HC Deb 03 March 1904 vol 131 cc129-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,634,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."

MR. O'MARA

asked for some explanation of the item of £9,000 for victualling stores at Sydney, which item he thought was a token Vote and the commencement of a high expenditure that was going to b made in the Colonies.

MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley)

drew attention to the item of £8,000 for dredging at Wei-hai-Wei. It was, he said, originally intended that Wei-hai-Wei should be held as a counterpoise to Port Arthur; then it was to be held as a secondary naval base; and finally he understood it was to be a kind of sanatorium for the Fleet on the China Station. If that were so it was difficult to see why this amount for dredging should be included in this Vote. Either there had been at the outset a very serious lack of judgment on the part of the advisers of the Government or their present decision to constitute it a sanatorium was a still greater mistake in judgment. In order to extract some explanation he moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed "That Item C (Dockyards Abroad) be reduced by £1,000." (Mr. Joseph Walton.)

MR. ARTHUR LEE

again explained the position with regard to Wei-hai-Wei, and pointed out that even for a peace station and sanatorium for the Fleet on the China station it was necessary to provide berthing accommodation in the harbour for the ships that would go there. Turning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Galway, who objected to the expenditure in regard to dockyards abroad on the ground that none were to be established in Ireland, he (Mr. Lee) called attention to the fact that the expenditure for naval establishments was not made for the benefit of the localities in which those establishments were situated, but for the general advantage and the needs of the Fleet. The item for the extension of hospital accommodation at Queens-ferry was for the purpose of erecting an isolation hospital for infectious cases, which was absolutely necessary. With regard to the church accommodation at Deal he pointed out that in recent years the number of marines stationed there had been very largely increased, and owing to the lack of proper accommodation it had been found necessary to use the existing church for school purposes, which was not at all desirable, and it was necessary that these men should be provided with a proper place of worship. He had been asked as to the item for the official residences in Jamaica. There were three such residences which were used by officers on the naval establishment, but they had fallen into such an insanitary condition that it was now necessary to expend this money in re-providing them. The item in respect to the victualling stores at Sydney was rather a measure of economy. At present we were hiring and paying very heavily for accommodation for victualling stores, and as Sydney was now becoming a great victualling centre, it was thought desirable to build our own accommodation and thus save the heavy expense we were now put to. The expenditure in respect to the coastguard stations was, for precisely the same reason, also a measure of economy—it being less expensive to build than to hire. He hoped the hon. Member for Barnsley would be satisfied with the explanation which he had given with regard to Wei-hai-Wei, and would now withdraw his Motion for a reduction.

MR. JOSEPH WALTON

, by leave of the Committee, withdrew his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdraw.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

said the real objection to the Vote for victualling accommodation at Sydney was that the Colonies had not been asked to subscribe towards the expenditure. The Vote which he desired to criticise, and which he would have to move a reduction of, was Vote E, "Chatham, residence of Commander-in-Chief, £25,000," £7,000 of which was to be spent this year. No doubt Commanders-in-Chief required houses to live in, but the Commander-in-Chief of Chatham had been living elsewhere up to the present, and this expenditure at the present juncture was not, necessary. He thought this was a most inopportune time for starting a work which was not absolutely necessary. The present state of the finance of the country was not satisfactory. In his belief a good deal of the depression from which we were now suffering was due to the over-expenditure by the Government, and it was the, duty of the Committee to object to fresh expenditure of every kind which was not absolutely necessary for the defence of the country. This was an item which should be put aside until either it was absolutely necessary or until such time as the finances of the country were in better order than they were at present. He thought it would be much cheaper to give an allowance, as was done in many cases, in lieu of a house, and that would not only meet the view of the officer in question but would also benefit the Exchequer. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by the amount that was to be expended this year, namely, £7,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B (Naval Barracks and General Fleet Services), be reduced by £7,000."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)

MR. BROADHURST

expressed the opinion that the hon. Member might have gone further. It appeared to him that the Commander-in-Chief would have to have a considerable private income in addition to his pay to keep up such an establishment as it was proposed to erect, and which would be equal to a house of a rental of £1,000 a year. Years ago he had been to Chatham on Government business and had had the honour of being entertained by the Admiral in charge. So far as his memory served him the establishment at which he was entertained was nothing at all approaching this one which it was proposed to build. If the Civil Lord had been move familiar with this part of the country he would know that Chatham was the cheapest part to build in, inasmuch as it was the centre of the brick-making and cement industries, and in his judgment a house costing £6,000, or £8,000 at the outside, would be quite sufficient to meet all the demands that could be reasonably made by any officer holding this great position. By erecting a house of these dimensions the Government were going to make it impossible for any man who had to live upon his pay to maintain his position, and he hoped in the interest of the Service that hon. Members would cut down some of this enormous expenditure and thus do a service to those who might hereafter be called to this high office. As he understood, the average duration of this office would be three years, and a poor Admiral would not be able to support so great a burden as the maintenance of such an establishment. He appealed to the representatives of the Admiralty not to pursue a policy which provided only for men who had vast means. On these grounds he thought the Civil Lord ought to give the Committee some explanation of this item.

*MR. ARTHUR LEE

said that this matter had been most carefully considered. Although he might not be very familiar with this part of Kent, he was at least familiar with this particular problem, having studied it on the spot. The Admiral's house at Chatham to which the hon. Member had referred was not the house of the Commander-in-Chief, but the house of the Admiral Superintendent of Chatham Dockyard, and it would remain in the occupation of that official The residence of the Commander-in-Chief of the Nora was not at Chatham at ail, but at Sheerness, and as a matter of naval policy, which had been very carefully considered, it had been decided to be entirely wrong that the Commander-in-Chief of the More should live at Sheerness while the bulk of his work connected with the growing dockyard at Chatham was many miles distant. Communication between the two places was not at all convenient, and as a result there had been an inevitable lack of supervision in some respects. In time of peace such an arrangement was bad enough, but in time of war it would be absolutely impossible. Having decided that the Commander-in-Chief should live at Chatham, the question then arose of finding a house suitable for an officer in his position. The hon. Member for Leicester was really mistaken in supposing that Chatham was a cheap neigh-bourhood.

MR. BROADHURST

said he referred to bricks and cement.

*MR. ARTHUR LEE

reminded the hon. Member that fish was always dearer at the sea-side than elsewhere, and in the same way bricks and cement might not be so cheap at the place of manufacture as in other districts. In any case, it was the fact that the cost of building was very high at Chatham. This expenditure included not only the building, but also the site. The greatest difficulty of the Admiralty had been to get any land whatsoever at Chatham, the whole district being so extremely crowded. This particular piece of land belonged to the War Department; it was the site of one of the War Department's Stores, and naturally that accommodation would have to be reprovided. About £5,000 had been included for that purpose, so that the estimated expenditure on the house was approximately £20,000. He fully sympathised with the view that it should not be made impossible for men without large private means to occupy these positions; he had frequently taken up a similar position with regard to Army commands; but it had to be remembered that a naval officer received certain allowances which other officers did not receive, and, although he had been anxious to build a somewhat smaller house in this case, so far from receiving any assistance in that direction from the naval officers concerned, complaints had been received to the effect that the proposed residence was not large enough. The building would provide no more accommodation than was absolutely necessary for an officer in this high position, and he was afraid the Estimate could not be reduced without rendering the house unsuitable for the purpose for which it was designed.

MR. FLYNN (Cork County, N.)

did not consider the explanation of the Civil Lord at all satisfactory. Sheerness was near the mouth of the Nore, and was an ideal place for the residence of the Commander-in-Chief of the Nore. As for his work at Chatham Dockyard, the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway had not a high reputation for speed or punctuality, but it was possible to get from Sheerness to Chatham within half an hour on any day of the week. With regard to the cost of the building, Kent was the cheapest part of the country for the principal materials, and the greatest brickfields and the largest cement manufactories were in the neighbourhood of Chatham. It, was necessary that these comparatively small details of the Estimates should be examined; it was only in that way the Departments could be urged to economy. As an Irish Member he complained that while £25,000 was to be spent on the erection of this one house at Chatham, the whole of the new works for naval purposes in Ireland amounted to less than half that sum. Another matter of which he strongly complained was the proposed expenditure of £58,600 at Wei-hai-Wei, which had been practically deserted, as valueless as a naval base. It could not be too often repeated that full-dress debates on the Estimates would not reduce expenditure; it could only be done by carefully scrutinising every item, and he hoped his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division.

*MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)

desired to know how many square yards the site comprised, and whether the existing buildings were dilapidated or unsuited to the purposes to which they were put. He pressed upon the Committee the necessity of seeing that the conditions under which our commanders lived and carried on their work were such that these positions were open to men of moderate means. He appealed to the Government to reconsider the question of spending £25,000 for a house for the officer in question, as it was unreasonable to expect him to keep up an establishment in keeping with the same out of the salary and allowances of the post.

*MR. ARTHUR LEE

pointed out that the Commander-in-Chief's house was not merely a social residence; it included a large range of offices for the staff and retinued, and that, of course, considerably increased the cost.

MR. JOSEPH WALTON

regretted to say that the explanation of the Civil Lord was not by any means satisfactory. He asked the Committee to consider the question in the light of the income which the Commander-in-Chief of the Nore received. His total income would be about £3,300, yet a residence was to be provided, the equivalent rental of which would be £1,000 a year. Everybody knew that house-rent ought not to be more than the tenth of one's income. Nobody could hold this position of Commander-in-Chief, and occupy a £25,000 house, unless he possessed a substantial private income. When they were told by the Government that the trade of the country was going to the dogs he thought it was an inopportune moment to saddle the taxpayers with this excessive expenditure for the provision of a house for the Commander-in-Chief. He asked the Government to give further consideration to the matter.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB,

while fully appreciating the motives by which the last two speakers were animated, considered it necessary, in the interests of the naval service, that the head of the Navy at a particular port should have a proper residence. This was not merely a private residence; as the Civil Lord had pointed out, it included a suite of offices. The house was furnished and kept in repair by the Government. It should be remembered that the Commander-in-Chief had to take a certain position, and that when foreign officers and our own, with their wives, visited the port, hospitality had to be extended to them. It was not to the interest of the naval service that the Commander-in-Chief should be put into a pokey house. There was really no question of putting any burden on the officer who happened to occupy the position.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said the case put by the Civil Lord was that the Admiralty were not purchasing any land for this building; they were knocking down a building on land belonging to the War Office. He had not told them whether the buildings were fit for the purpose to which they were put, and, of course, the buildings must be replaced on some other site. It seemed to him extraordinary to knock down buildings, which, as far as they knew, were perfectly suitable for the purpose. He asked the Civil Lord to tell them plainly whether these buildings were fit for the purpose for which they were erected, whether a site could have been obtained elsewhere, and, if so, whether it would cost more than the site which would be secured by the demolition of these buildings.

MR. ARTHUR LEE

said the Department searched the whole of Chatham, which was a district in which there was extreme difficulty in getting land, and they found it impossible to get any other suitable site at any reasonable price. This particular site was a portion of the old fortifications on Chatham Lines. Formerly it was used for the purposes of a magazine, but it was no longer suitable for that. Of course they had agreed to give the War Office other accommodation in exchange for this, which was being used for the storage of bedding. On the whole he thought they had made the most economical arrangement possible.

MR. TOULMIN (Bury, Lancashire)

thought a little more regard should have been had for the feeling of the taxpayers. They were looking forward to a deficit in the next Budget, and surely this expenditure might at least have been delayed a year or two. It seemed to him that £25,000 was a lot of money to spend on providing a house for the Admiral and his staff. They did not know what the furniture would cost. He did not feel that a case had been made out for this demand, and he thought the Government would be well advised to let the scheme stand over for a year or two until the national finances were in a more satisfactory position.

MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs)

asked how many square yards the site comprised, and how many rooms the building would contain. How, too, had the staff been accommodated hitherto? Was it reasonable to provide a house worth£1,250 a year for an officer whose salary was only £3,300?

*MR. ARTHUR LEE

said the area of the site approximated three acres. He had already dealt with the other point.

SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)

asked how much of the building would be set apart for officers.

*MR. ARTHUR LEE

At least a quarter of it.

MR. ALFRED DAVIES

What is the necessity for taking three acres of land?

MR. BROADHURST

observed that the taking of so large a site would involve at least an annual outlay of £200 for gardening purposes. He thought it was time to abandon the idea that the country should pay heavy sums to enable Government officials to entertain their friends and neighbours at the public cost.

AN HON. MEMBER

It is to entertain foreigners.

MR. BROADHURST

said they were not always entertaining foreigners. He did not mind so much the grants made to Ambassadors abroad for the purpose, but at home there was far too much in both services of the tendency to create exclusive social circles in the neighbourhood in which Government officials were planted. There was too much extravagant entertaining of certain classes, and

it was inimical to the best interests of the service.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER

said he had been interested in building operation8 for many years, and he should have thought it quite possible to provide a suitable house at Chatham for £15,000. It was time they protested against the expenditure of public, money unless it was absolutely necessary in these lean years. Nothing had yet been said to prove the necessity of moving the Admiral's establishment from Sheerness to Chatham.

Question put.

The Committee divided: —Ayes, 107; Noes, 163. (Division List No. 39.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Hayden, John Patrick Pirie, Duncan V.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Healy, Timothy Michael Power, Patrick Joseph
Allen, Charles P. Helme, Norval Watson Reddy, M.
Ambrose, Robert Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Redmond, William (Clare)
Black, Alexander William Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Boland, John Joyce, Michael Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Brigg, John Kearley, Hudson E. Robson, William Snowdon
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Kilbride, Denis Roche, John
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Labouchere, Henry Runciman, Walter
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Lambert, George Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Burke, E. Haviland Layland-Barratt, Francis Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Caldwell, James Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Shackleton, David James
Cameron, Robert Leigh, Sir Joseph Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Levy, Maurice Sheehy, David
Causton, Richard Knight Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Condon, Thomas Joseph MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Crean, Eugene M'Hugh, Patrick A. Soares, Ernest J.
Cremer, William Randal M'Kean, John Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants
Crombie, John William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Sullivan, Donal
Cullinan, J. Markham, Arthur Basil Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Mooney, John J. Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Delany, William Murnaghan, George Tomkinson, James
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Murphy, John Toulmin, George
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Nannetti, Joseph P. Ure, Alexander
Donelan, Captain A. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Weir, James Galloway
Doogan, P. C. Nussey, Thomas Willans White, George (Norfolk)
Emmott, Alfred O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Farrell, James Patrick O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fenwick, Charles O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Ffrench, Peter O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Field, William O'Dowd, John Young, Samuel
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Malley, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Warner and Mr. Broadhurst.
Fuller, J. M. F. O'Mara, James
Hammond, John O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Balcarres, Lord
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bailey, James (Walworth) Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Bain, Colonel James Robert Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hickman, Sir Alfred Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Hoare, Sir Samuel Ratcliff, R. F.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Remnant, James Farquharson
Bignold, Arthur Houston, Robert Paterson Renwick, George
Bigwood, James Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hunt, Rowland Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Butcher, John George Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.) Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Keswick, William Russell, T. W.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William King, Sir Henry Seymour Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A(Worc Knowles, Sir Lees Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Chapman, Edward Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Charrington, Spencer Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool. Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Clare, Octavius Leigh Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lonsdale, John Brownlee Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Spear, John Ward
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Maconochie, A. W. Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Dalkeith, Earl of M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles M'Calmont, Colonel James Stock, James Henry
Davenport, William Bromley M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Stroyan, John
Dickson, Charles Scott Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Doughty, George Milvain, Thomas Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Moore, William Thornton, Percy M.
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Morpeth, Viscount Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Morrison, James Archibald Tritton, Charles Ernest
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Tuff, Charles
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Valentia, Viscount
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Walker, Col. William Hall
Flower, Sir Ernest Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Forster, Henry William Parkes, Ebenezer Warde, Colonel C. E.
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Webb, Colonel William George
Galloway, William Johnson Pemberton, John S. G. Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Gardner, Ernest Percy, Earl Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Pierpoint, Robert Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Pilkington, Colonel Richard Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) Plummer, Walter R. Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Gretton, John Pretyman, Ernest George
Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry Purvis, Robert TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Pym, C. Guy
Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Randles, John S.
Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W. Rankin, Sir James

Original Question again proposed.

MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)

called attention to sums in the Estimates in respect of new churches at Eastney and Deal. In the case of Eastney the sum asked was £8,000. The estimated total cost of the church was £11,000. The Vote now proposed in the case of Deal was £1,000, the total estimated cost of the church being £11,000. Whatever might be the necessity for church accommodation at the places named, he was sure it was not the business of the Admiralty to further endow the Established Church. He presumed that the churches would be under the control of the Church of England. He protested against this expenditure, especially in the present year, when the Estimates were so large. He moved to reduce the Vote by £2,000 in respect of these new churches.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item F (Marine Barracks) be reduced by £2,000."—(Mr. Runciman.)

*MR. ARTHUR LEE

said the existing accommodation at Eastney was quite unfit for the purpose of Divine service, which was attended by a preponderant number of the Marines established there. In regard to the price he did not think the estimate extravagant, though it had been increased by £1,000. That was owing to a slight miscalculation in the first place. In the case of Deal there had been a large increase in the number of men, and there was not sufficient church accommodation for them.

MR. RUNCIMAN

said the hon. Gentleman had not stated whether those buildings were to be used exclusively by the Established Church, or whether grants had been given to any other denominations in those two places.

*MR. HELME

asked how many sittings were to be provided in each, as it was important to see that the churches, while providing the accommodation required, were not so constructed architecturally as to involve needless expenditure.

MR. BROADHURST

asked what would be done in respect of these churches, if they were to be used as Established Churches, in the event of disestablishment and disendowment. Would they come under any scheme of compensation given for that purpose? The money now proposed to be voted came out of the pockets of people of all religious denominations. He was in favour of providing ample accommodation for religious services for sailors and soldiers, but he would suggest that in future such buildings should be placed at the disposal, at certain times, of ministers of other denominations besides the Church of England, and should be called Gospel halls. Neither the Navy nor the Army consisted of men of one religious denomination.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said it seemed to him that this was rather a large question. He should like to know whether the Marines were obliged to go to church, and for how many it was proposed to provide accommodation in these churches. In London only 18 per cent, of the people went to any church at all, and it might be supposed that only 18 per cent, of the Marines would go to any church. The hon. Gentleman should remember that certainly not more than half of the inhabitants of this country belonged to the Church of England. There were a great many Irishmen and Scotsmen in the Navy who did not belong to the Church of England, and the Admiralty had no right to spend such large sums on the Church of England, which was in no way superior to another "church. He asked whether churches would be built equally for Presbyterian; and Roman Catholics and Marines of other denominations. Assuming that they had to build a church for the Church of England, he should say that £2,000 would be an excessive amount to spend upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: What are you?] When Mr. Disraeli was asked what his religion was he said his religion was that of men of common sense, and when he was further asked what that religion was he said that sensible men did not tell other people what their religion was.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

They are all Confucians over there.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said they knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to introduce Chinese in South Africa. The next thing would be to introduce them into this country. The Government must not suppose that hon. Members on this side of the House who did not belong to the Church of England were going to vote money for the building of churches of that denomination. This sort of thing ought to be stopped. There must be religious equality if there was to be expenditure on religious matters. There must be equality between all sects. The Admiralty were acting in this matter most unfairly and imprudently.

MR. O'MARA

said he was sorry this question of religion had arisen. They were discussing the Navy and not the question of religion. He objected to the Vote on the ground that the people of Ireland would have to pay their contribution for these churches, though they were mostly Roman Catholics. If the Admiralty were going to provide Church of England services for the Marines, they ought to build other churches for those who did not belong to that Church. He hoped that his friends above the gangway would allow the Committee to proceed to the discussion of more important matters.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said there was a very big principle involved in this question. He represented a constituency which was overwhelmingly Catholic in religion. Why should they be called upon to contribute a single farthing towards the erection of a church to which they did not belong? This proposal only illustrated the injustice, in his opinion, of having any established religion at all. He would be the last person in this House to say one word disrespectful of the Established Church of this country, but was it too much to ask that the people he represented should have their feeling respected in this matter? The members of the Established Church in this country included some of the wealthiest people in the land, and surely they might be expected out of their wealth to provide church accommodation for those Marines who held the same religious belief as themselves. He asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it would not be possible to postpone this Vote and refer the whole question to those highly placed in the Church of England, both ecclesiastics and laymen. He was perfectly certain that there would be found sufficient independence in that Church to supply the £12,000 wanted for this building, and so obviate the necessity of coming to the House and asking Catholics and Nonconformists to vote money for a church in which they did not believe. He had not a single thought against the Church of England, but he claimed that there was a principle involved in this case; and he knew that there would be a feeling of indignation against this Vote amongst the 12,000,000 Catholics scattered throughout the Empire, and also amongst the Nonconformists.

*MR. ARTHUR LEE

said he entirely agreed that it was a very unfortunate thing that on this Vote they should have to discuss the question of various forms of religion. He did not think that hon. Members could be aware of the fact that it had been the practice of the Admiralty for many years past to grant financial assistance to all recognised denominations which served the religious needs of men in the naval service. He was himself engaged this moment in negotiations for the purchase of a site at Portland for a Roman Catholic Church for the men at that station; but it was practically an impossibility for the Admiralty to construct churches proportioned to the exact number of individuals belonging to the various denominations. He hoped the Committee would accept that explanation, or take a division, for it would be most unfortunate if the debate developed into a religious controversy which could serve no good purpose.

MR. WILLIAM McARTHUR (Cornwall, St. Austell)

said that he had heard with great satisfaction that it was the intention of the Admiralty to make no distinction whatever in the treatment of religious denominations. Would the Secretary to the Admiralty say on behalf of the Admiralty that so far as contributions towards church buildings were concerned, these should be in proportion to the number of worshippers, whether members of the Church of England, Nonconformists, or Catholics? If he was told that the Admiralty intended to treat the members of the Nonconformist bodies in exactly the same way as the members of the Church of England then his objection to this particular Vote would largely disappear.

MR. PRETYMAN

said it would be practically impossible to partition the grant available for religious purposes in exact proportion amongst the denominations, and it could not be expected. But the Admiralty did desire to apply the principle of absolute equality in every case where application was made for assistance, whether towards the church structure, or the spiritual needs of the men in the Navy or the Marines.

MR. BLACK (Banffshire)

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether this church was to be vested in the State, or in the hands of the Church of England? If in the latter case, the use of the church would be denied to any other denomination. This question had arisen in India, and had caused a great deal of feeling in Scotland. He supported the Amendment, and he hoped his hon. friend would press it to the division.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he was aware that small Votes had been given towards the promotion of religious services to the men who did not belong to the Church of England; but he did not think it could be shown by the Secretary to the Admiralty that so large a sum of money as £10,000 or £12,000 had been voted by the House of Commons for the building of any church except those belonging to the Church of England. Would the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, if an application was made, a Catholic church would be built out of public money in any district where at present the accommodation was insufficient? If the hon. Gentleman did so that would be satisfactory so far as he was concerned.

MR. ALFRED DAVIES

said that he was a Nonconformist, and the position of Nonconformists in regard to this matter had not been truly stated. They did not believe in State churches, and the vast majority of them would not accept a penny from the State for their churches. Nonconformists did not believe in State endowments, and they objected to the State giving a single penny to any religious body.

MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire. W.R., Morley)

said that, notwithstanding the assurance of the hon. Gentleman, all denominations had not been treated exactly alike. He reminded the hon. Gentleman that only this year, for the first time, had two large denominations, the Baptists and the Congregationalists, been allowed special ministers, and the men belonging to these denominations been permitted to go to their own churches. There was in Yorkshire a very large secondary school under the Endowed Schools Act. Recently a gentleman named Mr. Morrison built a church there, at a cost of £30,000, and though he was a member of the Church of England he stipulated that the church should not be consecrated, but only dedicated, and the bishop of the diocese had to accept these terms. The consequence was that the bishop was unable to prohibit any Nonconformist minister from preaching in that church. Could not the Government see their way to follow that example? At any rate, when money was provided out of the State funds for a church building, it was only reasonable that it should be available for religious services among the Marines belonging to different denominations.

*MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said that this was a very serious question, and ought not to be treated with any kind of levity. There were thousands of Marines in this particular place, and these men belonged to different religious denominations, or they would not be like the rest of the community. He did not object to due provision being made for members of the Established Church; but what he wanted to know was whether, if there were no other churches for Marines who were Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, or Congregationalists within a reasonable distance, were the men compelled to attend the Established Church? [Cries of "No."] Then was it not a fact that in garrison towns there were more kinds of religious service than one in military chapels? He happened to be in one a fortnight ago, where there was a Church of England service in the morning, a Catholic service later in the day, and a Methodist service in the evening. All these classes were duly provided for on a footing of perfect equality. What he wanted to know was whether this church, for which they were asked to pay £11,000, was to be used in the way he had described, or exclusively for Church of England services? If it was to be used for all parties he should vote for the grant, but if for one party alone he would vote against it.

SIR JOSEPH LEESE

said that the root, the foundation, of Nonconformity was that they should conduct their religious services for themselves. What he wanted to know was whether the pulpit of this church would be open, say, to a Presbyterian chaplain?

*ME. ARTHUR LEE

said that the policy which the Admiralty had adopted in the past had been that when claims or requests were made to them for financial assistance on account of the fact that sufficient church accommodation was not provided for the men under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, those requests were, as far as possible, met by proportionate grants out of the Admiralty fund. As far as possible equality was preserved, and the object of the Admiralty was to treat all denominations Oil a footing of equality. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for East Clare, he did not positively recall that in any Naval Vote in past years money had been taken for the purpose of erecting a Roman Catholic church. Quite recently, however, the Admiralty had arranged to provide a site for a Roman Catholic church at Portland, in consideration of the considerable number of Catholics in the Home Fleet. In other cases where there were small bodies of men who had received ministrations from the local Catholic priests, when applications were received for financial assistance they were met by grants from the Admiralty fund.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

asked if the building proposed to be erected was to be used exclusively for the purposes of the Church of England?

*MR. AINSWORTH (Argyll)

said this Vote was for the purpose of carrying out certain improvements at Marine barracks, and it was only fair that every one of those items should be treated on exactly the same lines. The items were for swimming-baths, reading-rooms, and churches, which he took it were intended to promote the intellectual, physical, and moral welfare of the garrison. The swimming-baths and reading-rooms were for the use of the whole garrison, and he wished to know if the churches to be built would remain the property of the Admiralty and be used for the benefit of the whole of the members of the garrison, whatever their religious opinions might be. It was not right to devote a building intended for the religious improvement of the whole garrison to any particular sect.

MR. WILLIAM McARTHUR

asked whether Roman Catholics and Nonconformists got the same proportion as the Church of England. If not, they were not putting all the denominations on a footing of equality. If the Nonconformists and the Catholics, for instance, did not get their fair proportion of the money spent, what became of the argument-put forward by the hon. Member that all bodies were treated upon a footing of absolute equality. If the Nonconformist and Catholic sailors and Marines did not get the same proportion according to their numbers as the sailors and Marines belonging to the Church of England, he submitted that they were not putting all denominations on a footing of equality. He had always been of opinion that although the Admiralty were inclined to make reasonable provisions for the various religious denominations, he had never gathered that they had ever put Roman Catholics and Nonconformists on the same footing as the members of the Church of England.

*MR. PRETYMAN

explained that the question of capitation grants did not arise on this Vote. As, however, the hon. Member had referred to the question, he might explain that capitation grants ware given to the ministers of all de-dominations whenever ministrations were performed to the men belonging to the Fleet, and they were granted upon a footing of absolute equality. As, however, naval chaplains were borne in so many ships of the Fleet, it followed, of course, that the necessity for capitation grants was not frequent in the case of the Established Church.

MR. WILLIAM McARTHUR

said what they were now considering was whether the same proportion of the money granted was spent upon the Catholic and Nonconformist sailors and Marines as was spent upon the sailors and Marines belonging to the Established Church.

MR. WHITTAKER (Yorkshire, W.R., Spen Valley)

said they had not been told whether this building when erected would be placed entirely in the hands of the Church of England or whether it would be available for the use of all denominations. There were cases where the Church of England had accepted those conditions, and, as the Admiralty had to find the money, they could insist upon those conditions if they liked. The Church of England would accept those conditions if the Admiralty insisted upon them. He wished to know definitely whether this building would be available for all denominations or not, and he should like a definite answer to that question.

MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)

asked if the land had already been bought for this church at Deal? If so, when the money was spent would the church remain the property of the nation or would it be handed over to somebody else? If the church was consecrated it would not belong to the nation except in the sense in which the State Church at present belonged to the nation. As a matter of business he thought they ought to have more particulars as to whether accommodation could not be found for the Marines in the existing churches at Deal. If the churches at Deal were so full that no services could be arranged during any portion of the day, he thought before this money was voted the Admiralty should satisfy the Committee that here was no available accommodation at present, and that there was real occasion for the spending of this money. The question whether the churches when built would be available for the services of all denominations was a very important one.

MR. LOUGH

thought it was a very reasonable request that those churches should be available for all denominations. He knew that in Deal there was plenty of church and chapel accommodation for Marines of all denominations; and therefore he thought it was extravagant, in these times of depression, to vote £11,000 for a church. They could get out of this difficulty by not building a church at all, and then they would save the money. He suggested, as a compromise, that they should spend half the amount, namely £1,000 for this purpose. The £1,000 for the church at Deal was the first item, and if it was withdrawn there would be no church built. Therefore he suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw this proposal to build a church at Dea1 altogether.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

said he wished to press the point of economy in this matter. The proposal was to provide church buildings for about 1,000 Marines at Eastney and Deal. He felt sure sufficient provision could be made for the men near Eastney, where there were three churches already, one with accommodation for 600 sittings, another with 630 sittings, and a third with 473 sittings. He was confident that provision could be made at those churches, and, on the ground of economy, he objected to spending this £2,000. Until they were told definitely that those churches would not have these Marines, or that there was not room for them, he should be compelled to vote against this proposal purely on the ground of economy.

*MR. ARTHUR LEE

said that Eastney was a considerable distance from Portsmouth, and it was incorrect to say that many churches were immediately at hand. Surely for a great service like the British Navy this country could afford to provide proper accommodation for the religious services of the men at the great marine depots such as Eastney and Deal. Moreover, these churches became shrines, where the memorials of officers and men, who died in the service of their country, were put, so that they became centres of national feeling. As to the specific question which had been put, no Admiralty churches, as far as he knew, were ever consecrated. There was no question of land to be transferred; the land was in the precincts of the barracks. The question whether other denominations should be permitted to use these buildings was one worthy of consideration, and he understood it had been done in the case of the Army at Aldershot. No application had ever been received as regarded the naval service, but if applications were made by other denominations for the use of these buildings he did not think they would receive unsympathetic consideration at the hands of the Admiralty. If hon. Members interested cared to get the various denominations to make requests they would be sympathetically considered by the Admiralty authorities. He did not think anything more could be usefully said by him upon this subject, and he hoped the Committee would now come to a decision upon this point.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said the hon. Gentleman had started an entirely new defence, for he had told them that these churches were intended to become the shrines where the memorials of officers and men were put. That was not the object of these buildings at all. Considering the vast amount of money they were spending upon the Navy this year he did not think they should be called upon to spend an additional amount upon churches. The hon. Gentleman had told them that the suggestion that these two churches should be used by dissenting bodies as well as the Church of England would be considered, but they all knew what was meant when a Government Department said anything would be considered. What they wanted was a pledge from the hon. Gentleman that if these two churches were built out of public money, not only Church of England services, but the services of other religious denominations should be permitted on application. He was surprised at the compromise suggested by the hon. Member for West Islington, and he was afraid that his hon. friend's principles were weakening. He had suggested that they should vote half this money, but he objected to yielding anything upon a question of principle. They were taking this course not merely to save £1,000, but to elevate themselves upon the pinnacle of principle, and his hon. friend the Member for Islington was only prepared to go half-way up the pinnacle. He protested against the marines being obliged to go to church. It was contrary to the most elementary principles of religious equality and the right of conscience to oblige anyone, because he was a paid servant of the State, to go to a place of worship.

MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)

said that as the Member representing Eastney perhaps the Committee would permit him to say a word or two. He wished to protest against any interference with the church at Eastney for the marines. They might as well take away the chapel from Wellington Barracks as remove the church at Eastney. Any proposal of the kind would be strongly resented by the men quartered there, for it would be an outrage upon their feelings. The hon. Member for North Camberwell was quite wrong with regard to the accommodation at Eastney, and if the hon. Member would come and stay with him at Portsmouth he would take J him to church on Sunday at Eastney, and when he had been there he felt sure he would make quite a different speech.

MR. RUNCIMAN

said he moved this reduction because he believed it to be an extravagant Vote, and because he objected to any public money being granted for the use of any particular denomination. The Civil Lord had told them that any applications from Nonconformist bodies would be favourably considered by the Admiralty, but they

would remind the hon. Gentleman that that was the form used by Members of Parliament when they received resolutions from their constituencies with which they did not agree. He asked the Civil Lord whether he would give a pledge that the church at Deal would be available for the use of other denominations beside the Church of England?

*MR. ARTHUR LEE

said he did not think he could go beyond the promise he had already made that any application from other denominations would be carefully considered at the Admiralty.

MR. RUNCIMAN

said that, in the absence of a definite pledge, he must press his Motion.

Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes, 109; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 40.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Field, William Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Flavin, Michael Joseph Nussey, Thomas Willans
Allen, Charles P. Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)
Ambrose, Robert Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Hammond, John O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. Harmsworth, R. Leicester O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W,)
Boland, John Hayden, John Patrick O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Brigg, John Helme, Norval Watson O'Dowd, John
Broadhurst, Henry Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Malley, William
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Joyce, Michael O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Burke, E. Haviland Kearley, Hudson E. Partington, Oswald
Caldwell, James Kilbride, Denis Pirie, Duncan V.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Labouchere, Henry Power, Patrick Joseph
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lambert, George Priestley, Arthur
Crean, Eugene Layland-Barratt, Francis Reddy, M.
Cremer, William Randal Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cullinan, J. Leigh, Sir Joseph Redmond, William (Clare)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Levy, Maurice Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Delany, William Lough, Thomas Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roche, John
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roe, Sir Thomas
Dobbie, Joseph M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Russell, T. W.
Donelan, Captain A. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Doogan, P. C. M'Kean, John Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Doughty, George M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Shackleton, David James
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Markham, Arthur Basil Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Elibank, Master of Mooney, John J. Sheehy, David
Emmott, Alfred Murnaghan, George Shipman, Dr. John G.
Farrell, James Patrick Murphy, John Soares, Ernest J.
Ffrench, Peter Nannetti, Joseph P. Spear, John Ward
Sullivan, Donal Weir, James Galloway Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) White, George (Norfolk) Young, Samuel
Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Tomkinson, James Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Runciman and Mr. Black.
Toulmin, George Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Ure, Alexander Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gardner, Ernest Pretyman, Ernest George
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Purvis, Robert
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Randles, John S.
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) Rankin, Sir James
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Ratcliff, R. F.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gretton, John Renwick, George
Bain, Colonel James Robert Greville, Hon. Ronald Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge
Balcarres, Lord Hall, Edward Marshall Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r. Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bignold, Arthur Hickman, Sir Alfred Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Bigwood, James Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Blundell, Colonel Henry Houston, Robert Paterson Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hunt, Rowland Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Butcher, John George Keswick, William Seely Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Knowles, Sir Lees Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Cavendish, V. C W. (Derbyshire Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N. R. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor, Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Chapman, Edward Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stock, James Henry
Charrington, Spencer Lowe, Francis William Stroyan, John
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Thornton, Percy M.
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Maconochie, A. W. Tuff, Charles
Compton, Lord Alwyne M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Valentia, Viscount
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas M'Calmont, Colonel James Walker, Col. William Hail
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh. Warde, Colonel C. E.
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Cust, Henry John C. Milvain, Thomas Webb, Colonel William George
Dalkeith, Earl of Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Davenport, William Bromley Moore, William Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Dickson, Charles Scott Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Willoughby do Eresby, Lord
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Morpeth, Viscount Willox, Sir John Archibald
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Morrison, James Archibald Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wylie, Alexander
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Parker, Sir Gilbert Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Parkes, Ebenezer
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Flower, Sir Ernest Percy, Earl TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Forster, Henry William Pilkington, Colonel Richard Alexander Acland-Hood,
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) Plummer, Walter R. and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Galloway, William Johnson Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Original Question again proposed:—

Mr. PRETYMAN

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 41.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gardner, Ernest Pretyman, Ernest George
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Purvis, Robert
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Randles, John S.
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc) Rankin, Sir James
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Ratcliff, R. F.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Gretton, John Renwick, George
Bain, Colonel James Robert Greville, Hon. Ronald Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge
Balcarres, Lord Hall, Edward Marshall Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Round, Rt. Hon. James
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bignold, Arthur Hickman, Sir Alfred Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford
Bigwood, James Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Blundell, Colonel Henry Houston, Robert Paterson Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hunt, Rowland Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Butcher, John George Keswick, William Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Knowles, Sir Lees Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N.R Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, Hon. W. F. D (Strand)
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc. Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Spear, John Ward
Chapman, Edward Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Charrington, Spencer Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Stirling Maxwell, Sir John M.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stock, James Henry
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lowe, Francis William Stroyan, John
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth) Thornton, Percy M.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Compton, Lord Alwyne Maconochie, A. W. Tuff, Charles
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Valentia, Viscount
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) M'Calmont, Colonel James Walker, Col. William Hall
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Maxwell, W J.H.(Dumfriesshire Warde, Colonel C. E.
Cust, Henry John C. Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Webb, Colonel William George
Dalkeith, Earl of Milvain, Thomas Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Davenport, William Bromley Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Dickson, Charles Scott Moore, William Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow Willox, Sir John Archibald
Doughty, George Morpeth, Viscount Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Morrison, James Archibald Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Fielden; Edward Brocklehurst Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wylie, Alexander
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Parker, Sir Gilbert
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Parkes, Ebenezer
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Flower, Sir Ernest Percy, Earl Alexander Acland-Hood
Forster, Henry William Pilkington, Colonel Richard and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W. Plummer, Walter R.
Galloway, William Johnson Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Allen, Charles P. Barry, E. (Cork, S.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Ambrose, Robert Beaumont, Wentworth C.
Boland, John Joyce, Michael Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Brigg, John Kearley, Hudson, E. Redmond, William (Clare)
Broadhurst, Henry Kilbride, Denis Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Labouchere, Henry Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Lambert, George Roche, John
Burke, E. Haviland Layland-Barratt, Francis Roe, Sir Thomas
Caldwell, James Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Runciman, Walter
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Leigh, Sir Joseph Russell, T. W.
Causton, Richard Knight Levy, Maurice Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lough, Thomas Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Crean, Eugene MacVeagh, Jeremiah Shackleton, David James
Cremer, William Randal M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cullinan, J. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Sheehy, David
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) M'Kean, John Shipman, Dr. John G.
Delany, William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Soares, Ernest J.
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Markham, Arthur Basil Sullivan, Donal
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Mooney, John J Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Dobbie, Joseph Murnaghan, George Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Donelan, Captain A. Murphy, John Tomkinson, James
Doogan, P. C. Nannetti, Joseph P. Toulmin, George
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Ure, Alexander
Elibank, Master of Nussey, Thomas Willans Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Emmott, Alfred O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Farrell, James Patrick O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Weir, James Galloway
Ffrench, Peter O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) White, George (Norfolk)
Field, William O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Flynn, James Christopher O'Dowd, John Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Malley, William Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Huddersf'd
Hammond, John O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Young, Samuel
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Partington, Oswald
Hayden, John Patrick Pirie, Duncan, V. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Black.
Holme, Norval Watson Power, Patrick Joseph
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Priestley, Arthur
Jones William(Carnarvonshire) Reddy, M.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,634,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in

Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."

The Committee divided: —Ayes, 184: Noes, 85. (Division List No. 42.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cayzer, Sir Charles William Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Allen, Charles P. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart
Anson, Sir William Reynell Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A.(Worc. Elibank, Master of
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Chapman, Edward Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Charrington, Spencer Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Churchill, Winston Spencer Finlay, Sir Robert Bannateny
Bailey, James (Walworth) Clive, Captain Percy A. FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Balcarres, Lord Collings, Rt. Hon, Jesse Flower, Sir Ernest
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Forster, Henry William
Balfour, Kenneth, R.(Christch. Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Compton, Lord Alwyne Galloway, William Johnson
Bentinck, Lord Henry, C. Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Gardner, Ernest
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Bignold Arthur Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Bigwood, James Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cust, Henry John C. Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Dalkeith, Earl of Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gretton, John
Burdett-Coutts, W. Davenport, William Bromley Greville, Hon. Ronald
Butcher, John George Dickson, Charles Scott Hall, Edward Marshall
Caldwell, James Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Doughty, George Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Harmsworth, R. Leicester
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th) Morrison, James Archibald Sharpe, William Edward T.
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Morton, Arthur, H. Aylmer Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hickman, Sir Alfred Nussey, Thomas Willans Spear, John Ward
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)
Houston, Robert Paterson Parkes, Ebenezer Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Partington, Oswald Stock, James Henry
Hunt, Rowland Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Stroyan, John
Kearley, Hudson E. Percy, Earl Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Pilkington, Colonel Richard Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ.
Keswick, William Hummer, Walter R. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Knowles, Sir Lees Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Thornton, Percy M.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Pretyman, Ernest George Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. N.R Purvis, Robert Tuff, Charles
Layland-Barratt, Francis Randles, John S. Valentia, Viscount
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham Rankin, Sir James Walker, Col, William Hall
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Ratcliff, R. F. Warde, Colonel C. E.
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Renwick, George Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge Webb, Colonel William George
Lowe, Francis William Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton
Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Round, Rt. Hon. James Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Royds, Clement Molyneux Willox, Sir John Archibald
Maconochie, A. W. Russell, T. W. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath
M'Calmont, Colonel James Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hudd'rsf'd
Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Wylie, Alexander
Malvain, Thomas Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Moore, William Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W.) Alexander Acland-Hood
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Morpeth, Viscount Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight
NOES.
Abraham, William, (Cork, N.E. Helme, Norval Watson Reddy, M.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Ambrose, Robert Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Redmond, William (Clare)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Joyce, Michael Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Black, Alexander William Kilbride, Denis Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Boland, John Labouchere, Henry Roche, John
Brigg, John Lambert, George Roe, Sir Thomas
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Leigh, Sir Joseph Runciman, Walter
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Levy, Maurice Shackleton, David James
Burke, E. Haviland Lough, Thomas Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sheehy, David
Condon, Thomas Joseph M'Hugh, Patrick A. Shipman, Dr. John C.
Crean, Eugene M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Sullivan, Donal
Cremer, William Randal Markham, Arthur Basil Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cullinan, J. Mooney, John J. Tomkinson, James
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Murnaghan, George Toulmin, George
Delany, William Murphy, John Ure, Alexander
Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway Nannetti, Joseph P. Weir, James Galloway
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) White, George (Norfolk)
Dobbie, Joseph O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Doogan, P. C. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Emmott, Alfred O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Farrell, James Patrick O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Ffrench, Peter O'Dowd, John Young, Samuel
Field, William O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Malley, William
Flynn, James Christopher O'Shaughnessy, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Pirie, Duncan V. Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Hammond, John Power, Patrick Joseph
Hayden, John Patrick Priestley, Arthur

And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolution to be reported upon Mon- day next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.