HC Deb 28 March 1906 vol 154 cc1390-404

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

MR. PAUL (Northampton)

said he was sorry to detain the House, especially after what had occurred that morning, but he had no choice, since he wished to call attention to the question of the appointment of Mr. Milvain as Judge Advocate-General. That question had assumed a more serious aspect than it appeared to possess when it was firs; raised before the House. It involved the grave constitutional point of the right of the Executive Government by administrative decree to create a new permanent, salaried office without the sanction of this House. His right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War had referred him to the report of the Esher Committee. There was no one for whom he had a greater admiration than Lord Esher, whom he had known for forty years; but Lord Esher was not King, Lords, and Commons, and he could not alter the constitution of the country. If Parliament chose to act on the report of the Esher Committee good and well; but the Report of the Committee could not give the Executive Government any power which it did not possess before. He had put a question to his right hon. friend the Secretary for War, which, by the way, was severely edited at the table, he understood with the sanction of Mr. Speaker. The question he asked was what was the legal authority for the appointment of Mr. Milvain as Judge Advocate-General. The answer was that Mr. Milvain had been appointed Judge Advocate-General, who was empowered to give advice on all legal questions referred to him, by the Secretary for War, and that Mr. Milvain could be dismissed at any time. He might be told that the responsibility for this appointment did not rest with the present Secretary of State for War, but with the right hon. Member for Croydon. He altogether declined to accept that statement. So long as the right hon. Gentleman remained in office he was responsible to this House and the country. If this appointment was, as he maintained, a most nefarious job, his right hon. friend, if he supported it, would make himself particeps criminis. On the last occasion when he drew attention to this subject the hon. Member for Sheffield, with a transient lapse of courtesy, said that he was an ignoramus. He dared say that his legal knowledge corresponded with the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman, but if the hon. Gentleman argued that the Government had power to create a charge of this kind without Parliamentary sanction, then he pleaded guilty to ignorance, but it was an ignorance shared by the highest constitutional authorities, including the right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University. He had never spoken to Mr. Milvain; he had never seen him; Mr. Milvain was to him merely a name, and he wished only to raise the subject of Mr. Milvain's appointment as a grave constitutional question. He would like to remind his hon. friend behind him that if there was one question besides free trade which was discussed at the general election it was the desire to restore to this House that reputation which the public considered, rightly or wrongly, had been greatly impaired during the last few years. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham had said the previous morning that there were a good many Members on his side of the House who were not responsible for the act of the late Government. He ad- mitted that the appointment of Mr. Milvain was made last year after the House rose, but he remembered reading an article in The Times written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds arguing against that appointment on constitutional grounds. Until recently the office of Judge-Advocate-General had always been held by a Member of this House and responsible to it. The Judge-Advocate-General was the legal security of the private soldier, and should be responsible to this House alone. It was quite true that in 1872 the Secretary of State for War and Mr. Gladstone, eager for economy, induced a Judge to undertake this duty, but he thought on constitutional grounds the appointment of Sir Francis Jeune should have been challenged. The only reason that it was not challenged was that the country was £2,000 a year richer. But the English Judge, unlike the Scottish or Irish Judge, was a busy man, and all these cases were examined into not by Sir F. Jeune but by Mr. O'Dowd. Then last year this arrangement was come to under which Mr. Milvain was appointed. He contended that when Mr. Milvain was appointed under that arrangement he became a member of the Government, and when the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City resigned he ought to have resigned. As to the importance of this office, Sir George Osborne Morgan, who held it for some time, said that he had reversed 600 decisions of courts martial in four years, in favour of the soldier. Ought not the gentleman who held so important an office to be responsible to this House? Was it a great hardship that he should be called upon to resign with his Government? Mr. Mellor, in order to take the post of Judge-Advocate-General, gave up his practice at the Bar, and the Government which he joined lasted only six months, and Mr. Mellor ceased to be Judge Advocate-General without a penny of compensation from public funds, and he was sure he would have scorned to have received any. Sir William Harcourt when he became a Member of the House gave up his practice at the Parliamentary Bar. People made sacrifices in this way every day and did not come upon the public for a pension. He had nothing to do with the patronage of the Lord Chancellor, but if the noble Lord decreed that Mr. Milvain should preside over a county court that might be a happy solution of an embarrassing problem. He had taken up this question upon public grounds. He moved the rejection of the Bill.


seconded the Motion for the rejection. When the right hon. Gentleman became the Secretary of State for War he did so he said as the representative of the House and the country He did not become a trustee to carry out the plans of another Government. He need not perpetuate an act, which he would do the present Secretary of State for War the justice to say he would rather have cut off his hand than have sanctioned. The change of Government meant nothing if they merely changed the dial of the clock, while the works behind the dial went on. He protested against the appointment of Sir Francis Jeune on public grounds, and he protested against the appointment of Mr. Milvain. He had always been on friendly terms with Mr. Milvain, however, and would not say a word to wound his feelings. The late Secretary of State for War had presumed to convert a political and temporary office into a permanent one, and he did something more. He had imposed an annual charge of £2,000 a year on the public funds for a gentleman who was going out of Parliament, and who deserved some recompense for having trudged through the lobbies so obediently. Mr. Milvain was to have a salary of £2,000 a year as Judge-Advo-cate-General, and was to retain the office until he reached the age of seventy, when he was to get a pension. That extraordinary appointment had come straight from the brain of the late Secretary of State for War, just as Minerva came from the brain of Jupiter. He should not object to Mr. Milvain's obtaining compensation, but that he should continue in that office was a gross public scandal. When the House remembered the hundreds of thousands of men who by this Bill were placed, and rightly and properly so, under exceptional legislation, they should be very chary of relieving Ministers from the responsibility of being answerable for the administration of the law, and of preventing the House from being able to criticise the administration of the law. From the time the Act was established until practically the present time there had always been in this House a Minister of justice and Attorney-General for the Army, who was directly responsible to Parliament. It was essential that that should be so, because he did not know with what conscience hon. Gentlemen could pass, as they did in this Bill, clause after clause in reference to the Army without having their hand on the safety valve which they could move in the event of any maladroit practice or any injustice taking place in the Army. That was the principle of the post of Judge-Advocate-General, and in that office there had been many eminent men. The powers of the office were enormous, and they were sketched by the late Lord St. Helier, who said that the Judge-Advocate- General was a court of appeal in every court-martial. Having regard to that, why should he not be a Member of the House? The right hon. Gentleman said that he was responsible, but any Member with six months experience of the House of Commons knew that the head of a. department, however conscientious he might be, depended on officials. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had no moral right to appoint Mr. Milvain to this post when the late Government were going out of office. The House would forgive him if he spoke rather feelingly on this subject, for he knew of a gross miscarriage of justice because there was no responsible Minister in this House whom they could tackle. Three years ago, when Lord St. Helier was very ill, and the deputy Judge-Advocate-General, who was an extremely able and conscientious official, was also ill, the duties devolved upon a briefless barrister, a gentleman named Boase, at £1,000 a year. The ragging case at Cape Town arose, but the charge was so framed at the War Office in the Judge-Advocate-General's department that the-officers had to be found not guilty, although the evidence was conclusive. He seconded the Motion of his hon. friend.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now, and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Paul.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."


said that if the Motion succeeded and this Bill were rejected the result would be that there would be no law for the Army at all. He passed from that, however, because he quite followed the reason for which his hon. friend had raised this question. This Motion offered the proper opportunity. He wished to point out that however bad the appointment in question, he was bound hand and foot in respect of it. He succeeded to a contract of the late Government who appointed Mr. Milvain to occupy the office of Judge-Advocate-General until he was seventy years of age, at a salary of £2,000 a year. They could dismiss him, but they would have to find the money out of public funds to compensate him. There was the contract, and he could not get out of it any more than Parliament could get out of the contract to pay the National Debt. It came within the scope of what Parliament had delegated to them. If Parliament appointed a clerk it must find the salary. It must give some authority to the Government to carry on the business of the country. All he could say was that a result of the appointment of Mr. Milvain was that the work was admirably done. That gentleman's whole time was given to the duties, and the work was far better done than it could be by a Member of the House with other duties, who could only give part of his time to very responsible and delicate business. He knew nothing of the motives that led to the selection of Mr. Milvain, but he knew from experience that a very competent man had been appointed. Commissions had reported on the organisation of the War Office, and Parliament had sanctioned recommendations of the Esher Committee, among which was one that the position of the Judge-Advocate-General should be revised and made separate. It was quite true that by old tradition the Judge Advocate-General was a Member of this House, but the Esher Committee pointed out that the office was not satisfactorily discharged. Mr. Gladstone did not fill up the office. Mr. Gladstone saw that the practice had arisen of giving the office of Judge-Advocate-General to some gentleman who took it for political reasons, and not necessarily for his competencs, and as this work involved the examination of countless details, it took the whole of a man's time. Mr. Gladstone took the course not merely of giving the office to a Judge, but of appointing a deputy Judge Advocate-General who received a salary of £1,500 a year, and did the real work of the office. They all knew that the late Sir Francis Jeune had many other duties to perform. He was President of a great Court; his time was fully occupied; and he could therefore give very little time to the discharge of the duties of Judge Advocate-General, which fell into the hands of a deputy, the law clerk who was under him. The Esher Committee came to the conclusion that the work of this great and responsible office was not being satisfactorily discharged. They accordingly recommended the appointment of some body who should give his whole time to the work, and the gentleman selected for the duty was to be given a salary of £2,000 a year. That would take the place of the £1,500 paid to the deputy, and there was another payment of £500 a year from the office. He had no hesitation in saying that the present system was the better of the two. Sir Francis Jeune was not responsible to Parliament, and he had under him somebody who was responsible only to himself. Under the present system, if there was any miscarriage of justice or failure to look after legal proceedings, he (Mr. Haldane) was himself responsible and must bear the brunt of it. The Judge Advocate-General reported to him and was his official, and it was his duty to see that as an official he discharged the duties attaching to his position. What was the case with Sir Francis Jeune? Sir Francis Jeune was responsible directly to the Crown, but as he was not in Parliament there was no means of criticising his conduct. To-day they had direct responsibility to Parliament, and they had a gentleman in that position who was doing the work in a thoroughly satisfactory fashion. As things stood at the present time it seemed to him that the present arrangement was the more businesslike one, as compared with that under which the office was delegated to a Judge who could not perform the functions himself, but had to leave them to a subordinate Seeing that in the old days it was possible to appoint to the office someone who might have been wholly out of practice, at the Bar, and who was put in because he was a politician of standing for whom it was desired to find some office under the Crown, he was bound to say that he thought that they now had probably a better working arrangement than they had ever had before. He said, as the Minister responsible, that the work was being satisfactorily done and that the office was in efficient hands. Be that as it might, he succeeded to that arrangement, which was made before his time and over which to a certain extent he had no control, seeing that a contract had been entered into with the personal occupant of the office, by which contract the Government of the day was bound.


Is not the money found by Parliament?


said that Parliament found the money for all things done by the Government within the scope of the authority which had been delegated to it. Parliament had before it the Report of the Esher Committee and it sanctioned that Report. Under the circumstances he felt that it was a proposition which it was very difficult to controvert that the Minister of the day, succeeding to the obligations of his predecessor as he had done, had to take them as he found them. Speaking for himself he thought it would be very disastrous if such an arrangement, which not only in itself was working well, but which was an arrangement which certainly came within the purview of what Parliament generally sanctioned when it approved of the recommendations of the Esher Committee, should be repealed or set aside by the Government, who had succeeded, after all, to the responsibilities of those who came before.

MR. FORSTER (Kent, Sevenoaks)

remarked that no one could complain of the tone of the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who had moved and seconded the Motion before the House. They had raised a question to which undoubtedly great importance was attached by many Members of the House. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had shown that the position in which the House was placed now was really more advantageous than the position in which it stood when the late Judge Advocate-General was in office. As the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, the House at that time had no effective means of criticising the acts of the late Judge Advocate-General. If he might make a suggestion to the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment, it would be that a more fitting occasion on which to press this matter, if he desired to develop it further than would be possible to-night, would be when they discussed the salary of the Judge Advocate-General or the salary of the War Secretary.


I find that we have already voted Mr. Milvain's salary.


pointed out that at all events the hon. Member would have an opportunity of dealing with the question when they came to the salary of the War Secretary. He had only risen to say that those who sat with him were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the defence he had made of the present occupant of the office, and he could only say, speaking for himself, that he should support the right hon. Gentleman if they went to a division on the Amendment.


admitted the inconvenience of discussing at that late hour a grave constitutional question such as that raised by his hon. friend. He had called the attention of the Secretary of State for War to this question on an early date after the session began, and he thought the views the right hon. Gentleman had placed before the House that night were not quite accurate in all particulars. This matter of the position of the Judge Advocate-General raised a very serious question indeed, namely, the question of whether the occupant of that office should be a Minister with direct access to the Sovereign and directly responsible to Parliament. His right hon. friend was in direct conflict with the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. There was a discussion on the subject in the year 1904 when the late Government was in office. Mr. Milvain had not then received the appointment, but a vacancy was occasioned by the death of Sir John Scott, the deputy Judge Advocate-General. His learned friend the Attorney - General at that time drew the attention of the House to the constitutional and legal position of the question. He said— The question was one of considerable constitutional gravity. The general proposition he should invite the House to accept was that the post of Judge Advocate-General ought to be held by someone who was not merely a Minister of the Crown responsible to the Crown, but also directly responsible to Parliament. Committees of this House in 1860, 1868, and 1888 all agreed that the Judge Advocate-General ought to he a Member of this House, responsible to the House and with direct access to the Sovereign. That was very strongly held by Sir John Mowbray, one of the most experienced Members of the House, and who himself once filled the office of Judge Advocate-General. The present Attorney-General said— It was now clear that the Judge Advocate-General was a Minister of the Crown, responsible to the Sovereign for the discharge of the duties attaching to his office, and he held the office of Privy Councillor in order that he might give advice personally to the King. He was not responsible to anyone connected with the War Office. He (Sir James Woodhouse) asked the House to mark that. The hon. and learned Gentleman whom he was quoting went on to show that the Judge Advocate-General was Minister of Justice of the Army, the vast interests he had under his control, and. the vital importance of his being independent of the Secretary of State for War. That was the real issue before the House to-night. The question was whether' the position of this man was to be that of an official subordinate to, and under the control of, the Secretary of State, or whether he was to be independent of the Secretary of State, and responsible to this House. It was for that reason that he had looked very carefully into the matter, and realised that a great constitutional question was raised which they had had no opportunity of discussing before. To-night the House ought to be careful before it endorsed what had been done in this matter; Did the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State approve of the appointment when it was made? Certainly not. There was not a member of this Ministry who approved of the appointment. In 1904 when they discussed the question the present Prime Minister absolutely disposed of what had been said by the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State relied on the fact that in 1892 Mr. Gladstone and the present Prime Minister, who was then Secretary of State for War, appointed the late President of the Probate Court, Sir Francis Jeune. But on the 17th of March, 1904, the present Prime Minister said that the appointment was never intended to be permanent, and that it was intended only for a temporary purpose. The Government went out of office a year or two afterwards, and the appointment had been continued during the whole of the remaining period by the late Government until the death of Sir Francis Jeune, and the death of the deputy Advocate-General. It was not, therefore, correct to say that that was a precedent for this appointment. No one had written more strongly disapproving of the appointment on legal and constitutional grounds than the present Attorney-General. Behind this matter a much greater issue was involved than his right hon. friend would lead the House to believe. There was not always in the position of Secretary of State for War a great legal luminary. Imagine the late Secretary of State for War reviewing as a judicial officer the evidence brought before courts-martial for which the Judge-Advocate-General was responsible. If they could get a direct issue before the House on the question of the expediency of this officer being dependent on, or independent of, the House he was perfectly sure that they would arrive at a conclusion in favour of the view of the present Prime Minister.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

suggested that the hon. Member for Northampton should withdraw his Motion and bring the question up on the salary of the Secretary of State for War. This was a grave matter raising a constitutional question, and an issue of that kind could not possibly be satisfactorily discussed at this hour of the morning. It would be impossible to regard a division on the Second Reading of the Army Annual Bill as in any sense reflecting the opinion of the Members of the House on this question. The Army Estimates would be shortly before the House, and it would be possible for the hon. Gentleman to raise the question then in an effective way, and it would be possible to take a division on a nominal reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State, which possibly would reflect the real opinion of the House


said if he were to raise the question on the salary of the right hon. Gentleman it would not be a direct issue. [An HON. MEMBER: It would.] He did not think he could withdraw the Motion.

MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)

said the office of Judge-Advocate-General was a judicial one. The Judge-Advocate- General might be something else, but he was certainly a judge. It had generally been the policy of this House and the country that judges should not hold Noes political office or sit in the House of Commons. A judge ought not to come in and go out with the Government; he ought to be entirely independent of any political or party considerations.

Besides that, judicial decisions should not be subject to review in this House. He sincerely hoped that the House would support the decision arrived at by the late and the present Government.


said that all appointments were made subject to the voting of salaries by Parliament, that even judges could be removed by an address, and that he could not believe that the Judge-Advocate-General was absolutely entitled to hold office until he was seventy years of age which was five years beyond the ordinary term of employment of a civil servant.


moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. William Rutherford.)

The House divided Ayes 23; Noes 191. (Division List No. 34.)

Arkwright, John Stanhope Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan Morpeth, Viscount
Balcarres, Lord Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Pease.Herbert Pike(Darlington
Banner, John S. Harmood- Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Forster, Henry William Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Starkey, John R.
Bowles, G. Stewart Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)
Bridgmane, W. Clive Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.
Cave, George Hunt, Rowland Watson Rutherford and
Dalrymple, Viscount Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C. Viscount Helmsley
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham) Burke, E. Haviland-
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles
Ainsworth, John Stirling Bennett, E. N. Byles, William Pollard
Alden, Percy Berridge, T. H. D. Cairns, Thomas
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Bertram, Julius Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Billson, Alfred Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Boland, John Chance, Frederick William
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Bowerman, C. W Charming, Francis Allston
Barker, John Brace, William Cheetham, John Frederick
Barnard, E. B. Brooke, Stopford Churchill, Winston Spencer
Barnes, G. N. Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)
Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Clough, W.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W Kennedy, Vincent Paul Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kilbride, Denis Rees, J. D.
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Kincaid-Smith, Captain Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Laidlaw, Robert Richardson, A.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Lambert, George Ridsdale, E. A.
Cowan, W. H. Law, Hugh Alexander Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Lehmann, R. C. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Crean, Eugene Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Cremer, William Randal Levy, Maurice Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd
Cullinan, J. Lewis, John Herbert Robinson, S.
Davies, David (Montgomery Co. Lough, Thomas Roche, John (Galway, East)
Delany, William Lundon, W. Rose, Charles Day
Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway Macdonald, J. E. (Leicester) Runciman, Walter
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Maclean, Donald Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)
Dickinson, W.H. (St. Pancras, N MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Duffy, William J. Macpherson, J. T. Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.) Sears, J. E.
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) M'Arthur, William Seddon, J.
Edwards, Frank (Radnor) M'Crae, George Seely, Major J. B.
Elibank, Master of Manfield, Harry (Northants) Shackleton, David James
Erskine, David C. Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Fenwick, Charles Meagher, Michael Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Ferens, T. R. Meehan, Patrick A. Sheehy, David
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Molteno, Percy Alfred Shipman, Dr. John G.
Fuller, J. M. F. Mond, A. Simon, John Allsebrook
Gill, A. H. Mooney, J. J. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Ginnell, L. Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Stanger, H. Y.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morse, L. L. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Gulland, John W. Murphy, John Sullivan, Donal
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Murray, James Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Halpin, J. Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Nolan, Joseph Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset, E
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Ure, Alexander
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Verney, F. W.
Haworth, Arthur A. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wardle, George J.
Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Hazleton, Richard O'Dowd, John Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Gradv, J. White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Higham, John Sharp O'Malley, William Whitehead, Rowland
Hobart, Sir Robert O'Shee, James John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hodge, John Paul, Herbert Wilkie, Alexander
Horniman, Emslie John Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Idris, T. H. W. Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Illingworth, Percy H. Pollard, Dr. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Power, Patrick Joseph Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)
Jones, William(Carnarvonshire) Rea, Russell (Gloucester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Kearley, Hudson E. Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' George Whiteley and Mr.
Kelley, George D. Reddy, M. J. A. Pease.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.'


asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to give the House an early opportunity of discussing this question and taking a division in Committee of Supply.


said it would be open to his hon. friend to move a reduction of his salary.


asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minute after One o'clock.