§ (SIXTH ALLOTTED DAY).
§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
§ (In the Committee.)
§ On the Vote to complete the sum of £356,000 for Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad.
§ MR. J. H. LEWIS (Flint, Boroughs)I understand we are on Vote "7." I wish to draw the attention of the right hon Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the item which relates 312 to insurances, rents, and tithe-rent charges, etc., and I wish to ask him as to whether our public buildings are insured to any great extent. It is quite impossible for us to discover from the Votes to what extent they are insured, if at all, or what amount, if any, is paid for the insurance of public buildings. I cannot imagine that anything should be paid by the Government for that purpose, but I should like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to how much the Government is actually paying for insurance?
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. A. AKERS-DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine'sThe Government insure their own buildings.
§ MR. LEWISMy question is this, Why does the word "insurance" appear, as it does, all through the Votes. We cannot distinguish how much is paid, or what it is paid for, and yet it appears in every Vote.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSI have not the information at present, but I will ascertain it and will answer the Question a little later.
§ MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)Upon looking into this Vote I find upon comparing the figures of the expenditure between England and Scotland that the Scotch Vote is out of all proportion to that of England. If we take as an instance the Post Office buildings in London, England and Wales, and then take Scotland we find the amount expended in Scotland for that purpose is very much less than the proportion which should be expended. Then, again, with regard to maintenance, the total amount expended for maintenance in England and Wales is £41,000, whilst in Scotland it is only £2,600. If we were in Scotland to have an expenditure proportionate to the amount which we pay into the Imperial Treasury, that amount expended would be £6,000, but as a fact it is only £2,600. Upon that item, that is a general charge for maintenance of Post Office buildings in the three countries—it does not provide for new buildings, it is merely for the maintenance and repairs—you have 313 these figures: England and Wales £41,000; Scotland, £2,600 in place of her proper proportion of £6,000. I cannot see that Scotland is being properly treated here. She is not getting sufficient, or England is getting too much in this matter; I rather think England is getting too much. Then take the item of furniture, which is itself another ordinary item of maintenance, and you find that whilst England and Wales get £6,500 Scotland has only got £285, whilst the proper proportion to the expenditure of England would be at least three times that sum. These instances which I have given are simply illustrations of the difference of the expenditure for the maintenance of public buildings in England and Wales as compared with Scotland, and I have merely referred to these matters in order to see whether we are getting a proper sum expended in Scotland for that purpose. I believe Scotch Members, as a rule, have shown some desire for economy in this matter, and I think Scotland may have suffered in that way. Then with regard to Somerset House, page 33, with respect to the Sanitary Works, perhaps the Commissioner of Works will be able to inform us as to how much has been expended upon the sanitary works up to 31st March, 1898. It would appear from the materials from which I have been able to calculate that a very large sum has been expended on those works in the past year. I see this year the Vote is £4,355, and last year there was £20,000 in the Vote. I do not know how much was expended, but that was in the Vote. I would like to know how far the Government had any estimate of that expenditure, and I should also like to know whether those sanitary works are now complete, or whether it is expected that further payments will have to be made regarding them. With regard to Bolton, I see the Vote is £5,750. In 1897 it was £4,450. In 1897 the Vote was for building alone, but, I see in the commencement of the Estimate on the Vote for the current year it is, for the site, £1,300, and building, £4,450. Perhaps the Commissioner of Works will be able to say whether the whole sum of last year was expended or whether there is still a balance, because it will be noticed that it is the 314 cost of building—the site was paid for in 1896–97. If this money was not expended last year—or was the money given over to meet excess payments on the same account? It is sometimes very convenient to come to Parliament and say "This money was not expended last year, and, therefore, we come into the Vote again," but there is no use in saying that if you have appropriated the money to other items. It is a very convenient way of appropriating money to excess payments without coming to Parliament at all. Then, with regard to Bradford, that is £4,000, and I find an entry there, "Site £4,000." That is the price of the site, and was to be paid by March 31st, 1898. I should like to know whether this is one of the items which was paid out of the unexpended balances of last year. We are past the 31st of March now, and I should like to know whether the money has actually been paid and the title obtained, or whether this Vote is brought in for the purpose of tiding over the time and preventing this £4,000 from going towards the reduction of the National Debt, as it otherwise would do. I cannot understand why you put these amounts into the Estimates this year, when they were to be paid by the 31st of March last, when, if they were so paid, there would be no need to put them into the Estimates of this year at all. With regard to these post offices generally, not to go into them in further detail, I should like to know whether the First Commissioner of Works has taken care that in connection with the erection of post offices at Bristol and other places in England he has taken care, in connection with the erection of such buildings, that no expense is being put upon the Government in respect of the site or of the building put up by the local authorities. We notice that there is a great fight being made by the local authorities of England—it has not yet extended to Scotland—to this effect. Her Majesty's Government puts up expensive buildings upon an expensive site, through the pressure of the local inhabitants, to be an ornament to their town, and when all the money is expended, and the building erected, they say we must have local taxes from the Government for this handsome building, which has been erected 315 on this beautiful site. I do not think that the Government should be fleeced both ways. If the Government is liberal enough to purchase a valuable site, and erect a handsome building, I do not grumble, but, on the other hand, I think it is very unfair that, after the Government have spent all this money, the local authorities should then come down and say, "We must have local rates in connection with the expenditure which you have made." I notice with regard to London that instead of putting up the Savings Bank in the heart of London, and having to purchase very valuable property, the Government go down to Hammersmith, where they buy a very moderate site, and erect a building in accordance with the buildings there. I think that is a very practical way of looking at the matter, that the work of the country can be done without expensive sites and buildings, but if the Government is liberal enough to erect them., I do not say so much in connection with the expense, but when you come to the question of local taxes on the cost of such buildings I do not think it is fair. Those are the points upon which I should like to have an answer.
§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.), said that, naturally, London would get more grants-in-aid than other parts. When erecting public buildings the Government had to pull down a large amount of rateable property, as was instanced in the case of the new buildings to be erected in the neighbourhood of this House. They did not get a rate, but an equivalent to the value of the property, and the local authorities in any part of the country—England, Ireland, or Scotland—he thought were entitled to an equivalent from the Government for the benefit of the local authority.
§ MR. J. BRIGG (York, W.R., Keighley)desired to know whether, under the Vote for the Post Office buildings, it was intended to include the cost of the telephone. That was a very important question so far as the country districts were concerned. In many districts the National Telephone Company's telephone was attached to the post office, whilst people in the districts sometimes had to go a considerable distance before they could telegraph.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSWith regard to the answer I gave just now as to the Government insuring their own buildings, there are, of course, some hired buildings, upon which they pay insurance. With regard to the public buildings, the property of the Government, they are not insured, or rather the Government itself insures them. The hon. Member for Lanark says there is a very large amount of money spent for maintenance in England as compared with Scotland, but the hon. Member must remember that the relative expense is not a question of the revenue contributed by either country, but of the amount of business which is done by the various offices, and there is a much larger amount of business done in London, which has vastly greater buildings than any offices outside London, and a very much larger cost for maintenance is required. I may also remind the hon. Member that in a great many country towns the Office of Works does not own the post offices at all. They are provided by the postmasters themselves out of the allowance made by the Government, and that gives a greater appearance of inequality than is really the fact. With regard to the Inland Revenue office at Bolton, the £4,450 now asked for is mainly a re-Vote. [Mr. CALDWELL: Was not the money spent last year?] No, it was not. The delay was unavoidable, and was in connection with the preparation of the plans. With regard to the Inland Revenue office at Bradford, which the hon. Member called attention to, the sum which was required in order to get on with the building in a hurry was paid out of savings from the previous Votes. There is another question asked by the hon. Member for Lanark which I have often had to consider in the acquisition of sites for post offices, and that is the desirability of obtaining them, not necessarily in the centre of the town, but where they may be more cheaply acquired, in the suburbs; but he must consider what the feelings of his constituents would be if a proper building were not put up in the town he represents. The residents of a town naturally desire that such a building should be put up the best possible position in the town. It is our endeavour when we 317 put up a post office in a provincial town that it shall not only be suitable for the work for which it is erected, but that it shall also be a credit to the town and to the Government.
§ MR. LEWISI quite understand the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the insurance. I was merely anxious to know whether it only related to hired buildings. But there are two other items of rent and tithe-rent charges. I desire to know why the latter have not been commuted. One would naturally have thought that they could have been commuted upon terms of considerable financial advantage. With regard to the question of rent, no doubt it may be necessary to take premises sometimes for a limited period, but I really do think that in matters of this kind the Government should carry a good deal further the principle of purchasing property of which they require the permanent possession. I desire to know whether it would not be desirable, on general principles, to have the tithe-rent charges commuted, and whether it could not be done to very great advantage. I would also ask whether it would not be desirable to purchase in the future freeholds of post offices to a much larger extent than at present is the case. There is one other question I wish to raise under "Post Office buildings," or under the head of "furniture," and that is the question of clocks. Here post offices are provided with clocks which keep good time, but in many country post offices no clocks at all are provided. Now, my idea is that the country post offices should be provided with clocks for the use of the inhabitants generally. I do not refer to clocks inside the offices, but a clock placed in a prominent position outside. These clocks are a great convenience to the general public, and wherever there is a telegraph office they could be synchronised with Greenwich time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter into consideration, and see what can be done in regard to that.
§ MR. BRIGGWith regard to the Vote for the Post Office buildings, does that include the cost of the telephone?
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSThe question raised by the hon. Member for Keighley is rather one of administration, and will come under the Post Office Vote. It does not come under this Vote, which is purely for maintenance and construction of buildings.
§ MR. J. W. LOGAN (Leicestershire, Harborough)With reference to the question of providing better clocks for rural post offices, might I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are a large number of people in the country interested in the sport of pigeon-flying, who are very good customers of the post office, and who send large numbers of telegrams, who are entirely dependent on the office clocks? In many of our country districts no clocks are supplied by the postal authorities, and although the correct time is telegraphed to the various offices every morning, the people there can only rely on very inferior clocks, as a rule.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSThis is rather a question for the Post Office than for this Vote. In many of the small rural districts and small towns the clocks are not Government, property at all. I must refer the hon. Member to the Postmaster General, who is more the person to deal with this matter than myself.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 2. On the Vote to complete the sum of £171,000 for Public Buildings in Great Britain,
§ MR. CALDWELLI wish again to point out a similar case in which an tem shows the disparity between Scotland and England. On page 45 you will find—
for supplying water to various public offices by private companies—including the Houses of Parliament—£3,625.That is for England, while for Scotland it is £125. Of course, the people of Scotland drink whisky, though I do not find in the Estimates any item for that; that is only for water. There is a clear 319 disparity. Take the item for furniture. You will find that the item for furniture comes altogether to £25,800, while for Scotland it is only £470. These really are examples in which the public service is managed in England and Scotland respectively; and you will find the same thing pervading every Vote. I should like to bring the matter up in this way, in order that the First Commissioner of Works will have an opportunity of looking into the question—that if things are done more economically in Scotland the same economical system ought to prevail in England as well. We are fairly entitled to get a reasonable proportion in Scotland in regard to our public buildings, and that is my reason for referring to these matters.
§ MR. LEWISI sympathise entirely, as a private Member, with my hon. Friend. The other day we gave the First Commissioner of Works a Vote for two and a half million pounds for the purpose of erecting public buildings in London. I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that we in Wales have been asking, for many years past, for buildings for museum purposes, and we find that absolutely no attention is paid to our modest request, with the exception of a few sympathising generalities, which do not carry us very much further. I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the item for the maintenance and repair of the keeper's house and boundary walls of Carisbrook Castle, Isle of Wight (£150). I have no doubt that these are very interesting historical remains; but I would draw his attention to the fact that in Wales we support our own castles, and, on the whole, we keep them very well. Castles like Conway, Carnarvon, Flint, Denby, and other historical structures cost us nothing at all. Why is it necessary to spend £150 on Carisbrook Castle? Would it not be possible to look after the castle locally? I am only asking the question; I do not propose to ask the Commissioner to divide on it.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSThe hon. Member for Lanarkshire has called attention to the propor- 320 tion of expenditure for Scotland with relation to that for England. Again, my answer must be on the same lines as that given the other night—namely, that the amount charged for services such as the supply of water must depend on the size of the public offices rather than upon the financial contributions of the two countries. There is no doubt that there are a larger number of public offices in London—as there must be in any capital which require a supply of water—than there are in Edinburgh. But we are taking care that where money can be spent on public buildings in Scotland to advantage it should be so spent, and I think he will bear me out when I say that in the last year or two we have been making some effort in that direction. We have just completed the purchase of a site for the extension of the Sasines House, and for other buildings very much required there. I hope, before I give up my present office, I may be able to do something for Edinburgh, a city of which, like him, I am proud. With regard to the observation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, I sympathise with him in the expression of a natural desire that there should be some home of art in Wales; and, although he said that sympathetic words do not carry much with them, I am glad to feel that he has not thought it necessary to divide on this proposal, and agrees that this wonderful collection in Hertford House is one that the nation ought to be proud of. By the conditions of the bequest of that collection they were to be deposited in a permanent building in London—in the central part of London.
§ MR. BRIGGMay I be allowed to ask a question as to the Orange Street Waterworks? They are supposed to supply this building, and several other privileged buildings, and why should money be granted for this purpose when we have a separate and distinct supply?
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSThe Orange Street Waterworks are the property of the Government. They are immediately behind the National Gallery, and from that source came the supply to this House, the Royal Palaces, and some of the Government Offices. The water is not 321 sufficient nowadays to supply the whole of the House as it used to be. Consequently it is necessary to take water from the companies to assist that supply.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSThe water is analysed. It is under an engineer, who has charge of the water supply. He is a gentleman who has been for many years very well known to Members of this House.
§ MR. LEWISThere is a question relating to the furniture. There is an increase this year of £3,500. I wish to ask whether, in ordering furniture for the new buildings, the Department will throw it open to public competition by tender, or whether it is ordered from certain firms?
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSThe practice of the Government is, if there is a large amount required in London, to invite tenders, as far as we can, from the different firms who we think will supply what we want.
§ MR. CALDWELLDoes that apply to locality?
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSYes; the same thing applies to other localities. In the case of furniture required for Edinburgh, we should ask for tenders from suitable firms there.
§ MR. CALDWELLIt is very important. There is a very large amount for Scotland every year.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 3. On the Vote of £58,000 for the Royal Palaces and Marlborough House,
§ MR. CALDWELLI wish to call attention to the first item here with regard to Buckingham Palace. I notice there is an installation of electric light to cost £11,000, and the amount on account is £3,500. There is also the construction of a new greenhouse, £175. I wish to raise the question of the importance of Buckingham Palace being mores accessible to public inspection than 322 it is at present. The fine collection of pictures in Buckingham Palace was given, I think, by George IV. to the nation—by one of the Georges, at any rate. It is there practically as the property of the nation, intended for their benefit, and not for the personal use of the Sovereign. I suppose the First Commissioner of Works has it in view to throw it open in the evening, and that this electric-light installation will make it more convenient for the public to inspect the collection in the evening. I think the time has come when the Palace, to a certain extent, and the grounds more or less, might be thrown open to public inspection. Of course, it might be said that this is the personal residence of the Sovereign. Now, no one wishes at all to interfere with the amenity of Buckingham Palace or the grounds when it is really being used by the Sovereign. Take the case of Windsor Castle, which is closed to the public when the Sovereign is in residence. Whilst willing, of course, to safeguard every possible right of that sort, I do think we are entitled to ask, especially when you are coming forward for extraordinary expenditure, if you are going to make provision for throwing open Buckingham Palace to public inspection, and especially those pictures which really were left to the nation by one of the Sovereigns in former times. I mention this matter of Buckingham Palace, but there are several other matters which I will take up by themselves.
§ MR. BRIGGWith regard to the stables at Buckingham Palace, there are a number of people who come from the North who consider it one of the great treats of London to see Her Majesty's horses; and when they see them they are very much more loyal than they were before. I am sure that additional facilities for seeing the horses would be very much appreciated.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKSThe matter was suggested last year, and I think I pointed out to the Committee that it did not arise under this Vote, that it was not in my power to interfere with the Department of the Lord Chamberlain, or make any promise 323 without consulting him. For my own part I see that there are very considerable objections to the opening of a palace which is in the occupation of Her Majesty. You can hardly put Buckingham Palace on the same footing as Hampton Court or Holyrood Palace, which is only occupied a short time in each year. Buckingham Palace is often occupied by Her Majesty, by members of her family, and by visitors of high rank who enjoy Her Majesty's hospitality in this country. I cannot make representations to Her Majesty on a subject that does not appertain to my office at all. There is a distinct line to be drawn between the two kinds of palaces—between those occupied by Her Majesty and those not so occupied. I do not see my way to give the hon. Member for Lanarkshire an assurance such as he asks. There is no doubt that the Royal Mews do not come under the same category. As the hon. Member for Keighley has pointed out, on application to the proper authorities a visit is permitted. Rather than it should be supposed that I gave a promise even to consider the question of opening Buckingham Palace, I prefer that the Committee should take a Division.
§ MR. CALDWELLI quite recognise the position in which we are placed. I have no doubt that so far as you personally can you will give the public the fullest benefit. At the same time, what we are asking for is that Buckingham Palace should be thrown open practically in the same way as Windsor Castle, which is also in the occupation of the Sovereign. We think we have very much greater reason for Buckingham Palace to be thrown open, because the Queen is not so long a resident in Buckingham Palace as at Windsor, and because the population that comes to London is greater than that which goes to Windsor. If there is to be any distinction between the two Royal residences it certainly is in favour of Buckingham Palace being thrown open to the public, as far as the portion of Windsor Castle not in the occupation of the Sovereign is concerned. These things are done on a wider scale there, of course, and I quite recognise the First Commissioner's difficulty in the matter. It is in no spirit of disparagement of him that I move the reduction of the Vote. It is only by moving the reduction and taking a Division that these reforms are accomplished. Therefore, I move the reduction of the Vote for Buckingham Palace by £100.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 51 Noes 110.
325| AYES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.) | Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) | Kilbride, Denis | Reid, Sir Robert T. |
| Billson, Alfred | Lambert, George | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Burns, John | Leng, Sir John | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Lewis, John Herbert | Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lloyd-George, David | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Clough, Walter Owen | Logan, John William | Steadman, William Charles |
| Crombie, John William | Macaleese, Daniel | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | M'Kenna, Reginald | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Leod, John | Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.) |
| Duckworth, James | Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) | Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Gold, Charles | O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- | O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Holden, Sir Angus | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Mr. Caldwell and Mr. |
| Horniman, Frederick John | Oldroyd, Mark | Brigg. |
| NOES. | ||
| Aird, John | Goschen, George J. (Sussex) | Nicholson, William Graham |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Penrose-FitzGerald, Sir Robt. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) | Greville, Captain | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Gunter, Colonel | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Haldane, Richard Burdon | Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo | Purvis, Robert |
| Barry, F. Tress (Windsor) | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W. | Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Heath, James | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Heaton, John Henniker | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. | Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) | Round, James |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) | Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh | Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham) |
| Bethell, Commander | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Jessel, Captain H. Merton | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Jolliffe, Hon. H. George | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Chelsea, Viscount | Lafone, Alfred | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) | Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (L'pool.) | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready | Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Cornwallis, F. Stanley W. | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) | Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Verney, Hn. Richard Greville |
| Davenport, W. Bromley- | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Macdona, John Cumming | Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) |
| Drage, Geoffrey | M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool) | Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | M'Iver, Sir Lewis | Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Marks, Henry H. | Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon- |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E. | Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport) |
| Flower, Ernest | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.) |
| Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (Wol'tn.) | Monk, Charles James | Young, Commander (Berks., E.) |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose) | Younger, William |
| Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | |
| Goldsworthy, Major-General | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Myers, William Henry | Sir William Walrond and |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon | Newdigate, Francis Alexander | Mr. Anstruther. |
§ Vote agreed to.