§ 1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)
said that a large amount of pruning and lopping had been done to 1058 certain trees in Kensington Gardens, and he would like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whose advice he had followed in the matter, and what was the nature of the advice. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman had taken such action on his own initiative. As one who was interested in forestry, he had looked at the cutting and lopping which had been done, and he was bound to say that he saw no reason for the public alarm and irritation with which it had been viewed. There were some very valuable trees in Kensington Gardens, and the elm trees there were magnificent, but the elm was one of those trees which were most dangerous to the public. There was no doubt there had been an accident, a young girl having been killed in the gardens by a large bough of a tree suddenly falling. He would be glad, however, to hear upon whose advice the right hon. Gentleman had acted, and also what course he intended to pursue as regards the trees in general. There was no doubt that some of the trees in Kensington Gardens were absolutely destroyed from an æsthetic point of view.
§ *THE CHAIRMANexplained that the Supplementary Estimates only dealt with the wages of the gardeners, etc., and did not involve the whole policy of the Office of Works in regard to the upkeep of the parks. He did not, therefore, think the right hon. Member's remarks were in order on the Estimates under consideration.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD thought that some of these wages would be used for the purpose of enabling the men to cut the trees.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
, on a point of order, asked what these labourers had to do, and for what purpose the extra remuneration was required.
* THE CHAIRMAN
said the question of policy as to the parks could not be opened up on this Vote, except as regarded some new factor affecting the wages of the labourers and gangers.
§ *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (MR. Harcourt,) Lancashire, Rossendale
said that as the question had been raised, he hoped the Chairman would 1059 allow the rule of order to be stretched a little in order to allow of this question, which was one of interest, being gone into.
§ MR. MORTON (Sutherland)
asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell them on what works these gangers and labourers receiving extra remuneration were employed? Would he also tell them what the "etcetera" meant?
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD
said he would not continue the point he had raised. He would leave the question of the parks, and would ask what the amount was for extra wages, and whether the men so employed were skilled gardeners and skilled woodmen, or whether they were taken incidentally from the ranks of the unemployed to do work that ought to be the business of skilled gardeners.
§ MR. DILLON, on a point of order, said he observed that included in the Estimate was "maintenance and repairs, "and he wanted to know whether the increase was for wages of labourers and gangers alone. He presumed the "etcetera" referred to the cost of maintenance and repairs.
said the questions of policy raised should not come under this Vote. He had looked at it carefully.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD
said he would keep to the ruling; but another point he wished to raise had reference to the provision and maintenance of a refreshment kiosk, or refreshment garden in Hyde Park. Would that be within the ruling?
§ MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)
said he desired to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the additional £2,300 required was owing to the increase of wages or to the increase of the number of men employed, because it was not clear which, and the Committee was entitled to know something about it, and also 1060 whether the labour was skilled or unskilled. If there had been an increase in the number of men employed, he would like to know whether the increase was due to relief works for the unemployed, or anything of that kind. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to satisfy them as to the reason for this increase of £2,300, and also what was due to the dispute which took place last year on the question of the new railings in Regent's Park. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,200, be granted for the said Service."—(MR. Courthope.)
§ *MR. HARCOURT
said he would not go at length into the question of policy relating to parks and gardens, though he knew it was a matter in which hon. Members were interested, but he desired to say a few words, not by way of defence, but of explanation. It had been rightly assumed that he had obtained good advice. He had asked the advice of selected foresters from the large estates of England, and he had requested them to give him help, though he accepted full responsibility for what he had done. Hon. Members would be glad to know, however, that he had not done it without the best expert advice.
§ *MR. HARCOURT
said he had been in constant communication with both Kew and Edinburgh. But he might say that he had not been nearly so drastic in his treatment of Kensington Gardens as the recommendations of the foresters. He had only cut "smack smooth," as a woodman would say, one third of the trees recommended by the foresters to be felled, and he had only lopped and pollarded less than one half of the number they had suggested should be so treated. Every tree in Kensington Gardens was numbered, and its present state and future necessities were pretty well known. A register of them was kept, and they were dealt with systematically in that way. But experience 1061 in the treatment of elms had shown that a certain age, 150 years or 180 years, was the full age for lopping and pollarding, as the only thing to preserve their life. The elms on the Crown lands at Windsor had begun to fall down and disappear altogether. They were planted in the reign of William III. Most of the elms in Kensington Gardens, certainly in the Broad Walk, were planted in the reign of Queen Anne. Many of the elms in Kensington Gardens were lopped fifteen or twenty years ago. It was necessary to perform the operation of lopping and pollarding for the safety of the public, and it had been necessary to cut back into the sound wood in order to stop further decay.
said the right hon. Gentleman was going at length into a subject which he had not allowed to be discussed upon this Vote. If he was to do that the same liberty must be allowed to other Members.
§ *MR. HARCOURT
said he hoped, from what he had said, that hon. Members would be generally satisfied with the position he had taken up in regard to Kensington Gardens, and in reference to the policy to be pursued there in future. The labourers and gangers were workmen who dealt with the whole of the parks. The "etcetera" meant other people employed in the parks who could not be described as labourers and gangers—the park keepers, for instance. He had promised during the discussion on the Estimates on the 7th May, that he would raise the wages of the park labourers in London from 24s. to 27s. a week, which was the rate paid by the London County Council. In the country, he raised the wages from 21s. to 23s. That was the pledge which he had given on the Vote, and which he had now carried out. It was asked why that was not included in the estimates of last year; but the Estimates of a Public Department were prepared either in December or January. He took office, he thought, on the 12th of December, when the Estimates of his Department were practically ready; and the question of the wages of the park labourers was not brought to his attention until the Estimate had gone into the Treasury. Then he received a deputa- 1062 tion from the park-keepers and other men, and he promised that he would deal with the question; and the whole of this sum was purely for increased wages. The increase was not at all due to any employment of the unemployed. Some of the unemployed were engaged on the making of the new frame ground in Hyde Park, and of a new road in Richmond Park, but their wages were paid by the Unemployed Central Committee.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)
said he was sure they were all obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his willingness to give such information as the rules permitted on a subject which had caused a good deal of interest. On another point he wished to know if these men were ordinary unskilled labourers.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said that what he wanted to know was, whether a similar rise in wages was going to be paid to unskilled labourers in other parts of London, such as those employed by the Post Office, and those in Government employment at Deptford and Woolwich, who were being paid rather lower wages than those employed in the parks. He assumed it was proposed to apply the same principle throughout and pay the same wages at Deptford and Woolwich to unskilled labourers.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
said he was anxious that the public should receive more benefit from this expenditure. The use of the roads in the park was at present limited to motor-cars and carriages, and nobody else could use them for vehicles. That was altogether wrong. He did not keep a motor-car or carriage, and the only thing of that kind he ever owned was a perambulator. He would not be able to use those roads in the park if he hired a cab in the street.
If I allow such matters to be discussed there would be no question that cannot be brought in with regard to the whole policy of the parks. The line is often difficult to draw, but I draw it as fairly as I can.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)
supposed the unskilled labourers referred to included the park-keepers, who were mostly old soldiers in the receipt of pensions. He would like to know if the pensions were taken into account in determining the wages.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)
said the sum now being asked for was no trifling addition to the total. The original Estimate for wages was £14,310, and therefore the £2,300 now being asked for was a substantial increase. He thought they were entitled to some further explanation, because under the heading of "maintenance, and repairs" were included the salaries of rangers and bailiffs, and if this money was being expended exclusively in London on the Royal Parks, it would inevitably create a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst all other labourers of that class in the employment of the Government. It was not so much the few pounds which this Estimate represented, but the serious proportion it bore to the total wages.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
said it had already been pointed out that the increase in this expenditure upon wages was very large. He wished to call attention to the fact that the increase was for eight months only and not for a year. If the expenditure was to increase at this rate it would 1064 constitute an enormous increase on the original sum of £14,000. He would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could not have these matters put a little more clearly in the estimates. The item was "For increase in the wages of gangers, labourers, etc." He supposed the gangers were foremen in receipt of adequate wages. It did not always follow that because they raised the wages of unskilled labourers they ought also to raise the wages of the foremen. He understood that the gangers received from 48s. to 53s. per week. He supposed the position was about equal to that of a head gardener, but very few head gardeners got 50s. a week. If there had also been an increase in the wages of gangers there ought to be some explanation given. With regard to the park keepers, their only duty appeared to be to walk about the parks nicely dressed, watching what was going on. Nobody wished to deal hardly with these men. They all wished to give them a fair and reasonable wage, but if they raised the wages of these men it was certain that all engaged in similar occupations should receive like treatment.
§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmorland, Appleby)
asked if it was in order to discuss the wages of other departments on this Vote?
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he was not discussing the wages of other departments; he was simply pointing out what the result would be. He understood that the position of the Treasury in this matter was that of a kind of watch dog over expenditure, and there had been a substantial increase in this particular item.
§ *MR HARCOURT
said he wished to draw attention first of all to the way in which the matter of the necessary increase of wages in the London parks had been treated by the Party opposite. He was pressed pretty generally last year to make what was considered a fair concession to these men. He was anxious to do so, because he wanted to put in operation the fair wages Resolution which was passed when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. He inquired what was the 1065 current rate—what was paid by the London County Council and the best private employers. [Cries of "Oh."] If the hon. Baronet suggested that the park labourers employed by the London County Council were overpaid, of course that raised another question. He went into the matter very carefully with the Treasury at the time. He discussed the whole bearings of the question, and its relation to the question of the wages paid to the men at the Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh. The hon. Baronet had suggested that the gangers in London were receiving 48s. or 49s. a week.
thought the hon. Baronet was taking his information from his neighbour. There were fifty foremen in London, one class of whom received 43s. a week. The second class of foremen received from 30s. to 35s. a week. Gangers had not had their maximum wage increased.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said there was not a ganger mentioned in the whole Vote. That was an invention of the Supplementary Vote.
§ *MR HARCOURT
said gangers were a class perfectly well known. The labourers, numbering 294, had had their wages increased 3s. a week, and that really accounted for the bulk of the whole Vote. The increase was only for nine months and amounted to £2,293. The increase for the full twelve months would be £3,006. Nearly the whole of it was being paid to labourers in London and the country. Another class of men whom he forbore to describe had received an increase of 1s. a week. In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Blackpool, he had to state that pensions were not taken into consideration in fixing the wages of the park keepers. The park-keepers were paid what were regarded as fair wages without considering their pensions.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
was understood to ask whether the bearing 1066 these increases would nave on the demands that might be made by men at Deptford and Woolwich had been considered.
§ *MR HARCOURT
said he was afraid he could not answer the right hon. Gentleman. That had really nothing to do with the Office of Works. He was at the present moment considering, with a view to their increase, the wages of the men in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he might be permitted to explain why he asked the question. Towards the close of their term of office the Government of 1892–5 increased the wages of the park labourers to 24s. a week. The succeeding Government were at once faced with demands for an increase of wages to post office servants, and to the employees of the Deptford and Woolwich establishments. That was a matter germane to an increase of this kind, and he wished to know whether the Treasury had considered it. In the case to which he referred the Treasury had not considered it when the increase was granted.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Speaking for himself he had no hesitation in saying that the London County Council was an extremely bad example to take. They were not influenced by the current rate of wages, but by what would please the people who were going to receive the wages. He sincerely hoped that other Members of the Government would not regulate their proceedings by what was done by the County Council; if they did he would be sorry for the taxpayers.
§ MR. COURTHOPE
thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the information he 1067 had given and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Motiod, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for Houses of Parliament Buildings."
§ MR. ASHLEY
moved to reduce the vote by £100. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the cleaning and painting which had been going on in what was called the secretaries' room. But he did not think that any amount of painting and repairing would make it a room really fit for the purpose to which it was devoted. He believed there were about a hundred secretaries who had the use of the room. Everybody who had been in it would, he thought, agree that only seven or eight secretaries could use the room at the same time. It was perfectly ridiculous that a House in which there were 670 Members should have only such a room for private secretaries. The difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman had to contend were no doubt to be taken into account, but he had worked wonders since he came into office, and possibly he might be able to do something in regard to the matter referred to. Perhaps it would be possible to get some extra accommodation for the private secretaries in the portion of the buildings allocated at present to the House of Lords.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £11,800 be granted for the said service."—(MR. Ashley.)
§ MR. DILLON
said he was sure he expressed the feeling of every hon. Member that they owed a deep debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the alteration he had made in the method of taking divisions. He had heard this matter discussed in the House for the past twenty years, and Members 1068 had entirely despaired of any improvement being made. But he must say that the wear and tear on hon. Members when divisions were being taken, especially in the summer-time, had been enormously reduced by the labours and the device of the right hon. Gentleman. The system, having now been under trial for a whole session, had proved to be a great success. But there was the old-standing grievance of the ventilation of the House. He desired, too, to recognise the interest and trouble the right hon. Gentleman had taken in that question and his endeavours to meet every complaint made by hon. Members. There was a substantial additional estimate for the improvement of the ventilation. He admitted that there had been a considerable improvement in the ventilation of the Chamber and of other parts of the House; but he still urged on the right hon. Gentleman that the condition of affairs in that respect was not yet satisfactory. The system was, in his opinion, radically bad, but he did not know whether his experts had given the right hon. Gentleman any hope that they could further improve the method of admitting the air into the House. The supply or air, no doubt, had been enormously improved and that was a great gain; but the condition of things was still quite unprecedented when compared with any other great public building in the world. The experts told the Committee of which he was a Member some years ago that the method of ventilation was quite unique inasmuch as it sent through openings at their feet and back all the air which hon. Members breathed, and it had been found that the space under the seats had never been brushed or cleaned for many years. The air blew up sometimes with great violence on the feet and necks of hon. Members who were compelled to sit in the House for a long time, and it seemed impossible for the gentlemen in charge of the ventilation below to keep the air at a uniform temperature. The result was that the temperature was allowed to fall several degrees, until hon. Members' feet became cold as lead, and hon. Members had to go into the division lobbies to warm themselves at the fires there.
§ *MR HARCOURT
said that the hon. Member for Blackpool had drawn attention to the insufficiency of the accommodation in the secretaries' room. He admitted that it was miserably inadequate when the amount of work which hon. Members had to transact with their secretaries during long hours was considered. But the difficulty of finding additional accommodation in an already overcrowded Gothic building which had an important street on one side and a still more important river on the other was a problem he had not yet been able to solve. He understood that the authorities of the House permitted correspondence to be carried on in the large Committee room at the north-west angle of Westminster Hall, although he quite recognised the inconvenience of the distance of that room from the House. Beyond that he could not see that any more accommodation could be provided, although he would not lose sight of the matter. The hon. Member for Blackpool had suggested that some further accommodation might be got from the House of Lords; but he was afraid that they would get no more accommodation from that House whilst occupied by its present tenants. He was extremely obliged to the hon. Member for East Mayo for his observation as to improvements which had been introduced. As to the method of ventilation to which the hon. Member referred and the draughts which came on to hon. Members' feet, he might remark that some people tolerated without very much inconvenience a current of air which to others was impossible. He, however, could hold out no hope of changing radically the scheme of ventilation of the House, but he would do what he could to mitigate the blowing of the air on the feet of hon. Members who would have rather less air than they should have under hygenic rules, and more comfort. There was a report by Dr. Gordon, which was supported by the late Sir Michael Foster, whose loss they all deplored, in which fourteen recommendations were made as to improvements in the ventilation of the House; and he was happy to say that he had carried out the whole of them except two during the late autumn recess. He did not think that the hon. Member for East Mayo alleged that the air now coming in was 1070 unwholesome. The House, lobbies, and other rooms were now cleaned daily by the vacuum cleaner, and were, in addition, thoroughly gone over at the week end. The hon. Member had complained of the sudden falls of temperature in the House; but it was extraordinary how the engineers were able to maintain an almost even temperature. There was one disastrous day last session when the temperature of the House suddenly rose. What happened was this. The temperature outside suddenly rose four degrees when all the hot water in the pipes in the House was on, and it took some time to cool the pipes. At the same time there was a fall of rain outside; therefore the humidity of the air was increased and the sensation of heat was more felt. As to the general question of ventilation, he would, during the cold weather, watch what he could do to improve the supply of air.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
wished on behalf of himself and other Members of the House, whether they were present or not, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he looked after their comfort and convenience. He felt it his duty, however, to call attention to the large amount of this Vote, the total being £63,700. The sum represented a most appalling increase of expenditure upon Houses of Parliament Buildings during recent years. In 1898 the amount of the Vote for the whole of the premises was £34,000; in 1899 it was £33,000; in 1900 it was £35,000, and there were small increases in the next two or three years; but now they found that with the £11,900 they were now asked to grant it would total up to the figure he had mentioned, £63,700, which was about twice the average expenditure of five years ago. To his mind that was a most astounding increase, and he thought it justified hon. Members in criticising the items and asking for an explanation. They were asked, for instance, to pay an additional £590 for continuing the improvement of the ventilation arrangements of the House of Commons Chamber. He thought any hon. Member would agree that that sum was not excessive if it was spread over the whole year, but he found that in the original Vote there was a sum of £2,000 for the same purpose, so that on that object alone 1071 they would spend over £2,500. Many of them were inclined to credit the right hon. Gentleman with the best intentions, but the sum spent seemed to be excessive. Again, they were asked to vote £100 for continuing the improvements to the smoke shafts, in spite of the fact that the original estimate of £500 for that purpose had been spent. Why a total of £600 should be spent for this purpose had not, he thought, been made clear by the right hon. Gentleman. He would also call attention to the position which had arisen in regard to the Members' tea and reading rooms, for continuing the improvement of the ventilation of which another £100 was being asked for. No doubt that was a small increase, but it must be borne in mind that the amount they had already parsed was £250, therefore the total worked out at £350. If expenditure of this sort was to go on, it became obvious that their accommodation would reach such an acme of perfection that not even the right hon. Gentleman would be able to improve upon it. As to the improvements in the division lobbies, £250 seemed to be a large sum to spend upon the alteration of a few doors, and the placing of hinges in a different position. He observed, moreover, that £360 was spent or was to be spent on the ventilation of the division lobbies, but although he was grateful for the changes which had been made, he could not understand why that sum should be charged unless some payment for a valuable patent was included in the charges. They were asked to vote £7,000 for improvements in the dining room, and in order to facilitate the despatch of business. They were exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for discovering the false ceilings put in for the purpose of architectural uniformity in the rooms downstairs, and which were removed in order to give better ventilation and render the rooms less stuffy, but how £7,000 could be spent for the purposes stated he could not understand. Dealing with Item B. The found that for warming, ventilation and lighting, apart from external and internal repairs, the House paid £8,300, which was £300 more than the year before, and they now had to vote another £500. Why should they pay £800 more than they did 1072 last year for this purpose? It was an increase of 10 per cent., and was quite apart from the other expenditure upon the House of nearly £30,000 a year. The amount seemed to him to be monstrous, the actual figure being £28,800, in addition to the sum for warming, lighting and ventilating, and quite apart from the cost of the increased accommodation which the right hon. Gentleman was giving. He wished to know if anything could be done to meet the two great complaints of private Members. The first was that there was no place except the smoking room or a draughty corridor in which visitors or constituents could be received. That was a monstrous position of things. The second grievance was that there was no proper place and no facilities afforded for Members to conduct their correspondence. There was not a Member of this House who, day by day, had not to deal with a vast amount of correspondence, and in other legislative assemblies rooms with typewriters were set apart for this purpose. It was a great inconvenience that while Members had to be in attendance so many hours of the day and night they had not conveniences for replying to their numerous correspondents. Members were paid nothing and got nothing, for themselves out of their work, but there might, he submitted, be some room set apart in which they could deal with business having reference to the affairs of the people with which they were bound to deal. In conclusion, he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that during the next twelve months, unless he was in the meantime lifted, into a more responsible position, which they were all certain he deserved, he would give some attention to this question which touched very nearly the comfort of many Members of the House.
§ MR. MORTON
said he was astonished to hear from hon. Members opposite that the total amount of this Vote had doubled during last year. He would have thought that instead of £63,000 £30,000 ought to have been quite enough for the upkeep of the Parliamentary buildings. He objected to the Supplementary Vote altogether. He wanted the money spent elsewhere. He might be out of order in saying where 1073 the elsewhere was, but if any hon. Gentleman opposite suggested Sutherland they might not be far wrong. He objected to the Government spending this money extravagantly when it was wanted to carry out in other parts of the country useful and necessary works to which the Prime Minister was pledged. He also thought it was a great farce to discuss the expenditure of money when he dared say it had been spent long ago. It was not fair to the intelligence of the Committee to ask them to consider the expenditure of money which had already gone. This question of ventilation had been discussed for years—ever since this House was built—but his own opinion was that the ventilation would never be perfect owing to the situation of the House. The air intake was very near the river, and hon. Members knew perfectly well when barges containing curious cargoes passed what a difference they made to the atmosphere of the House. The money down on the Vote before the Committee for ventilation would be wasted, as many hundreds and thousands of pounds had been wasted before. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly greatly improved the process of taking divisions, but £250, if that had been spent on the alterations made for that purpose, was to his mind an extraordinary sum for such a little work. Then he did not understand the sum of £360 for ventilating the lobbies nor the £210 for providing annunciators in the dining-rooms. They were not required, and he objected to the item altogether. He supposed lockers must be provided for Members, still he thought £380 was a large sum to devote to the purpose. The next item, £7,000, required in his opinion considerable explanation—"Works and alterations to facilitate the despatch of business. "Business was proceeded with very slowly last year, and they certainly did not want to provide more money for it. He noticed that the item contained provision for more accommodation, including a new dining-room. But whatever it included it required considerable explanation. There were a number of other items which he did not intend to go into at any length, and then they came to "£250—extension of the vacuum system of cleansing." The only 1074 reason for adopting that system was, in his opinion, to save money, but in this case the cleansing cost £250 more than otherwise it would have done, or had done before. One reduction had been moved and therefore he would not move another, but he would like to do away with this extravagant and extraordinary expenditure altogether. He wished the Government to understand that if the Liberal Government and the Liberal Party were to carry out their pledges to the people of the country and make the improvements they wanted to make they must have money, and if the money was squandered in the way illustrated by these Votes, they could not carry out their promises, in which case he would be exceedingly disappointed.
§ MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH (Derbyshire, W.)
asked the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the principle which underlay many of these Votes. He pointed out that in the last Parliament the then Government were continually being told of the evil of Supplementary Estimates and of commencing new works under Supplementary Estimates prior to their having been discussed by the Committee. It was not easy from these Estimates, especially when compared with the original Estimates of last year, to pick out what had been done in the way of simply carrying out the works promised and sanctioned by the House and new works. There were five new sub-heads. In the old Estimates there were eleven subheads of new works, whilst on these Estimates there were sixteen different sections. Some of those new sections might be in respect to work referred to in the previous sections, but he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell the Committee how much of these works had received Parliamentary sanction. He would also like to know how much work would be definitely finished with the sums now asked for, and how many of these items were in the nature of what was called continuous expenditure. Of course, it was perfectly easy now to criticise the proposals on which, he presumed, a large portion of the money had already been spent; but it was 1075 like shutting the door after the horse was stolen. Still, when once the expenditure had been begun, it might mean that they were involved in a future very considerable expenditure, which, possibly, might have been rather lightly entered upon by simply giving approval of the Supplementary Estimates. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure them that this expenditure was not likely to involve a considerable future expenditure, and at all events that it would not involve an expenditure in the form of Supplementary Estimates, but in a form in which it would receive the sanction of the House before the work was done.
§ Colonel LOCKWOOD
said that, as regarded the ventilation of the House, he honestly thought that what had been done represented almost all that could be done. The only chance which the right hon. Gentleman had in dealing with the matter was to obtain the best advice possible and act on that advice. He was not going to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's obtaining this money, and he would assist him in getting it. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had treated them exceedingly well, and had provided for the comfort of Members. He had the Reports of various Committees as to improvements of the House. There was one inquiry in 1894, under the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the position of Home Secretary, and there was another Committee on which he himself served in 1901. They made a recommendation, in which he joined, that £30,000 should be spent on the buildings. Some of these recommendations had been carried out; some had not. It was impossible to make this old Gothic building suitable to the requirements of a number of Gentlemen who sat there morning, noon and night, and practically lived there. The building as originally planned was to be extended to the catalpa trees, but the time had not arrived for providing for Members by completing the original plans which he believed were in existence. They had knocked down walls and so altered the interior of the House that a Member of fifty years ago would really not know the place if he came into it now. He was 1076 very much inclined to think that they had gone as far as possible in that direction; but still, it was very necessary that there should be provision of new library accommodation, which at present was most deficient. So greatly had the number of volumes increased that many were stowed away in almost inaccessible places. Other very much needed accommodation was a room where Members could meet deputations of their constituents. The other day he received a deputation of woman suffragists, introduced, as the President of the Local Government Board would say, by a buxom lady. He had to drag them about from pillar to post before he could obtain a room in which to receive them. A room for the reception of deputations by Members was absolutely necessary, and it should be as close as possible to the main portion of the building. All these alterations, he was perfectly aware, would cost money, and he was ready to vote the money. He was aware, from the scientific point of view, there was a good deal to be said for and against them. They had already got a quart into the pint pot, and it was impossible to get another quart into it. Nothing could be more villainous than the accommodation for the telegraph messengers, and the police accommodation was bad. The only chance they had of dealing with this matter was to set apart on the Estimates a sum which would meet the requirements of Members and carry out the original plans by an extension of the building big enough to hold those Members.
said this was not the right occasion on which to make all kinds of suggestions. They were discussing the Supplementary Estimates, and he had allowed latitude of debate for the simple reason that they were very voluminous, introducing a great many subjects; but the present was not the right occasion for making all kinds of suggestions.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND( Clare, E.)
said he desired to ask a question on a point of order. They were confronted with large items of new expenditure, and he wished to know whether they were not entitled, in discussing those 1077 items, to express their views as to alternative schemes, and whether the money might be spent in other ways; if they were not, what opportunity had they of discussing those matters?
said the general discussion would come on the Estimates next year. The hon. Member was entitled to observe that this money ought not to be spent on these items and had better have been spent on others, but he was not entitled to go into every kind of scheme in relation to these buildings. The opportunity for that would come on the Estimates for next year and not on the Supplementary Estimates.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
asked the Minister in charge of the Vote whether his attention had been called to the words in the Estimate, "to facilitate the despatch of business." If the Vote was for that purpose, was it not necessary for them to go into matters which related to the difficulties affecting the despatch of business in this House.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
said he was really seeking to ascertain the proper time for the discussion, because when the proper time came he was going to suggest that the proper solution of this question was to deal formally with the House of Lords. On the items for maintenance and repairs, external and internal repairs, and for miscellaneous charges, surely it was open to hon. Members to discuss them at large, making suggestion.
said the general policy of the original Vote was not open to discussion on the Supplementary Estimates. That was the general rule. He had allowed a good deal of latitude on this occasion because, as he had said, the Supplementary Estimates were very voluminous and dealt in a great many things.
§ *MR. HARCOURT
said he was very much inclined to agree with the warning 1078 or statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Derbyshire as to these Supplementary Estimates. Practically the whole of the matters which had been discussed had been demanded by the House at large, and he had carried them out during the period of the year which was most convenient. If he had taken no steps at all to carry out what hon. Members asked him last year to do, and had put the items on the Estimates of this year, for discussion, the whole of the session would have expired before he could have carried out the works in the next autumn recess. It would have been a long delay, and longer, he thought, than the House would have desired. Of course, the Estimates last year were practically in shape when he took office. There were arrears to make up in improving the accommodation for the convenience of Members, and those arrears he had been endeavouring to catch up. But he would observe a more regular course next year, and he hoped not to have any Supplementary Estimates; but when he was asked for things which they wished to be carried out, he was going to say that he would put them in his Estimates, but his Estimates for 1907–8 had already been sent in. It would therefore be at least twelve or eighteen months before any new suggestion could be embodied and carried out. If the House imposed this restriction, and he thought it ought to be imposed, it would be their own restriction and would cause delay in future. A building put where an hon. Member had suggested would be of very little use. They wanted accommodation for deputations within easy distance of the lobby. Considering the great demands made, he did not think the expenditure had been at all excessive. The new Parliament seemed very much in the mood described by Lord Elcho of being not only just to others but generous to themselves. A large number of new Members had been returned and they had not learned to put up with the inconveniences which Members of former Parliaments had to submit to. A great deal of the expenditure in this Vote had been involved by the recommendation of expert Committees appointed by the House. When those Committees reported it was impossible for the First Commissioner of 1079 Works to throw aside their recommendations and declare that the work should not be done. There was nothing more expensive than ventilating and heating works in an old building. Electric fans and expensive motors had also been put in to lessen the smoke nuisance. The additional expense on the tea room was due to the installation of a larger fan and motor which were found to be necessary to produce the ventilation required. Some hon. Members were rather shocked at the charge for improving the arrangements for taking divisions. They had to provide six new desks for the clerks, and amongst other things the alterations involved cutting through a steel floor. It was very difficult to get the job done during the Whitsuntide recess and a good deal of overtime had to be worked. The improved ventilation in the division lobbies had been a great success, and hon. Members who remembered what the condition of the division lobbies used to be in the summer months would appreciate the change. The works which had been carried out during the recess had been treated as one job, and they had cost about £7,000. Out of that sum £3,000 was for the new dining-room. That sounded a great deal of money, but he only wished hon. Members could have seen the work when it was going on. The workmen had to cut out the whole of the vaulting and put in steel girders and two pillars. The cost of work of that kind was stupendous, because it had to be done at high pressure. He hoped to be able to offer the new dining-room for the use of hon. Members in about three weeks time. An additional £500 had been spent upon the necessary linen, cutlery, glass and plate for the new dining-room. That accounted for half of the £7,000. Besides this there were improvements in connection with the smoking-room, the dining-room, additional accommodation for the staff of the Sergeant-at-Arms, increased larder accommodation and other necessary alterations.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he considered the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman as to the largeness of the Supplementary Estimate quite satisfactory. He did not see how 1080 the right hon. Gentleman could have done otherwise in this case, but personally he was not in favour of these large expenditures which were not in the original Votes. He had spoken to the right hon. Gentleman during last summer on the question of the ventilation of the House. He admitted that it was a most difficult thing to deal with the ventilation of such a Chamber in such a way as to satisfy everybody. A large sum of money was spent on the ventilation of the House, but he thought that the arrangements could be improved. In his case his feet were very cold and his head was generally very hot. He thought the reverse ought to be his experience if the House were properly ventilated. Originally in the summer the windows at the top were opened, but under the new régime he was sorry to say that they were never opened. Last year he called on the right hon. Gentleman and pointed out the difficulty which had arisen. The right hon. Gentleman received him with extreme courtesy and asked him not to raise the question of the opening of the windows, because it was part of his scheme that they should not be opened. Accordingly he did not raise the question last year, but he thought he was now entitled to raise it. Formerly this Chamber was one of the coolest places in London in summer, but now it was always stuffy and there was a horrible smell in it. He did not know what the scientific reason was, but the fact remained that the House was not anything like so comfortable as when the simple expedient of opening the windows to get fresh air was resorted to. He had had some experience in ventilation, and he had generally found that the expert had a beautiful scheme which cost a great deal of money, but in the majority of cases if they contented themselves with an open fireplace and an open window the ventilation was very much better than if they adopted the plans of the expert. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should try, especially in the hot weather, to go back to the old system of opening the windows and not giving them so much cold air from underneath. He thought the majority of the Members would like it. The new system of taking divisions had 1081 to him one drawback. The door behind the Chair was always open, and owing to that, when he returned to the House after a division, he was nearly blown out of his place. He thought the door might be shut, if not locked. He spoke not only for himself, but for a good many of the officials who had called his attention to this matter. He preferred the old method of taking divisions to that which was now followed. Formerly it was possible to converse privately with one's friends in the lobby, but now they were all mixed up, and the opportunity for conversation as to the course they would pursue after a division was almost done away with. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do something to remedy the inconvenience caused by the door being left open. There seemed to him to be no reason why expense should be incurred in providing additional lockers. He had not had an opportunity of looking at the new dining-room, and he did not know whether £3,500 was an excessive sum or not. It seemed a very large amount for one dining-room. They ought to set an example to other people and not spend money on their own personal comforts. There was no special necessity for Members to entertain ladies downstairs. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire that they ought to be in their places in this House instead of dining with their friends. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had tenders for the alterations, and whether the lowest offer was accepted. There was an item of £1,150 for the supply of electric current. He presumed that this additional sum was necessitated by the autumn session, but there was nothing in the Estimate to show.
§ MR. SEDDON (Lancashire, Newton)
thought the House might take it that the First Commissioner of Works had been assiduous in watching that the expense was kept down to well-defined and reasonable limits. On returning to the House after the recess he noticed that an alteration had been made on the notice board with respect to the lift used by Members. He noticed that the hour had been changed from five to six o'clock. That was a very desirable change from the point of view of aged 1082 Members to obviate their having to climb upstairs; but what he wanted to know was whether the attendant whose hours of work would be obviously increased had had his wages raised for the increased time he had to work, which would be five hours per week, or a reasonable half-day. Many of the attendants in the House were compelled to work over-time without extra pay. He himself objected to overtime on any account; but when it was necessary the attendants should receive extra remuneration. That also applied to the policemen, who were most attentive to their duty and assisted hon. Members to the utmost of their power.
This Vote relates to the works in the House, and the messengers to which the hon. Member refers are in a class altogether different.
§ MR. SEDDON
said he thought the item under discussion came under "Miscellaneous Charges." However, knowing full well the generosity of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works he believed that the case of the lift attendants and the police would be remembered, and that they would receive pay for the extra work they had done.
§ *MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Staffordshire, Handsworth)
said that he had been very much alarmed when he saw a sum on the Supplementary Estimates of £8,900 for alterations in and additions to the House, and he wondered what additional buildings were contemplated. He did hope that, and he wished to make an earnest appeal to the First Commissioner of Works, in making any such addition to the Houses of Lords and Commons to adhere to the original plan of the buildings, as a new dining-room with a red roof, or a similar addition, would be, in his opinion, somewhat out of harmony with the existing style of architecture. However, since the right hon. Gentleman has given his explanation that alarm had been lessened. Had he spoken earlier in the debate he would have had more to say on the subject, but since the very clear and lucid explanation of the hon. Gentleman he felt that the House might rest assured that, after all, 1083 nothing of a very startling character was intended. But he was not quite clear whether the alterations included that made on the space at the right of the Speaker's chair. If so he wished to lodge an objection both to the alteration and the expenditure upon it. Then as regarded the new dining-room he wanted to know whether it was within the competence of the House of Commons to spend money on the new dining-room, the use of which had been conceded to them by the House of Lords, but which, he supposed, still belonged to the House of Lords. On the subject of ventilation he admitted that in many respects the ventilation had been improved; but the whole system of introducing air through the mats on the floor on which all day long hon. Members were walking with dirty boots was bad. He agreed that the Chamber was now properly cleaned every morning, but hon. Members were constantly coming in with every sort of vile mud on their boots and this mud soon dried on the mats, and by the present system of ventilation was then speedily wafted to the nostrils of hon. Members, and for the rest of the evening hon. Members were exposed to breathing fine dust of the worst possible description. He complained that draughts came up through the floor causing the feet of hon. Members to become cold and their heads hot, sometimes with disastrous results, and judging from the speeches lately made by some hon. Members they must have suffered from intensely cold feet. What was wanted was more fresh air. He was told by all the greatest authorities that nowadays the elaborate and costly systems of ventilation in hospitals had been abolished and that the ventilation and warming of the wards was now accomplished by means of open fire-places and open windows to admit the fresh air. He asked if the right hon. Gentleman would not turn his attention to a system of ventilation by which they could get in the Chamber more fresh air.
§ MR. J. A. BRIGHT (Oldham)
thought that the ventilation of the lobbies had been very distinctly improved, but that of the Chamber itself was very much worse. He came into the Chamber on Monday night at ten o'clock from the fresh air outside, and found that the atmosphere in the House positively smelt. He 1084 insisted that if the windows were kept open it would be a great improvement.
§ *MR REES ( Montgomery Boroughs)
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether something could not be done to improve the lighting of the Chamber. There seemed to be some quality about the light overhead which was peculiarly trying to the eyes and compelled hon. Members to drop their hats over their eyes and gave them the alternative of wearing their hats and losing their hair, or doffing their hats and losing their eyesight. This dilemma was greater now that they were deprived of the dark corner behind the Speaker's chair. He had no intention of complaining of his right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works. Indeed signs of his beneficent activities were apparent everywhere, so that there might in future be a statue erected to him in the lobby with the inscription on the pedestal "nobis haec otia fecit." Was it not possible that by means of a high voltage current electric light could be put overhead and so screened as not to beat down on hon. Members below? He believed the First Commissioner could arrange this or anything else, for it was understood he could make the atmosphere in the Chamber cool for the Government, and hot for the Opposition, or could produce a temperature of sixty degrees all round, which was admittedly best for men, women and claret. Perhaps then he could arrange for the supply of a kindly light.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)
said he had been much struck by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hands-worth that it was not within the competence of the House of Commons to spend money on one of the rooms appropriated to the House of Lords. He understood that the whole building at Westminster was necessary to carry on the business of the nation, and if it was found that there was scarcely sufficient accommodation for Members of the House of Commons in the rooms allotted to them they might surely consider the suggestion that there were plenty of vacant rooms in another direction which might be secured. The heading of this Supplementary Estimate was "Houses of Parliament Buildings," and he took 1085 it that that included the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons. He thought it would be advisable on future occasions, for the purpose of giving hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to the necessity of keeping up the other end of the building, to put down separate estimates for alterations on the House of Commons and on the House of Lords.
§ MR. J. WARD
said he would obey the ruling of the Chair and proceed to discuss the question of the accommodation for Members in the Chamber itself. He thought it would be desirable to remove the Bar altogether, or at any rate to move it further back, so that Members should be entitled to speak from the whole of the House and to use all the seating accommodation which it contained. As it was now the space below the Bar was declared to be outside the precincts of the House, and he thought that this subject might very well be considered by the First Commission or of Works when dealing with the arrangements for the accommodation of Members. One other point he wished to call attention to was the fact that Members had to tramp up and down stairs unnecessarily. From the Estimates it appeared that there was to be a lift for the use of the House of Lords, but Members of this House, unless they went some distance out of their way, had no means of getting up to the different rooms except by walking. There was an immense stair well-hole which might be made use of for the purposes of a lift.
I think the hon. Gentleman cannot have been present when I ruled that this was not the occasion for making suggestions of this kind, but that they should come upon next year's Estimates.
§ MR. J. WARD
thanked the Chairman, and said he was grateful to him for having allowed him to make the suggestion before he called him to order.
§ MR. COURTHOPE
said he wished to associate himself with what had been said in regard to the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman to add to their comfort. But in regard to the new dining-room, although he agreed that it was a very fine room indeed, he could not help noticing certain alterations. For instance, he noticed that there were three windows and in regard to the centre one it looked as if a door had been made and then filled up and a window put in its place. He made inquiries and was told by the workmen that his surmise was correct, and that a door had been made and then filled up and a window put in its place. One of the workmen said he believed there had been no end of a row about it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain why the wall was pulled down, a door made and the place filled up again. With regard to operations of this kind they ought to inquire into the expenses incurred. He understood the position was that the alteration was thought to infringe upon the premises of the House of Lords and that therefore the restoration of the original state of things became necessary. Possibly the policy of the House of Lords might have been to anticipate any action which might be taken by this House, and he could only assume that it was thought the House of Lords would be abolished so soon that their consent would not be necessary. He had one other point to make in the interests of those who would be using this new dining-room. He hoped the First Commissioner would take steps to have a new swing-door in the lobby opening upon the corridor, which was very draughty at present. There was only one other matter he might mention, and he hoped that it was one which had been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, who had no doubt carried out a number of improvements with regard to the lavatory accommodation. He admitted there had been great, improvements, but he regretted that he had omitted to see that there was a good supply of cold water for the Members' large lavatory. As things stood at present, one's hands got boiled by the hot water and it was impossible to get cold water.
§ *MR HARCOURT
said it was the fact that some new stonework was to be seen in a wall blocking up a door which had been cut through into the terrace, and the door, which was in the jurisdiction of the Lords, was cut by his orders, the plans having been approved by a Committee of the House of Lords. Perhaps the House of Lords, not being accustomed to read plans, did not realise the difference between a door and a window. When the deed was done some of the highest authorities of the other House thought their geographical position was being endangered, and he received a peremptory order to fill up the door again. He temporised and asked permission, which he undoubtedly ought to have done before. He was exceedingly humble, but ultimately the assent to open the door was finally refused. There seemed to be a feeling of fear among the Lords lest the Members of this House should get "between the wind and their nobility. "He had lost his door, but had got his grievance still. He could not imagine anything more terribly unconstitutional than the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke that the Bar should be removed. That was a matter which could only be touched by the Speaker with the full authority of the House, and in view of his recent experience he had no wish to take up the subject. As to the request for a further lift, there were two lifts to the committee-rooms already. Hon. Members could not have it both ways—they could not press him both for luxury and economy. If there was a predominant opinion in favour of luxury he would be inclined to lean to that side. The new dining-room now belonged to the House of Commons, and so did the new committee-room, the Peers 'door having been shut up so securely that no Peer could gain entrance. With regard to the lighting of the Chamber, they were obliged to have gas to get heat to extract the air. He thought it was the great quantity of light beating down on them which gave a sense of; discomfort, and which, no doubt, induced many Members to maintain the old and much-respected habit of wearing their hats in the House. It should be remembered, in connection with the question which had been raised of opening the windows, that the problem of ventilation in that Chamber was very 1088 different from that presented in an ordinary room; by opening the windows, which were high up, little fresh air came down to the Members, it was carried straight up to the roof. Fresh air had to come up through the floor, and to get it out there were enormous exhaust fans. If they opened the windows the suction would never reach the floor at all, but would take away all the air which came from the windows, and hon. Members would practically sit in an airless well. With regard to the draught which came into the House from behind MR. Speaker's Chair, it was essential that the door behind the Chair should remain open during the time a division was taking place, but he had already ordered a swing-door to be put up in the archway of the Ministers' staircase through which the draught came, and when that door was in its place he thought the hon. Baronet would have no further cause to complain. An hon. Member had complained of the lockers. They had always been seventy lockers short, and for forty years the answer to complaints had been that there was no room to put up any more. He had found that room and had disposed for ever of one of the great grievances of hon. Members. As to the cost of the new dining-room, he would remind the House that they had to do the work when and how they could, much of it while the House was sitting, and from that cause the expense had been much greater than it would have been had they been able to do it in a long recess. The item for the vacuum cleansing was not for the actual work of cleansing. The House possessed its own pipes for that purpose and the sum stated was for a large extension of the system in order that they might be able to deal with a great many more rooms which were now swept out by the cleaners.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)
on the question of ventilation pointed out that the period of the day when the House was most hot and stuffy was when it first sat, and Members were crowding in to question and hear the Answers of Ministers. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible at that time considerably to reduce the temperature of the House.
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)
said he desired to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for redressing several very real grievances. In the case of the Vote Office in particular, where one man had been killed by the bad air and another was pining away, he (MR. Weir) had only to mention the matter to the right hon. Gentleman, and it wasat once put right. He pro-
§ tested against the action of hon. Gentlemen in criticising the cost of the new dining-room which was a very great acquisition. Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 264. (Division List No. 8.)1091
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Forster, Henry William||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hamilton, Marquess of||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cave, George||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hunt, Rowland||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard|
|Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Magnus, Sir Philip||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Dixon, Sir Daniel||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Frederick Banbury and Mr.|
|Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan||Moore, William||Ashley.|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Fell, Arthur||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Bryce, J. Annan||Delany, William|
|Agnew, George William||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Alden, Percy||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Dillon, John|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Burke, E. Haviland-||Dobson, Thomas W.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dolan, Charles Joseph|
|Astbury, John Meir||Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Duffy, William J.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cameron, Robert||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury. E.)||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)||Cheetham, John Frederick||Elibank, Master of|
|Barker, John||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Essex, R. W.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Clarke, C. Goddard||Faber, G. H. (Boston)|
|Beauchamp, E.||Clough, William||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Fenwick, Charles|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Ferens, T. R.|
|Bell, Richard||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W||Ffrench, Peter|
|Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Bennett, E. N.||Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd||Cory, Clifford John||Fuller, John Michael F.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Fullerton, Hugh|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Cowan, W. H.||Gill, A. H.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Cox, Harold||Ginnell, L.|
|Brace, William||Cremer, William Randal||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John|
|Branch, James||Crombie, John William||Glendinning, R. G.|
|Brigg, John||Crossley, William J.||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Brodie, H. C.||Cullinan, J.||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Dalziel, James Henry||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T (Cheshire||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Gulland, John W.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Rose, Charles Day|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Masterman, C. F. G.||Rowlands, J.|
|Hall, Frederick||Meagher, Michael||Runciman, Walter|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Meehan, Patrick A.||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Mond, A.||Sears, J. E.|
|Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, NE||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Montgomery, H. G.||Seddon, J.|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mooney, J. J.||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Shackleton, David James|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morrell, Philip||Sheehy, David|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Henry, Charles S.||Murphy, John||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Higham, John Sharp||Murray, James||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Hobart, Sir Robert||Myer, Horatio||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Hodge, John||Napier, T. B.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.|
|Hogan, Michael||Nolan, Joseph||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Hooper, A. G.||Norman, Sir Henry||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Norton, Capt Cecil William||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Hudson, Walter||Nuttall, Harry||Steadman, W. C.|
|Hyde, Clarendon||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Idris, T. H. W.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Jackson, R. S.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Summerbell, T.|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)|
|Jowett, F. W.||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Dowd, John||Tomkinson, James|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||O'Malley, William||Toulmin, George|
|Kelley, George D.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Parker, James (Halifax)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Partington, Oswald||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James||Paul, Herbert||Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r||Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)||Wardle, George J.|
|Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton||Waring, Walter|
|Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Pollard, Dr.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Levy, Maurice||Pullar, Sir Robert||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Radford, G. H.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Lough, Thomas||Rainy, A. Rolland||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lundon, W.||Reddy, M.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rees, J. D.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk, B'ghs||Renton, Major Leslie||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Mackarness, Frederic C.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Rickett, J. Compton||Wilkie, Alexander|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Williamson, A.|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)|
|MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|M'Callum, John M.||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|M'Crae, George||Robinson, S.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Roe, Sir Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Maddison, Frederick||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.|
Original Question put, and agreed to.