hinds, John |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Dockreil, Sir Maurice | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Doyle, N. Grattan | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich) | Edge, Captain William | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Farquharson, Major A. C. | Jodrell, Neville Paul |
| Bowles, Colonel H. F. | Fell, Sir Arthur | Johnson, L. S. |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Forestier-Walker, L. | Johnstone, Joseph |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Forrest, Walter | King, Commander Henry Douglas |
| Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A. | Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Gange, E. Stanley | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Lloyd, George Butler |
| Campbell, J. D. G. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Lloyd-Greame, Major P. |
| Carew, Charles Robert S. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Goff, Sir R. Park | Lorden, John William |
| Casey, T. W. | Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) |
| Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | M'Lean, Lieut-Col. Charles W. W. |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar | Macmaster, Donald |
| Cheyne, Sir William Watson | Gregory, Holman | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Gretton, Colonel John | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Cohen, Major J. Brunel | Griggs, Sir Peter | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Mitchell, William Lane |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Hailwood, Augustine | Molson, Major John Elsdale |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. |
| Courthope, Major George L. | Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Hancock, John George | Morris, Richard |
| Munro, Ht. Hon. Robert | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) | Stanton, Charles B. |
| Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen) | Remer, J. R. | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox) | Renwick, George | Strauss, Edward Anthony |
| Murray, Major William (Dumfries) | Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Nail, Major Joseph | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Neal, Arthur | Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Nelson, R. F. W. R. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford) | Vickers, Douglas |
| Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill) | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Waring, Major Walter |
| Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. | Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H. |
| Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Weston, Colonel John W. |
| Perring, William George | Seager, Sir William | Whitla, Sir William |
| Pollock, Sir Ernest M. | Seddon, J. A. | Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V. |
| Prescott, Major W. H. | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Pulley, Charles Thornton | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Purchase, H. G. | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Rankin, Captain James S. | Smithers, Sir Alfred W. | |
| Ratcliffe, Henry Butler | Stanler, Captain Sir Beville | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F. | Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Towyn Jones. |
Original Question put, and agreed to.