- 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,768,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1906."
- 2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,816,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1906."
- 3. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,827,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1906."
§ Resolutions read a second time.
§ First Resolution.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
moved to reduce the Vote by £100. He did so, he said, in order to renew the protest, which he had made on a previous occasion against the continued expenditure at Wei-hai-Wei. He thought the Government should now face the question of clearing off these items of expenditure in connection with this bathing station.
To leave out '£2,768,300,' and insert '£2,768,200'—(Mr. Whitley)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed. "That, '£2,768,300, stand part of the Resolution."
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,) Suffolk, Woodbridge
said if the hon. Gentleman believed this expenditure was only made for the purpose of a bathing establishment he had a perfect right to object to it, but this Vote, as a matter of fact, went a little further than that. Wei-hai-Wei was necessary as a summer base for the Fleet on the China Station. It was rendered necessary by the fact that the climate of Hong-Kong was very bad in the summer months, and, therefore, it was essential to have a summer base in which the Fleet could carry out its necessary training exercises. This was not a large expenditure, and it was fully justified, in the opinion of the Admiralty, by the training advantages offered by Wei-hai-Wei in respect to climate and situation.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)
said the hon. Gentleman opposite had asked his hon. friend the meaning of this increased expenditure at Wei-hai-Wei. That was a Question they were all entitled to ask, and he would repeat it because he happened to know something about the place and took an interest in this matter. A friend of his who had returned from South Africa was sent out to Wei-hai-Wei in a military capacity for the purpose of training troops. That gentleman had learned a good deal about the capacity and methods of the Boers, and had said it was extremely instructive to compare the capacity of the Chinese and the Boers, and he expressed his opinion that if we were going to retain this place for any length of time we should have a first-class Army composed of Chinese troops then in training which might be used to very great advantage to assist our forces in the Far East. But Wei-hai-Wei as a place of arms had come to a standstill, and he (Mr. Lucas) was rather curious to know what was the meaning of the increase of expenditure. The Secretary to the Admiralty had said that Wei-hai-Wei was a valuable adjunct to Hong-Kong, because Hong-Kong, as everybody who had been there knew, was not a very 473 salubrious place in the summer. Wei-hai-Wei, therefore, had its advantages. He, for one, did not complain that the hon. Member had thought proper to move a reduction of the Vote. He hoped the Admiralty would not go to unnecessary expenditure, but as long as money was not wasted he did not think anybody could wisely complain of the very moderate increase which appeared in the Estimates this year.
Since the Vote came up on the last occasion several events had happened. Manœuvres had recently taken place, and it was of the first importance for us to know what had been the upshot of those manœuvres. He desired to explain to the Secretary of the Admiralty why he pressed him for as full an Answer as he felt justified in giving. Operations connected with the Navy were to a great extent concealed in mystery. To a large portion of the population the Navy was not only an unknown quantity, but an unseen quantity, and they had no means whatever of informing themselves as to what progress had been made with the Fleet in comparison with the fleets of other nations, or as to our naval requirements He did not ask what would be the result of putting to the test the preliminary operations which were decided on in time of peace; but he wished the Secretary to the Admiralty to satisfy, as far as he could, the questions which arose in the public mind, and solve the doubts which suggested themselves to the man who contemplated the possible result of a real contest with a great naval Power. Everybody knew something of what the Army was doing, and were inclined to form an opinion as to the capacity of the military forces. When the Army was put to the test it became a common saying that our military misfortunes were all learned in the Long Valley at Aldershot. What they wanted to be sure of was that in the event of our Navy being put to a similar trial there would be no danger of deficiencies being manifested which would imperil our position in a time of crisis. They wanted to know what reports had been received as to the naval manœuvres.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
contended that the hon. Member 474 could not refer to the naval manœuvres on this Vote.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
said if the hon. Member intended to lead up to the question of the construction of ships it might be in order; but the question of tactics would not be relevant to the Vote.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS
said he was coming to a definite point respecting the personnel of the squadrons in reserve.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
submitted that only the personnel of the dockyards could be dealt with under the Vote.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS
said he had plenty to say on the personnel of the dockyards, but if he were told he was not allowed to allude to the personnel of the Fleet, he would not pursue that point.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
said he did not know what the hon. Member was going to say, but if he was going to discuss the quality of the men and the work they had done on the ships, that would not be relevant to the Vote, but if he proposed to discuss the construction of ships, he thought that might be in order.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS
presumed that when ships were sent to sea for the manœuvres, the dockyards were interested in the question of their efficiency; but he would leave that point. He wanted to know, however, whether the Government could tell the House what was their policy in the matter of salvage work, whether they intended to develop the capabilities of the Royal Navy for doing its own salvage operations when necessary? That was a matter to which he had called attention recently, but had not received a reply from the representative of the Admiralty. He also wanted to know what was the present intention of the Admiralty in the matter of boilers. He stated the other day, from the best information he could get, that the Belleville boilers had been proved and were said to be the best available, not only because they gave the best record of steam power 475 at sea, but because they could be better repaired at sea without sending the ship into harbour.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
observed the Belleville boilers were not manufactured in the Royal dockyards, and, therefore, could not be referred to on this Vote.
§ MR. REGINALD LUCAS
said he would not press the question; and if he were not permitted to refer to the manœuvres he had no more to say.
THE EARL OF DALKEITH (Roxburgh)
said he was unfortunately not able to be present during the Committee stage of this Vote, and he had just one or two Questions to put. First of all he noticed the reduction of the Dockyard Votes for which a great deal of credit was taken. Although there had been a considerable decrease in wages there had been no corresponding decrease in salaries; on the contrary, there had been an increase. In the home dockyards there had been an increase of 2 per cent. in the salaries, and a decrease of 10 per cent. in the wages, while in the foreign dockyards the salaries were increased by 6 per cent., and the wages decreased by 20 per cent. The House should certainly have some explanation with regard to that. He also wished to know whether the reduction in wages was not to a large extent caused by the recent shipbuilding programme having been more or less completed, and the vessels to be kept in repair being of a newer type and therefore requiring fewer repairs. Since the Vote had been in Committee manœuvres had taken place which would perhaps give the Admiralty a better opportunity of saying how the new Admiralty scheme was working out. He did not wish to discuss those manœuvres at all, but he would like to know whether in consequence of manning the ships with what were termed nucleus crews for three and sometimes six months previous to the manœuvres, there had been a decrease in the work in the dockyards because of the ships being kept in better order, and whether, owing to their being kept in commission and being sent to sea, there had been fewer mishaps to them; because if that were so that would show that we had largely added to our 476 efficiency by the course pursued. He also wished to know whether the Admiralty were satisfied with what was being done to keep the older ships in repair, and he would like to have some information as to whether the Admiralty did not consider there was a great risk in leaving those ships in their present state, a state in which they were absolutely useless. In the fight between Japan and Russia there were certainly two older armed cruisers than any which we had in our Navy, and that showed that it was advisable for the Committee not to be too keen in their criticisms, but that they might allow a small expenditure to be made so as to keep the machinery of these old ships in order, in case they were required in time of emergency.
With regard to the unfortunate accidents with the submarine, be wished to know what the Admiralty were doing or what they intended to do to prevent these accidents. There had been two very bad disasters with submarines, and they saw from the Press that the same unfortunate accidents occurred in foreign navies. He assumed that the boats which had suffered from these accidents were now in the hands of the dockyard authorities, and he would, therefore, like to know whether in the course of their investigations they had been able to find out if those accidents were due to faulty construction. He thought they ought to have some assurance that something was being done to prevent the occurrence of submarine accidents, and to secure the safety of the men who manned them. He understood that it was very difficult at the present time for the officers and men engaged on submarines to insure their lives at anything like the usual rates for men employed in the Navy. They had been told that the modern warships were going to be more heavily armed than in the past, and he wished to know whether it was due to the larger tonnage, or were they going to build them lighter and more in accordance with the "Swiftsure" design. He was inclined to think that the Admiralty bad been taking rather too much credit for having effected great economies. He could quite see that there would be large economy in the dockyards' expenses 477 and repairing if they were to have only comparatively new ships in the Navy. It was evident, however, that if a ship would get out of date quicker under the new system they would have to have a larger capital expenditure upon new ships. Although he admitted that a great deal had been done in this direction and great economy had been effected in regard to the dockyards, still they must not forget that there had been a sudden reversal of the policy which had been hitherto adopted, and, for all they knew, if another Government came into power they might make another change in the direction of adopting the policy of former years. Before making such very great changes and taking too much credit for the reductions which had been made in one year, the House should be allowed to form some judgment upon the question and see what chance there was of such a policy being continuous.
§ MR. SPEAR (Devonshire, Tavistock)
said he should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite because he considered that it was only due to those men who endangered their lives by manning our ships and fighting our battles when required, that every precaution should be taken to provide places where they could recuperate their health. That was the object of the Government in carrying out the present policy in regard to Wei-hai-Wei. It was of great importance that if they had the best possible ships they should also have the best possible men, and they could not achieve this unless they showed more solicitude for the health and welfare of the men as they were doing by making arrangements at Wei-hai-Wei, whereby men whose health suffered would have an opportunity of recuperating. He thought the Government would make a great mistake if they refrained from maintaining the present state of things at Wei-hai-Wei.
He agreed with all that the noble Lord had said about submarines. They had recently had a very sad catastrophe, and he wished to impress upon the Government the importance of having in the dockyards the personnel and equipment necessary to grapple with such misfortunes when 478 they did occur. The greatest possible credit was due to the men, in the case of the submerging of the submarine at Plymouth, for their courage, and the manner in which they did their utmost to raise the submarine as quickly as possible. He urged upon the Government the importance of having at each dockyard implements, equipment, and material of the best possible and most effective description to deal with such disasters in order to raise as quickly as possible a submarine in case of accident. When they read of the dreadful suspense and considered what those brave fellows had suffered, they would see the necessity of doing what he had suggested. Ha knew that the Secretary to the Amiralty was fully alive to the importance of this question, and he trusted that at Devonport and other dockyards he would see that everything was done that could be done to afford speedy relief in case of accidents of this kind.
With regard to the ships which were being withdrawn from the Navy, he agreed that it was unwise that ships of the second class should be kept in the first line of our naval defence, but if some of those vessels, instead of being sold at a small price to be broken up, were kept in reserve, the time might come when, pressed heavily by a severe naval engagement, those vessels might be of considerable service as supporters of the first line of defence. Having regard to the fact that our food supply depended upon the efficiency of the Navy, and the desirability of securing the best possible men to man our ships, it was important that they should not adopt a cheese-paring policy. He was sure that the taxpayer, although his burdens were very heavy at present, would rather pay a little more than see the Navy lacking the necessary funds to maintain it in a state of complete efficiency.
§ *MR. CUMMING MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)
said he had been to Wei-hai-Wei. He admired the surroundings of that beautiful spot and it was a splendid place for the Fleet as a health resort to recuperate strength during the fearfully hot weather along the Southern Chinese Coast—a chain of mountains if 479 linked together round the wide-stretching harbour of Wei-hai-Wei would form a magnificent harbour of refuge in the far Eastern Seas—and as a health resort was unequalled, for on the shores were wells bubbling with pristine medical waters of great curative power, well known to and appreciated by the Japanese when they held the place at the first capture of Port Arthur by them. Naval officers had informed him that in any weather ships of the largest tonnage could go into Wei-hai-Wei. Things had changed considerably in the Far East, and he thought that the Japanese had done a most marvellous deed in taking for the second time that wonderful fortress and harbour of Port Arthur. The present Prime Minister, as Foreign Minister in succession to Lord Salisbury, he thought, had shown wonderful prescience in obtaining a lease from China of Wei-hai-Wei. This was the act of a wise Government, and he thanked God that they had a Government in power which from past experience and knowledge—endorsed by the sentiment of the world had seen the wisdom of holding Wei-hai-Wei harbour as a base for future naval operations. Now that we had the Japanese as allies in possession once again of Port Arthur, he trusted that a renewed arrangement might be entered into with China and Japan by which we might have an extended lease for ever of this excellent harbour. It should not be forgotten that this country did 75 per cent. of the Chinese trade with foreigners, and China of her own free will was very pleased to give us the lease of Wei-hai-Wei for as long as Russia held Port Arthur. He would like to see the name of our Prime Minister for ever identified with the retention of this great harbour as one of his greatest masterpieces of foreign policy in the East. For the development of their trade and the prosperity of the Empire it was necessary to keep all the territory they had got. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] With regard to Newhaven he wished to point out that at this place there was a large valley which might easily be made into one of the finest dockyards in the world.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)
said he was sure the House had listened with great pleasure 480 to the personal reminiscences of the hon. Member for Rotherhithe. He wished to say a few words about the extraordinary proposition put forward by the Opposition upon this occasion. The hon. Member opposite had moved a reduction of this Vote without a speech, and that was somewhat extraordinary. He did not think it would be advisable to abandon Wei-hai-Wei at this moment, Had hon. Members opposite failed to see that one of the great disadvantages which Russia had been placed under in regard to her Navy during the present war had been that she had no ports convenient for her ships to go to. [OPPOSITION laughter and cries of "Oh, oh!"] That laughter proved that they read no other newspaper except the Daily News, which did not take up Imperial matters.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY
, continuing, said that the failure of Russia was largely due to the fact that she had no places in the Far East for her ships to go to to refit and coal. Hon. Members opposite did not appear to realise that times had changed somewhat since the days of Nelson. He thought he had now shown the hollowness of the Motion which had been moved by the hon. Member for Halifax. The Government had often been told that they were disrespectful to the House of Commons, but what greater disrespect could be shown to the House of Commons than to move an important reduction upon questions like this, and then decline to say anything in support of such a proposal. As to the question of repairs, he said he was in favour of the policy of having repairs done in the Government dockyards instead of in the yards of private firms. When a contractor built a new ship he estimated for a fixed sum, but a contractor could not give a definite estimate for repairs. He did not wish to cast reflections on the honesty of contractors, but he thought that in the interests of economy it was advisable that repairs should be done in Government dockyards. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] This was a matter of finance, and he was quite certain that the right 481 policy was the one which the Government was now following. Contractors were human, and they were inclined to take advantage of the fact that it was impossible to say in advance how much repairing work would be absolutely necessary.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydfil)
said the Amendment had reference to Wei-hai-Wei. He asked whether the hon. Member's remarks were relevant.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
said Wei-hai-Wei was one of the subjects, but the discussion had ranged over the whole of Section 1 of the Vote.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
said if the hon. Member's Motion had related solely to Wei-hai-Wei he would have accepted it, but a great many other questions had been raised to which the Motion, if accepted, would also apply.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY
said he was glad to see that there was a decrease in the cost for "teams." He understood that there had been a considerable waste of public money in connection with that item in former years.
§ SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)
said he wished to draw the attention of the Admiralty to the subject of submarines. These vessels were only in the experimental stage, and he found that not only in our own experience but in that of foreign countries their use was attended with serious danger to those on board. He wished to ask whether the Government had under consideration the adoption of means to provide against that danger. He hoped the scientific resources of the dockyard authorities were not unequal to the task of devising some method of providing the safety which was desired.
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON (Hackney, S.)
said the amount stated in the Vote for Wei-hai-Wei in respect of salaries and allowances was very small, and it did not involve any great question of policy. If we held Port Arthur it 482 would be unnecessary to stick to Wei-hai-Wei, but he considered it desirable that we should have it, seeing that we had really no other place of our owl north of Hong-Kong. Hon. Members might say, "Why do you want Wei-hai-Wei when you have an alliance with Japan?" It should be remembered that we might be at war with another Power and that Japan might be a neutral. It was conceivable that we might be in hostility with Japan, and therefore it was perfectly clear that we should have no dockyard at all in the neighbourhood if we gave up Wei-hai-Wei, and also that we should have no coaling station. Recent events had made the northern portion of the China Seas infinitely more important than it was in former years.
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON
said that was the contention of the hon. Member, but he did not think the House would accept that view.
§ MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON
said if Wei-hai-Wei was only a bathing establishment he would not be in favour of retaining it, but he contended that under certain circumstances which might arise it would be of the greatest use to us. He called attention to the charge of £90 in the Vote for the Naval Store Depot at the West India Docks, and asked why so small a sum was allotted for that store. In the matter of expenditure on naval works he had always felt that more should be done for Ireland. One of the best places where ships could be built and repaired for the Royal Navy was Haulbowline, but it was in a position of distinct inferiority to almost all the other docks. He suggested that something should be done to improve its position.
§ *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE,) Hampshire, Fareham
regretted that certain hon. 483 Members should have treated the question of the provision of a sanatorium for the China Fleet as a joke. He had served on the China Station through three summers, and the climate at that season was indeed no joke. It was of the utmost importance to the Fleet, that some healthy place should be chosen where the ships could go, and the men could carry out their shore exercises. The present expenditure on Wei-hai-Wei was only for the purpose of fitting the place as a sanatorium; it was moderate in amount, and it was money well spent. He would remind hon. Members that important events were taking place in the Far East, and surely it was only right that we should do everything in our power to make the best out of the lease of Wei-hai-Wei which we had obtained from China.
The question of dockyard salvage plant in relation to submarines was a very difficult one. The public and the Press had perhaps naturally jumped to the conclusion that if such plant had been maintained the deplorable loss of life in connection with the Submarines A1 and A8 would have been obviated. The Admiralty, aware of the deep feeling excited in the country, had given anxious consideration to the matter, but there were many objections to keeping salvage plant to be used in the event of possible accidents to submarines. It was obvious that the expense could only be justified by the hope or assurance of increasing the chance of saving life. But these accidents did not necessarily take place close to a port or dockyard. The modern submarine had a very large radius of action, and it was merely a coincidence that the accidents in the case of the Submarines A1 and A8 took place at a short distance from port. In the case of the A1, the lives of the crew were destroyed with such rapidity that no salvage plant, however near, could have saved them. In regard to A8, again, according to the best information of the Admiralty, the crew could not have remained alive for more than forty minutes; and it would not have been possible for the most efficient salvage plant to get from the dockyard end raise the vessel in that short time.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
said they could have lived for more than forty minutes as was shown the other day in the case of the French submarine which sank.
§ *MR. ARTHUR LEE
said that the information of the Admiralty was that the crew could not have lived for more than forty minutes. He was not in a position to speak of the French submarine, because the Admiralty were not yet in possession of definite information as to what had happened. If hon. Members consulted any one familiar with the operations of salvage companies they would find that there was no sort of stock-plant that could be applied to every type of vessel. Each case required almost special plant, and as far as salving the vessel itself was concerned there was no need for the Admiralty to keep its own plant. The important part of these salvage operations was the work done by specially trained divers, who must be constantly employed to be kept efficient. The Admiralty could not keep salvage divers constantly employed, and so they thought it was better to depend on private enterprise for salvage work.
As to executing the repairs to the Fleet in the Royal dockyards, that question had been gone into very thoroughly at the Admiralty during the last few months, and the Admiralty had decided that the policy in the future would be to execute all the repairs of the Fleet in normal times in the dockyards. It was quite true that recently a good deal of the work had been given to private yards; but that was because the arrears had become so great. The Admiralty did not disguise the fact that the cost of repairs was greater in private yards than in the Royal dockyards.
§ *MR. ARTHUR LEE
said he hoped he was not reflecting on any interest in which the hon. Member was concerned.
§ SIR JAMES JOICEY
said he was not interested in any private yard for 485 repairing war ships, but he was satisfied that the cost of repairs in private yards was not greater than in the dockyards.
§ *MR. ARTHUR LEE
The Admiralty had only one thing to consider in this matter and that was economy, and there was no doubt whatever that the cost of repairs in private yards had been considerably greater than it was in the Government yards. They had, therefore, decided that all repairs that it was possible to effect in the Government yards should be carried out there. With regard to a suggestion that had been made by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe that a new dockyard for repairs should be made at Newhaven, that scheme was apparently intended to include a harbour of shelter for merchant ships and fishing boats. He could only say that it was not the policy of the Admiralty to increase the number of dockyards indiscriminately, but rather to improve the efficiency of those in existence. He was afraid, therefore, he could not hold out any hope that this suggestion would be seriously considered.
An important point had been raised as to the establishment of nucleus crews, and its effect on the amount of repairs done in the dockyards. He knew there had been apprehension in the dockyards as to the falling off of the amount of
§ repairs that would ordinarily be done in them; but the keeping of nucleus crews on board the ships who could remedy small defects was not only proving a great economy in preventing deterioration, but had also given most useful employment to artificers and the nucleus crews. He had been asked a question with regard to Haul-bowline. He was afraid he could not hold out much hope that the amount of repairs there would be largely increased but there were certain works in progress, and when they were completed the opportunities for the employment of labour there would probably increase. The railwayfication of the dockyards, now in progress, would do away with much horse and man power in the transport of materials, and that would involve an enormous saving.
§ MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)
, amid loud and continued cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide," rose to continue the debate
§ Question put, "That he Question be now put."
§ The House divided:— Ayes. 157; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 2 6.)487
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F||Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A. (Worc.)||Finlay, Rt. Hn. Sir R.B (Inv'rn's|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Chapman, Edward||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cheetham, John Frederick||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Forster, Henry William|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O||Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cremer, Wm. Randal||Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r)||Cullinan, J.||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry|
|Bigwood, James||Davenport, William Bromley||Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil|
|Boland, John||Delany, William||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Dickson, Charles Scott||Harwood, George|
|Brassey, Albert||Dobbie, Joseph||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Brigg, John||Doogan, P. C.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-||Higham, John Sharp|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)||Hill, Henry Staveley|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Edwards, Frank||Hoult, Joseph|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Buxton, N.E (York, N.R, Whitby||Fellowes, Rt. Hn. AilwynEdwd.||Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham|
|Caldwell, James||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Hunt, Rowland|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew|
|Joicey, Sir James||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Sheehy, David|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Norman, Henry||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W||Spear, John Ward|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn Col. W.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (Northants|
|Lamont, Norman||O'Dowd, John||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||O'Malley, William||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham||O'Mara, James||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Parkes, Ebenezer||Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.|
|Lloyd-George, David||Parrott, William||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Percy, Earl||Tillett, Louis John|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Tomkinson, James|
|Lundon, W.||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Tuff, Charles|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Power, Patrick Joseph||Turnour, Viscount|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Pretyman, Ernest George||Ure, Alexander|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Valentia, Viscount|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Rickett, J. Compton||Walrond, Rt, Hn. Sir Wm. H.|
|M'Crae, George||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||White, George (Norfolk)|
|M'Kean, John||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)||Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd|
|Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Mount, William Arthur||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Murphy, John||Shackleton, David James||J. H. Whitley and Mr.|
|Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Dalziel.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords N.W.||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Heaton, John Henniker||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir J. C.||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne|
|Gordon, Hn. J.E (Elgin & Nairn||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire||Wolff and Mr. Purvis.|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)|
§ Question put accordingly, "That '£2,768,300' stand part of the Resolution."488
§ The House divided:— Ayes, 115; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 277.)489
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Finlay, Rt. Hn. Sir R.B(Inv'rn'ss|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Forster. Henry William|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Wore.||Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.||Chapman, Edward||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredck.|
|Arrol, Sir William||Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Gordon, Hn. J.E(Elgin&Nairn|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r||Davenport, William Bromley||Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nd'rry|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Dickson, Charles Scott||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hay, Hn. Claude George|
|Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW|
|Bigwood, James||Fellowes, Rt. Hn AilwynEdwd.||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Brassey, Albert||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.||Hill, Henry Staveley|
|Hogg, Lindsay||M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)|
|Hoult, Joseph||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)||Spear, John Ward|
|Hunt, Rowland||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Mount, William Arthur||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred||Parkes, Ebenezer||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W||Percy, Earl||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Tuff, Charles|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Lee, Arthur H (Hants Fareham||Pretyman, Ernest George||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Purvis, Robert||Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund Lyne|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Waiter (Bristol, S.||Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Lowe, Francis William||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)||Round, Rt. Hon. James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Sadler, Col Samuel Alexander||Viscount Valentia.|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Higham, John Sharp||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Joicey, Sir James||Parrott, William|
|Boland, John||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire||Redmond, John E (Waterford)|
|Brigg, John||Joyce, Michael||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Kearley, Hudson E.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W||Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Lamont, Norman||Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight|
|Buxton, N.E(York, NR, Whitby||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall||Shackleton, David James|
|Caldwell, James||Lewis, John Herbert||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Lloyd-George, David||Sheehy, David|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Lundon, W.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Lyell, Charles Henry||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Crae, George||Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.|
|Delany, William||M'Kean, John||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Dobbie, Joseph||M'Kenna, Reginald||Tillett, Louis John|
|Doogan, P. C.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Tomkinson, James|
|Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)||Murphy, John||Ure, Alexander|
|Edwards, Frank||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Norman, Henry||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Findlay, Alexander(Lanark NE||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W|
|Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.||TELLBBS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil||O'Dowd, John||J. H. Whitley and Mr.|
|Harwood, George||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Dalziel.|
|Harden, John Patrick||O'Malley, William|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Mara, James|
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ MR. DALZIEL
said he regretted that the short time which was now available would prevent them from discussing some of the more important questions which they were anxious to get to earlier 490 in the evening, but from some unexplained cause the supporters of the Government preferred to occupy the time. He desired to obtain some information from the Secretary to the Admiralty upon various points. He wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman saw any reason for altering the decision of the Admiralty with reference 491 to the receiving of deputations of workmen at the Government dockyards. He did not see why the hon. Gentleman should not receive such deputations provided that they were thoroughly representative of the particular branch of labour which they were supposed to represent. The ordinary course was to send written representations, but that was unsatisfactory, and the men complained that they were not brought properly into touch with the Admiralty. With regard to discharges at the dockyards he should like to know the number who had, up to the present been discharged, and perhaps the Secretary to the Admiralty would not mind telling them when he expected that these weekly discharges would stop. The Government had promised to do something for the unemployed, but he did not think discharging men in this way would carry out that promise. He also wished to know why the Admiralty had adopted the plan of doing more of their work in private dockyards, and whether anything had been done in reference to the payment of a living wage to some classes of the men employed. He noticed that whilst, something like £202,000 less was being paid in wages the salaries had gone up by £3,677. He thought this fact required some explanation.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIE
said that with regard to what had been said about receiving deputations at the Admiralty, his point was that they refused to receive the recognised leaders of trades unionists. Almost all the large employers of labour arranged trade disputes through the trades unions, but the Government still clung to the old tradition that matters in dispute between themselves and their workmen must be settled directly. This attitude was against the best interests of the public service, because the loss of time in dealing separately and directly with each section of the workpeople was very great. If such disputes were settled through the union officials and properly discussed, there would be greater peace and harmony amongst the workmen, and consequently better work in the various departments. The Postmaster-General had recently used very strong language because the Post Office employees had circularised Members of Parliament, but Government employees 492 had no option but to take this course when they were subjected to such treatment as he had described. In reference to contract work versus direct employment, he did not know whether hon. Members were aware of the great disparity which existed between the value of the work done in the Government yards and that which was given out to the contractors. It had been proved that the repairs were done more economically in the Government yards than outside, and the same argument should apply to construction. But even if construction done in Government dockyards did not show a saving over similar work done in private dockyards, it was admitted that it did not cost any more when done in the Government dockyards. Therefore, if there was any preference at all shown in regard to construction it ought to be in favour of the Government dockyards. The amount spent upon work in the Government dockyards was £2,750,000 as compared with £7,827,000 spent upon contract work. But that was only part of the statement, because in addition to that there was material to the extent of £4,816,000 which was also got from contractors. The bulk of this material might easily be produced inside the Government yards.
With regard to the dismissals at the dockyards the number had been estimated at 3,000 who had either been dismissed or were under notice to leave, and this policy was being carried out at a time when the Government had refused to do anything for the unemployed. He assured the Government that this policy would require a good deal of defending to convince working men of the justice of this course. He wished to know how it was that whilst the amount paid in wages had been largely reduced, the amount paid in salaries had increased by £3,677. The rate of wages being paid in the dockyards was lower than the rate paid in private yards, and he contended that the Government should, instead of being a "sweater," set an example to the private employer in the payment of labour. The Secretary to the Admiralty had suggested that to increase the wages would mean an unnecessary addition to the national expenditure of £100,000, whereas the truth 493 of the matter was that the men were being robbed of that amount in wages. It was only when wages were in question that there was any difficulty in finding money. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the wages of the lower-paid workers would receive consideration this year with a view to their being brought up to a living standard. He called special attention to the condition of labour at Portsmouth and the near prospect of further dismissals from the dockyard. The position there was desperate, and local resources were almost exhausted. The fact that the men had been brought specially to the town to meet the convenience of a Government Department constituted a strong claim for considerate treatment. It should be possible to find employment in the Government yards there and to put an end to the prospect of swelling the ranks of the unemployed at Portsmouth. If that course were not taken he hoped that at any rate the Admiralty would use their influence with the Government to confer additional power upon the local authorities in the direction of finding work for the unemployed.
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said that he would take the opportunity to reply to some of the points raised in the previous debate and which had not been answered at that time. As to the labour question, he pointed out that the Board of Admiralty not only received deputations of workmen but made it a practice to visit the dockyards themselves in order to give the men an opportunity of personally stating their grievances. Such grievances as existed were directly represented to the Admiralty and were considered by them. Moreover, it was the practice of the First Lord of the Admiralty to receive regularly every year a deputation of trade union representatives at the Admiralty, who laid before him and the Board all the points which they desired to raise on behalf of labour.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE
said his point was that if, when a dispute arose, the Department would see the trade union officials and discuss the points of disagreement they would avoid wasting the 494 time of the Department and secure more amicable settlements.
§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)
asked whether it was the fact that the Committee at present perambulating the dockyards-had declined to take evidence with regard to labour grievances.
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said that was the case, because the matter was outside the reference to the Committee. The grievances, where they existed, were represented directly to the Admiralty and considered by them. The position in the dockyards was somewhat different from that in ordinary employment, and it had been held that in view of the possible requirements of national defence it was not desirable that there should be a trade union embracing the whole of the employees in dockyards.
§ MR. SHACKLETON
asked why the Admiralty received a trade union secretary when he accompanied himself and his colleagues, but refused to receive him if he went alone to represent his own union.
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said the Admiralty were perfectly prepared at certain times to receive a deputation and to hear representations on behalf of trade unions generally, but that the workmen who might be responsible for preparing the Navy for the instant action which was necessary in war should all be affiliated with a trade union, which might influence their action at a critical moment, was not a position that the Admiralty could accept.
§ MR. SHACKLETON
Does the hon. Gentleman mean that workmen in the dockyards are not to be permitted to join a trade union?
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said the position was exactly as he had stated it. As to the discharges, he entirely shared the regret that had been expressed. But what was the alternative? Hon. Members opposite were continually urging upon them the necessity for economy, and with perfect justice; but he would ask them by what means it was possible to effect economies without reducing the amount of employment in the dockyards. It happened that the reductions had not arisen simply on the score of economy, but from the new system which had been put in force in the Navy. The system of nucleus crews and the getting rid of ships that were not fit for the first line of battle had greatly reduced the amount of repairs that were necessary. The whole of the repairing work went to the dockyards, but there was not sufficient to employ all the men. It would surely not be seriously suggested that the Admiralty should provide work not required for the Navy at the expense of the taxpayer in order to keep the men employed.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE
suggested that five days a week should be worked until such time as the men could find employment elsewhere.
§ MR. PRETYMAN
did not think that such a proposal would meet with acceptance in the dockyards. Short time was an excellent system for an interregnum, 496 after which it was expected there would again be full employment. But these economies would be permanent, and there would not be the same amount of work in the dockyards in future. The Admiralty were trying to spread the discharges as far as possible over the summer months when, although doubtless difficult, it was less difficult than in the winter to find other employment. It was very regrettable, but if blame attached to the Admiralty in this matter it was for taking on so many men in the first instance rather than for discharging them now. It was frequently said that the dockyards should be run on business principles. But the custom of private firms was to take on men in accordance with the amount of work they had to do at a particular time, and only yesterday he heard that a firm on the Clyde had only 4,000 men employed at present whereas their normal number was 8,000.
§ MR. PRETYMAN
doubted whether any employer of labour would say so. But even so, the circumstances of the Admiralty were somewhat exceptional. Unless the House was prepared to vote money out of the Navy funds for work not required for the Navy there was no means of avoiding these discharges. There had been no reduction of wages, and the increase in salaries had been merely the automatic increase.
§ MR. PRETYMAN
said there had been no reduction in the department at present. 497 It might be possible to reduce the salaried staff, but that could not be done until they received the Report on the question of organisation.
The plan of carrying out repairs by the nucleus crews had been tested in the week of the manœuvres which had just taken place. Within the last few days 112 ships in commission in reserve, manned with nucleus crews, had been engaged in manœuvres with the Channel Fleet and two cruiser squadrons, and there had not been a single casualty and not a single breakdown. These ships had been constantly in repair. It was satisfactory to feel that these 112 ships in reserve had been able to go out in a condition to fight, with nucleus crews on board sufficient to man and fight them. There had been no preparation, because no preparation was necessary, and in the case of actual war there would be none of that preparation which called attention to what was being done. Two hundred modern ships, equipped for war, had been round the shores of these islands and nothing had been heard of them. That was a fact which proved the value of the system which had been introduced, and he thought the House would approve of the result.
As to the question of the living wage, he believed that in the dockyards the rate of wages that was being paid was at least equal to the current rate for similar labour in the district. Owing to the congestion in Devonport and other districts rents had been extremely high, and it had been difficult for unskilled labourers receiving £1 or £1 1s. a week to find sufficient accommodation at a reasonable rate. He believed that one result of this reduction of labour, un- 498 fortunate as it was in itself, would be to set free a number of houses, relieve the congestion, and so reduce rents. With regard to repairs and construction, he had little to add to what he said in Committee. All repairs went to the dockyards. There was no intention to take construction from the dockyards, but only to maintain the present policy of a fair and reasonable division of the work of new construction as between the dockyards and the private yards.
§ MR. KEARLEY (Devonport)
said the hon. Gentleman had now admitted, he believed for the first time, that the rental conditions in some of those districts were exceptional, and to say that a reduction might be looked for as a result of the system of discharges now going on was a poor way of looking at the question. The duty of the Government was to ascertain what those exceptional conditions really were, and to pay such wages as would enable the men to cope with them. The example of the Home Office with reference to the Metropolitan Police was one to be followed in this respect. As to the reception of trade union deputations by the Admiralty, it did not take place every year; sometimes five years elapsed before such a deputation was received, so that it was hardly fair for the hon. Gentleman to represent that it was the regular practice of the Admiralty to receive trade union deputations. The proper course would be to have a trades council of the men who could come face to face with the Admiralty from time to time.
§ MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON
After wasting two hours! This is what we get for coming to look after the workmen's interests!
While the House was being cleared for a division,
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE
, seated, and with his hat on, submitted, as a point of order that he had at ten minutes past ten moved the closure on one item of this Vote, which had been refused. Now, after forty minutes' discussion on the entire Vote, the closure was moved and
§ accepted. Was that in accordance with the usual custom under which the closure was granted?
§ *MR. SPEAKER
said the hon. Member was incorrect in saying that he moved the closure on one item—the reduction moved had opened up all the subjects of the Vote. Upon the reduction which was moved, any of the matters that were relevant to this Vote could have been discussed, and a great number of them were discussed.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 278.)501
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers.||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End|
|Arrol, Sir William||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Finlay, Rt. Hn Sir R.B. (Inv'rn'ss||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fisher, William Hayes||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r||Forster, Henry William||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick SW.||Lowe, Francis William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Greville, Hon. Ronald||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.|
|Bingham, Lord||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Brassey, Albert||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Heath, Sir James(Staffords, NW||Morrell, (George Herbert|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Heaton, John Henniker||Mount, William Arthur|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J.A. (Worc||Hill, Henry Staveley||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Chapman, Edward||Hogg, Lindsay||Percy, Earl|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Houston, Robert Paterson||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Howard, John (Kent, Faversham||Pryce—Jones, Lt. Col. Edward|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Hunt, Rowland||Purvis, Robert|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Thornton, Percy M.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Tuff, Charles|
|Seton-Karr, Sir Henry||Tuke, Sir John Batty||TELLERS FOB THE AYES—|
|Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Turnour, Viscount||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Spear, John Ward||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Joicey, Sir James||Reddy, M.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)|
|Boland, John||Joyce, Michael||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Brigg, John||Kearley, Hudson E.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W||Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Lamont, Norman||Shackleton, David James|
|Buxton, N.E (York, NR, Whitby||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)|
|Caldwell, James||Levy, Maurice||Sheehy, David|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Lundon, W.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lyell, Charles Henry||Slack, John Bamford|
|Cremer, William Randal||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Crae, George||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Kean, John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Delany, William||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Moss, Samuel||Tomkinson, James|
|Doogan, P. C.||Murphy, John||Ure, Alexander|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Edwards, Frank||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Dowd, John|
|Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Malley, William||Mr. Shackleton and Mr.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Mara, James||Arthur Henderson.|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."502
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 279.)503
|Agg-(Gardner, James Tynte||Bignold, Sir Arthur||Davenport, William Bromley|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Bingham, Lord||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O||Brassey, Albert||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Arrol, Sir William||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Egerton, Hon, A. de Tatton|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A. (Worc.||Finlay, Rt Hn Sir RB (Inv'rn'ss|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Chapman, Edward||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Forster, Henry William|
|Banner, John S. Harmood.||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Dalkeith, Earl of||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin&Nairn||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S,||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Lowe, Francis William||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth.||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Macdona, John Cumming||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Maconochie, A. W.||Spear, John Ward|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Manners, Lord Cecil||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Hill, Henry Staveley||Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.||Tuff, Charles|
|Hogg, Lindsay||Morgan, David J (Walthamstow||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Morrell, George Herbert||Turnour, Viscount|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Mount, William Arthur||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Howard, John (Kent Faversham||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon|
|Hunt, Rowland||Parkes, Ebenezer||Whiteky, H.(Ashton und.Lyne|
|Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Percy, Earl||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Purvis, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Lawson, Hn H.L.W. (Mile End)||Reid, James Greenock)||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Higham, John Sharp||O'Malley, William|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||O'Mara, James|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Joicey, Sir James||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Boland, John||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Brigg, John||Joyce, Michael||Reddy, M.|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Kearley, Hudson, E.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Buxton, N.E. (York, NR, Whitby||Lamont, Norman||Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight|
|Caldwell, James||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Levy, Maurice||Sheehy, David|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lough, Thomas||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lundon, W.||Slack, John Bamford|
|Cullinan, J.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Scares, Ernest J.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (Northants|
|Delany, William||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dobbie, Joseph||M'Crae, George||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Doogan, P. C.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Tomkinson, James|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Moss, Samuel||Ure, Alexander|
|Edwards, Frank||Murphy, John||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid||Whitley, J. H. (Halfiax)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||TELLERS FOB THE NOES—|
|Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil||O'Dowd, John||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Mr. William M'Arthur.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Second and Third Resolutions to be further considered to-morrow.