§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £1,550, 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 Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons.1092
§ *MR. MORTON
said this was another of those Votes to which an addition was made. The original Vote was for £32,900, which ought to have been enough. The Vote was really £3,180, £1,630 being deducted for fees received. He would like some information about the extra expenses in the Sergeant-at-Arm's Office and in other offices; and also with regard to the extra expenses of witnesses and shorthand writers. He was aware that they had a new Minister, and he 1093 hoped that meant that they would have some reforms in the shape of a reduction of witnesses' expenses and other matters in connection with this and similar Votes. He was not going to move a reduction, because £100 would be of no good in this case, and he would like to strike the Vote out altogether as unnecessary and extravagant.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
was understood to say that on all Supplementary Estimates the primary consideration was whether they ought to have them at all. In regard to this particular Supplementary Estimate, it was the imprudence of the Government, and the autumn session out of which it arose, that made it necessary. It all arose from the fact that last year the Government came before Parliament in the spring at much too late a date. Any ordinary Parliamentarian must have seen that the Government's long programme of legislation would lead to an autumn session, and therefore it ought to have been provided for in the original Estimates. A great deal of the legislative work which the House had been invited to undertake consisted of Bills originally brought forward by private Members, and then taken up by the Government. If His Majesty's Government did not foresee, while the original Estimates were still before the House, that they would take up those Bills, it must have been because they were not conscious of their own innate infirmity of purpose, of which they ought to have been conscious, and so avoided these Supplementary Estimates. It seemed to him that had they intended to rise in August, they must have known that their programme could not possibly be finished, and the result more than justified the criticism which he had found it necessary to make.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that, as his right hon. friend had pointed out, members of the Government must have known that they were going to have an autumn session, for they had a larger number of Bills than could be got through within the limits of an ordinary session. It was quite evident that a little foresight in this particular case would have prevented this Supplementary Estimate. Might he point out to the hon. Member 1094 for Sutherland that if he was really keen in his desire for economy, he could always go into the lobby against the Vote. He had understood him to say that the whole Vote should be swept away. But what he wished to call attention to was the item of £1,700 for witness and other Committee expenses. The original Estimate was £500, and the revised Estimate over £1,700. That was an enormous increase on the original Estimate, and he could see no excuse for such very bad provision being made in the original Estimate. It was possibly because the number of witnesses and Committee expenses had been a very large; but that was the result of a desire on the part of the Government to shelve all awkward questions by appointing Committees to consider them. What was gained by this additional expenditure of £1,200? What good had the Committees done to anybody; what advantage did anybody in the House gain by this large expenditure? As to another item for shorthand writing, the original Estimate was £1,000; the revised Estimate was £2,353—more than double. And what was the result of all the labour of these shorthand writers? He ventured to say that not three Members had ever looked at the result of all this shorthand work. They had spent something like £2,500 on these Committees, and the result had been simply nil. Nobody had gained anything by it except the shorthand writers and possibly the witnesses. He really hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who was now in charge of the Treasury, and who came as a new broom, would see that at any rate in this session no money was wasted in this way. If there were questions which required looking into, let them look into them in the House and not hand them to Committees. In the last Parliament, comparatively speaking, a very small number of questions were sent to Committee. There were then no critics like hon. Gentlemen opposite who were so severe on the late Government for referring subjects to Committee, partly on the ground of expense, and partly on the ground that the whole procedure was ludicrous and was not meant to be effective. Notwithstanding what they said when in opposition, now that they were in power, they came with revised Estimates which 1095 were more than double the original Estimates, the money having been spent on these Committees. He hoped an assurance would be given that during the present session money would not be wasted in this manner; failing that assurance, he should certainly divide against the Vote.
§ MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH
said he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he was able to inform the Committee whether any steps had been taken to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee who sat last year with reference to the distribution of Parliamentary Papers. The Committee dealt with a large number of other matters, and made several recommendations which would be of considerable practical value, not only from the point of view of convenience but from the point of view of economy also. Paragraphs 42 and 49 of the Report of the Select Committee dealt with the distribution of Parliamentary Papers, and he wished to know if any action had been taken in the direction of carrying out those recommendations. As far as he was aware, there was no Parliamentary reason why the recommendations of that Committee should not be put into effect, and thereby enable a considerable reduction to be in the expenditure. Had it not been for the recommendations of that Select Committee the Supplementary Estimates they were now dealing with might have been much larger. With reference to the witnesses and other Committee expenses, the explanation in this instance was also the autumn session. It would be within the recollection of every Member of the House that a very considerable amount of work was placed upon hon. Members by the appointment of a number of Committees, and the large amount of work they had to perform. As far as he could make out, the expenditure of four Select Committees amounted to £836. That did not cover the whole of the extra amount required, the full sum being £1,700. He presumed the other expenses had been incurred in regard to private Bills. Appropriations in aid showed an increase of £1,630. There was another matter which was deserving of the attention of the Committee, and that was the payment of witnesses. This was a question which 1096 ought to be very carefully considered by the Government. The very valuable Return asked for by the Deputy-Chairman of Committees not only recorded the attendances of Members on the Select Committees, but it also gave the total of the expenses. He found that out of £836 expended by the four Select Committees, no less than £472 had been spent by one Select Committee, and that was the Committee appointed to inquire into the Land Values Taxation (Scotland) Bill. It seemed to him rather remarkable that so large a sum had been spent by one Committee. He did not know whether there was any particular reason why the witnesses before that Committee should have entailed so much extra cost. He noticed that the Housing of the Working Classes Amendment Bill Committee sat thirty-six times, and expended on witnesses £10 1s., whereas the Committee on the Land Values Taxation (Scotland) Bill sat only nineteen times and spent £472. He hoped such expenditure in the future would be considerably reduced.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton)
said he noticed that in regard to the delivery of the Votes and Parliamentary Papers £170 had been spent in extra wages. It was no small business to deliver so large a number of Parliamentary Papers rapidly and efficiently over such an immense area. It was generally felt that hon. Members owed a debt of gratitude to the men who delivered the Parliamentary Papers, and many hon. Members would like to see them paid better. He did not know whether they were civil servants or not, or whether they were precluded from receiving emoluments. There was another matter he desired to call attention to. He thought Hansard was a subject of considerable annoyance to hon. Members. They had a very notable instance of this in regard to the new gallery to the right of the Speaker's chair. He had searched Hansard to find what the First Commissioner of Works said on that particular subject when he introduced the various alterations which he proposed to make in regard to the House of Commons buildings, and he could not find any record of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in Hansard. Consequently, the House was in a great difficulty, because it found itself 1097 committed to a radical change in the arrangements of the Chamber, without having voted upon the alteration, and without having any record of that House in evidence that the First Commissioner had asked the assent of the House to such alterations.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY
asked whether this item under discussion included any sum for Hansard, in which event he thought the observations he was making would be in order.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY
said he would like some more information in regard to the item for witnesses and other Committee expenses. He wished to obtain some idea of the amount which had been spent by the Select Committee which inquired into the conditions of service and the pay of certain classes of Post-Office servants. He thought the Committee should be made aware of the cost of that inquiry. He also asked what was spent on the Committee which inquired into the grievances of the Post-Office servants. He inquired further what was the rate paid to the shorthand writers, and what were the terms of their appointment. Were they permanently or temporarily engaged, were they subject to rules, and what arrangements were made to secure the observance by them of secrecy in the discharge of their work? He was bound to say that the shorthand writers performed their work admirably, and therefore he hoped that the scale of Government pay compared favourably with that of shorthand writers engaged by the best employers in the great business houses of the metropolis. He did not see how verbatim reports could be avoided of what came before the various Committees, because unless the members of Committees and others concerned had every detail before them it was impossible for them to do the work properly when they came to consider the bearing of the evidence in preparing their Reports. Therefore, 1098 although there were complaints in regard to the bulkiness of the volumes issued, he nevertheless believed that it was to the general advantage that this expense should be incurred. On the other hand, he must say that there were too often grave errors in the reports, not on the part of the shorthand writers, but in the reproduction of their work by the printers. Might he ask the Secretary of the Treasury to state how many shorthand writers were employed last session and how many were allocated to each Committee? He noticed that there were constant changes, and he should like to know why that was the case. Unquestionably when a shorthand writer became accustomed to the working of a Committee it was less labour to him to do his work, and greater certainty and exactness were in that way obtained. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some information on these matters.
§ MR. W. T. WILSON (Lancashire, Westhoughton)
asked whether better arrangements could be made for obtaining the Orders of the Day and other Papers necessary for following the business of the House. At present there was a good deal of crowding at the narrow doorway.
I think the hon. Member is asking about the expendituree of money in other ways. This is a Supplementary Estimate for money for work which has been concluded, or is arranged for and is going to be finished, and money cannot be taken for other purposes out of the Supplementary Estimate now before us.
§ *The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (MR. Runciman,) Dewsbury
said the increase in this Vote was due, as his hon. friend the Member for Sutherlandshire had pointed out, to the fact that there was an autumn session last year. Their servants had to be paid extra for their attendance at the House.
§ *MR RUNCIMAN
said it was only in some cases that the salaries covered the 1099 whole year. [An HON. MEMBER: Why have autumn sessions?] That was obviously a matter over which he had no control. It was entirely in the hands of the Leader of the House, who, if a question were addressed to him on the subject, would no doubt give the hon. Member a polite, and possibly a humorous, reply. Autumn sessions were held for the convenience of private Members as well as Ministers, and it was impossible to have an autumn session without having expense. It would be contrary to all precedent to put down in the Estimates at the beginning of spring a sum for an autumn session. He knew of no case in which that had ever been done. The hon. Member for the City of London had asked why there had been so many Committees. He did not know that that was a matter that rested with the Secretary to the Treasury. The reason why the Committees were appointed must be well known to every Member of the House. A great many of those Committees did most excellent work, and he hoped that in the course of the current year they would see some of the good effects which would proceed from the adoption of many of the recommendations of the Committee which sat to consider the question of the distribution of Parliamentary Papers. MR. Speaker had done everything in his power to make, in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee, a more economical arrangement with regard to the printing and circulation of those Papers. A new contract made on the recommendation of the Committee would, he hoped, result in a considerable diminution of the expenditure under this head. He might point out that this question scarcely arose on the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee. As a matter of fact the cost of the Committee which made the recommendations did not appear on this Vote, and the recommendations could not be carried out under any of the items on the Estimates under discussion. A question had been asked as to the expenditure of the Committee on the Land Values (Scotland) Bill. It was perfectly obvious that if witnesses were brought from Scotland the cost would be more than in the case of witnesses who had merely to take a tram or a cab to reach the House of Commons. Scotsmen 1100 who took an interest in this subject, the representatives of great municipalities, and others representing the various sides of the question, were entitled to be heard by the Committee, and it was not in the power of the Government to restrict the number. As to the amount paid to the messengers who distributed the Votes and Proceedings, he would point out to the hon. Member who asked a question on the subject that they certainly were not overworked, and he had heard of no complaint made by them. If any complaint was made he would make inquiry into it.
§ *MR RUNCIMAN
said he did not know, but if the hon. Member put a question on the Paper, it would be answered in due course. As for the charges made for shorthand writing, they were undoubtedly heavy, but they were governed by a scale settled a long time ago. If the hon. Member looked up page 923 of Volume 48 of the Parliamentary Debates he would find all the particulars he desired on the subject. The charges were certainly not excessive. The changes which had taken place in the Committee room were necessary for the accommodation of the shorthand writers, whose ability had never been questioned; and any information which they might have obtained in the course of their work had never leaked out.
§ *MR STUART WORTLEY
said that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation held some sittings in Edinburgh in 1898, and he did not see why the Select Committee should have gone over the ground again.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
said there was no desire on the part of the Scottish Members that the Select Committee on the Land Values Bill should sit upstairs, although he was alone in his protest against it. At the same time, he must admit he did not now object to the expense incurred, because the Committee had gained very useful information. As to the shorthand charges, he thought that they were larger than they would be if the printing were done in London 1101 instead of at Reading and elsewhere. From his own experience he knew that Members of Committees could not obtain Reports of the evidence taken three days before, because there were not a sufficient number of shorthand writers in order to get their notes written out quickly, and because the transcript had to be sent to Reading in order to be printed, and the proofs brought back to London. He insisted that the printing ought to be done in London.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said that the explanation that the expense was caused by the autumn session was not sufficient. Of course the hon. Gentleman was not responsible for the autumn session, but the Prime Minister and his Government were, and in his opinion the money spent on that session would have been much better in the pockets of the taxpayers. Under the circumstances he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000. As to the printing of the reports of the Committees, he did not see why it should not be done in London and not in Reading, unless it was that it was cheaper to have it done in Reading than in London.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £550, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)
asked whether the shorthand writers were permanent civil servants, and he joined the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in asking why the printing was done at Reading instead of in London. Was the rate of wages paid in Reading the same as in London?
§ *MR RUNCIMAN
said that the shorthand writers were not civil servants. Shorthand writing was done under contract, and the present holder of the contract had appeared twice at the Bar of the House.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
said that the contracting firm was Gurneys, of which 1102 MR. Salter was the head. The shorthand writers were not servants of the House, but of the contractors. The printing was done at Reading, not because the rate of pay was lower, but because it was more convenient, and printing was tending to go more and more out of London.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY
said he would remind the hon. Gentleman that when the present contract was entered into it was based on the rate of wages paid in London and not those paid in Reading.
§ MR. DALZIEL
said that of course they recognised that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote was in no way responsible for the custom which had grown up of sending the printing to Reading. The result was that when Committees met at eleven o'clock they could not get on with their work because the proofs of the evidence were not available. That was not a satisfactory state of things. He had nothing to complain of in regard to the shorthand writing, because he thought the House was splendidly served by the staff of excellent reporters. What he complained of was that the printing was not done nearer to this House, because it was obviously more difficult to get the reports down to Reading and brought back to London than if the printing were done in London. He was under the impression that when the contract was made tenders were invited in the ordinary way from London firms, who competed on London rates. The question was one for the convenience of hon. Members, and the Committee would rest content with an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he would look into the whole matter.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
thought the Committee had been rather struck by the statement that MR. Salter, who contracted for their Committee Reports, occasionally appeared at the Bar of the House. He had asked a number of hon. friends what the meaning of that phrase was, but had not been able to obtain a satisfactory explanation, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be 1103 able to tell him why MR. Salter had to appear at the Bar.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 23; Noes, 206. (Division List No. 9.)1105
|Ashley, W. W.||Dixon, Sir Daniel||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Faber, George Denison (York).||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Fell, Arthur||Staveley-hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cave, George||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington||Frederick Banbury and Mr.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Meysey-Thompson.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Cremer, William Randal||Hudson, Walter|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Crombie, John William||Jackson, R. S.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Cullinan, J.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Dalziel, James Henry||Jordon, Jeremiah|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Jowett, F. W.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Joyce, Michael|
|Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.||Delany, William||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Kelley, George D.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Dolan, Charles Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Duffy, William J.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Bell, Richard||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n|
|Bennett, E. N.||Elibank, Master of||Lehmann. R. C.|
|Bertram, Julius||Erskine, David C.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd||Eve, Harry Trelawney||Levy, Maurice|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Everett, R. Lacey||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Billson, Alfred||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lough, Thomas|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Farrell, James Patrick||Lundon, W.|
|Brace, William||Fenwick, Charles||Lupton, Arnold|
|Branch, James||Ffrench, Peter||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Brigg, John||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs|
|Brooke, Stopford||Flynn, James Christopher||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs., Leigh)||Fuller, John Michael F.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T (Cheshire||Fullerton, Hugh||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Gibb, James (Harrow)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Ginnell, L.||M'Callum, John M.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||M'Crae, George|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Glendinning, R. G.||M'Kean, John|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Goddard, Daniel Ford||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Chance, Frederick William||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Maddison, Frederick|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Hall, Frederick||Massie, J.|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Meagher, Michael|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Meehan, Patrick A.|
|Clough, William||Hart-Davies, T.||Micklem, Nathaniel|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mooney, J. J.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Hayden, John Patrick||Morrell, Philip|
|Corbett, C. H.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Morton, Alpheus Cloephas|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Henry, Charles S.||Murphy, John|
|Cory, Clifford John||Higham, John Sharp||Murray, James|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hodge, John||Myer, Horatio|
|Cowan, W. H.||Hogan, Michael||Napier, T. B.|
|Cox, Harold||Hooper, A. G.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Nuttall, Harry||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Verney, F. W.|
|O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'y, Mid)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (B'df'rd||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Robinson, S.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Rowlands, J.||Wardle, George J.|
|O'Dowd, John||Runciman, Walter||Waring, Walter|
|O'Malley, William||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Watt, H. Anderson|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Sears, J. E.||Weir, James Galloway|
|Partington, Oswald||Seaverns, J. H.||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Paul, Herbert||Seddon, J.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Shackleton, David James||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Radford, G. H.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Rainy, A. Rolland||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Raphael, Herbert H.||Soares, Ernest J.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Reddy, M.||Spicer, Sir Albert||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Rees, J. D.||Sullivan, Donal||Tellers for the Noes—|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn||Summerbell, T.||Mr. Whiteley and MR. J. A.|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Pease.|
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ 4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £255, 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, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London, and Expenses under the Inebriates Acts."
§ *MR MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Staffordshire, Handsworth) said
he would like to congratulate the Chief Secretary for Ireland upon his appointment to his present post, which he would doubtless adorn with a display of the same ability and courtesy which had won him the respect of the House in another sphere of duty. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for an explanation of the Supplementary Estimate of £200 required for the Chief Secretary's office. He understood, in fact the official explanation in the footnote on the Paper stated, that this additional £200 was to meet the excess of expenditure for travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and Under-Secretary in consequence of the autumn session. The autumn session lasted nine weeks and that was roughly speaking £22 a week. That seemed to him to be rather a large sum, and he would like to know what was included in it. Were the travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and his private secretary included in this, be- 1106 cause, as no doubt the Chief Secretary was aware, no travelling expenses were allowed to the Chief Secretary between London and Dublin, although he was entitled to a certain personal allowance when travelling on Government business in Ireland. He wished, therefore, to point out that if part of this sum was charged for the travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and his private secretary between London and Dublin, this was a claim which could not be allowed, as the Chief Secretary was not entitled to any such allowance, but if it was claimed for the travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary in Ireland, he would like to ask what on earth that had to do with the autumn session of Parliament sitting in London. A first classre turn fare to Dublin was £4 13s., and if this item was accurate the Under-Secretary and his subordinate must have made a good many journeys between London and Dublin. Besides, at the time the Congested Districts Board was sitting in London, and he believed that during the greater part of the period for which these expenses were charged, the Under-Secretary was, as a matter of fact, in London. It therefore resolved itself into this, that if this large sum were claimed for the travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and his private secretary between London and Dublin, this was a claim which could not be allowed, and was against all precedence. If, on the other hand, it was claimed for the Under-Secretary's travelling expenses, the sum of £22 per week was out of all reason 1107 under the circumstances, but if the Chief Secretary were to say that this sum included the expenses of bringing witnesses over to London in connection with the Congested Districts Board, he would like to ask why the Congested Districts Board, which was doing its work very satisfactorily in Dublin, was brought over to London, and whether it was done for the convenience of the Under-Secretary, and if so, why all this extra expense was incurred without due cause. Unless the Chief Secretary could give an assurance that the expenses of tie Chief Secretary were not included he would like to ask if the Treasury had given their approval of this expense being paid and whether there was any precedent for it. He would also like to ask what was the scale of allowance which was made or had been made in this case for travelling expenses. If it was true that the Chief Secretary's expenses were included it was very important that the right hon. Gentleman should state why these allowances had been made.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
asked whether the sum of £200 mentioned meant the travelling expenses of both the Chief Secretary and the Under-Secretary. Then he noted there was an item of £50 for an inebriate home in Waterford. He was quite sure there could be no real connection below these two items. It was curious that none of the Nationalist Members were present to take part in this discussion. It would have offered them a splendid opportunity of discussing what was evidently a great extravagance, and it was only to be feared that their absence showed the cloven hoof of the arrangement and understanding between them and the Government. The total amount of money granted to the Chief Secretary was £26,118, and he believed that the Chief Secretary's salary was £4,800. Surely £200 more was not wanted for travelling expenses. If it was wanted for the Assistant-Secretary, the gentleman who had become quite famous during the past year, Sir Antony MacDonell, he thought the less that gentleman was in Ireland the better. He might have a first-class ticket from Ireland to London, or even to India, where he might adorn the post he had previously occupied with so much distinction; but to 1108 Ireland, or in Ireland, no. The present Government were returned to economise. It was lavish to the verge of extravagance in voting money to its own friends. The late Chief Secretary was a conspicuous example of that. He did not blame the Government for in their probably short tenure of power lavishing money on their friends.
§ MR. LEIF JONES
appealed to the Chairman whether it was in order, on this item, to discuss what the hon. Member thought the general extravagance of the Government.
said he was just going to call the hon. Gentleman to order. The hon. Gentleman must limit himself to these travelling expenses during the autumn session.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
said he did not wish to embark upon the general question of Government extravagance; it was really far too wide a subject. A first-class ticket from London to Dublin and back again surely did not cost £200, and that being so, he begged to move that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £200.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £55, be granted for the said Service."—(MR. Thomas Corbett.)
§ MR. MORTON
objected to this amount entirely. He thought the amount in the original Estimate for the Irish Office was quite enough to keep it up both in Ireland and England, although Ireland was the most inefficiently and most extravagantly governed country that he knew. He was not surprised that they had to travel about in this way, because Irish Secretaries did not last long. He would like to know whether the £55 for an inebriates' home was provided for the Irish Secretaries?
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell,) Bristol, N.
Are any of my predecessors in that home?
§ MR. MORTON
could not say; it would be a good thing, perhaps, if a good many of them were. The autumn session in any case ought not to cause any difference to the already excessive cost of government in Ireland.
§ MR. BIRRELL
did not know that anybody was to be congratulated, particularly if he were hungry, on finding it to be his first duty on these Estimates to explain, in the dinner hour, an item like this, which, however, he admitted, required explanation. It was not accurately described. It did not refer only to the travelling expenses of the Under-Secretary during the autumn session; it referred as well to the excess of expenses generally, in Ireland, of the Chief Secretary when he was engaged in making tours over a part of Ireland in the public service. The Chief Secretary, received no allowance in respect of his travelling expenses to and from Dublin. His private secretary had an allowance to cover his expenses, but the Chief Secretary had none whatever. When the Chief Secretary was in Ireland he went touring about to see things that might be done, supposing he had the money. In respect of the expenses he incurred he was entitled to have an excess sum. This £200 represented an excess sum for the peregrinations of his predecessor—for the expenses of his tours through Ireland. There were also the travelling expenses of the Under-Secretary between London and Dublin. When the Under-Secretary was in London he was entitled to a guinea a night while in the public service; and it was undoubtedly the fact that, for reasons he need not now go into, he was obliged to be frequently in London, more especially during the autumn session, and he was entitled to travelling expenses and subsistence money to a much larger amount than normally could have been anticipated. Owing to the autumn session officials were kept at the Irish Office who, in ordinary circumstances, would have gone back to their homes in Ireland, and would not have incurred so much expense. In these circumstances, it was not surprising that a Supplementary Estimate should have to be made. He thought the account given in the printed Paper was in a sense misleading, and fully justified hon. Gentlemen opposite in their criticism. As to the charge for the inebriate homes, he did not follow the humour with reference to it; it was a statutory demand. These homes for inebriates had their claims, under the Act, upon the Irish Government, and the subject did not in any way lend itself to jest or to further inquiry. It was the first time in that House that he found 1110 himself trying to discuss these estimates, but he hoped that they would find him at all times perfectly ready to explain them as far as he could.
§ MR. STAVELEY-HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)
asked whether there were any other homes of a similar character to the one under discussion in Ireland.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he had no doubt there were, and the hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension that they would be overlooked. They were statutory demands which were made in respect of them, and could not be overlooked.
§ *MR LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)
said these inebriates' homes had a statutory claim to a fixed sum per head for maintenance of inebriates committed to them.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH
said he could find no other similar claim in the Vote at all, and it seemed to him rather an extraordinary thing to put on the Supplementary Estimate.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said he had no doubt similar claims appeared in other accounts, only this one was put in by itself for some reason. He would, however, look into the matter, and give the hon. Gentleman an explanation.
§ MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD
said the explanation given in the printed Paper was clearly misleading, because if they referred to the original Vote they would find that Heading D, to which the item obviously related, dealt with the salaries of inspectors and professional assistance in connection with asylum buildings, staff officers, clerical assistance, messengers, etc. The total amount was £3,531. It was perfectly evident that this grant, which turned out to be a contribution, at least it appeared in that way on the Vote, should be put down as a Supplementary Grant to the salaries of inspectors, staff officers, and clerical assistance. The item was evidently in the wrong place, and the Chief Secretary would agree with them that they rather required to be informed why this particular sum was now asked for. It was impossible to contend for a moment, except in a 1111 Hibernian manner, that this particular donation to St. Patrick's Home could possibly be supplementary to somebody's salary. He thought the Chief Secretary should take the Vote back, and put it down at some time when he could really tell the Committee to which particular Vote it was supplementary. As to the sum of £200, it appeared a small amount, but inasmuch as it was additional to the usual amount allowed for this purpose, £1,500, it was an increase of 15 per cent on the ordinary charges, and he thought that was a matter for comment. They were told that it was for extra travelling expenses of the Chief Secretary and the Under-Secretary. There was not a word about the Chief Secretary in the original Estimate, and therefore it was perfectly irregular to add an amount for the Chief Secretary who was not mentioned in the Vote, and who certainly had the rather large salary of £4,500 or £4,600. He was informed that no Chief Secretary in the past had ever collected expenses for travelling. Why should MR. Bryce, who was the Chief Secretary last year—he did not think the present Chief Secretary would have done so—have suddenly sprung £200 upon this particular Estimate? They ought to be told how and why this was. The Chief Secretary and the Under-Secretary had this £200 between them—£100 each additional for travelling expenses. It was impossible that Sir Antony MacDonnell, who was in London during the autumn session in order to see that the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill got duly through the House, could have spent any such sum of money. It appeared to him that as regarded the two items to which he had referred the information put before the Committee was absolutely misleading, and that the statements made in the Vote were not true. He really suggested that the Chief Secretary should take the Vote back and bring it up again with a proper explanation.
§ *MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)
said the total original estimate was £36,218, and the Government now required the £55 because the St. Patrick's Home, Waterford, was a new institution, and the amount was taken for the expenses of the current year. That was the mare's nest which hon. Members above the gangway had found.
§ MR. ASHLEY
thought that if the private secretary to the Chief Secretary did not receive any travelling allowance he ought to do so, because he was obliged to travel frequently from London to Dublin and back again.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
said an hon. Member below the gangway had told them that the St. Patrick's Inebriates' Home was established six months ago. In that case the contention that it was on the same basis as other similar institutions entirely disappeared. This seemed to him to be part of the "larger policy." He thought the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was the real explanation of this particular grant. The Chief Secretary had stated that his predecessor used to travel about Ireland with an empty pocket and a full heart, and that therefore he was entitled to some compensation in the way of travelling expenses. He did not think that £4,800 a year was too much for the present Chief Secretary, but a salary like that ought not to be described as an empty pocket. He thought a large number of hon. Members below the gangway would be well satisfied if they enjoyed an income equal to only a small portion of £4,800 a year. It had been said that this £200 had been spent upon the Under-Secretary. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to make a new departure in this respect. The Chief Secretary had admitted that the explanation given upon the Estimates was somewhat misleading, and under the circumstances they would be compelled to divide the Committee.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said the Chief Secretary had stated that the £200 which was asked for to meet the expenses for travelling of the Chief and Under-Secretaries during the autumn sittings was incorrect, and that the amount was really for the whole of the year. He did not think that explanation made the matter any better, although it did away with the idea that the money had been spent during two months, and it certainly seemed impossible that anyone could have spent £200 in two months travelling between London and Dublin.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said this was the first time he had seen travelling expenses on the Estimates for any Minister. He agreed that Ministers had a great deal to do, and they should be paid extremely well for their services. He objected, however, to all these extras, and he could not understand this policy on the part of a Government which came into power on the cry of economy. The Party opposite were not content with voting salaries to themselves, but they were now introducing a pernicious system of doles to Ministers in the shape of travelling expenses. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give the Committee some further explanation, and assure them that in future Chief Secretaries and other Ministers would defray their expenses out of their own money. With regard to St. Patrick's Inebriates' Home, Waterford, no doubt it was a good institution, and one which the Chief Secretary might very well subscribe to out of his own pocket, but he would like to know why the British taxpayer should be called upon to contribute towards this Home.
§ MR. BIRRELL
said the British taxpayer already contributed £27,000 towards similar institutions in England, £2,000 in Scotland, and, as far as he knew, this £55 was the only sum paid to institutions of this kind in Ireland.
§ out of the taxes for institutions of this kind in Ireland or elsewhere.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he hoped that before the Report Stage the right hon. Gentleman would make quite certain as to why this money had been spent. If the expenditure had been incurred in consequence of a new Act of Parliament the fact ought to have been shown in the Estimates. He trusted that the Committee would show its disapproval of this kind of expenditure in the division lobby.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
asked whether this grant to the St. Patrick's Inebriates Home was an annual one, and under which Act of Parliament the grant had been made.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
said he would also like to know what the salary of the permanent Under-Secretary was.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 25; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 10.)1115
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Faber, George Denison (York)||Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Fell, Arthur||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Valentia, Viscount|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Cave, George||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||T. L. Corbett and Mr.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Ashley.|
|Dixon, Sir Daniel||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Beck, A. Cecil||Brocklehurst, W. B.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Bellairs, Carlyon||Brooke, Stopford|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bennett, E. N.||Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Bertram, Julius||Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Ches.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd||Bryce, J. Annan|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Billson, Alfred||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Burnyeat, W. J. D.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Brace, William||Cawley, Sir Frederick|
|Beale, W. P.||Brigg, John||Chance, Frederick William|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hudson, Walter||Paul, Herbert|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs.; Leek)|
|Clarke, C. Goddard||Jordan, Jeremiah||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Clough, William||Jowett, F. W.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Joyce, Michael||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancr's, W)||Kekewich, Sir George||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd||Kelley, George D.||Reddy, M.|
|Cory, Clifford John||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Rees, J. D.|
|Cowan, W. H.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n|
|Cox, Harold||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Cremer, William Randal||Laidlaw, Robert||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Crombie, John William||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Crossley, William J.||Lehmann, R. C.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd|
|Cullinan, J.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Levy, Maurice||Robinson, S.|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lewis, John Herbert||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Delany, William||Lough, Thomas||Rowlands, J.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lundon, W.||Runciman, Walter|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Lupton, Arnold||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Duffy, William J.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs||Sears, J. E.|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Shackleton, David James|
|Elibank, Master of||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Erskine, David C.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'Callum, John M.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||M'Crae, George||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Kean, John||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Fenwick. Charles||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Ferens, T. R.||M'Micking, Major G.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Ffrench, Peter||Maddison, Frederick||Sullivan, Donal|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Massie, J.||Summerbell, T.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Meagher, Michael||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Meehan, Patrick A.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Verney, F. W.|
|Gill, A. H.||Montgomery, H. G.||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Ginnell, L.||Mooney, J. J.||Walton, Sir John L.) Leeds, S.)|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Morrell, Philip||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Waring, Walter|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Murphy, John||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Murray, James||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Hall, Frederick||Myer, Horatio||Weir, James Galloway|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Napier, T. B.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr T'dvil)||Norman, Sir Henry||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N. E||Nuttall, Harry||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Connor, John, (Kildare, N.)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Henry, Charles S.||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Malley, William|
|Hodge, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Hogan, Michael||Parker, James (Halifax)||Whiteley and MR. J. A.|
|Hooper, A. G.||Partington, Oswald||Pease.|
§ Original Question put.1116
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 24. (Division List No. 11.)1117
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Beale, W. P.||Brace, William|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Beck, A. Cecil||Brigg, John|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bellairs, Carlyon||Brocklehurst, W. B.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Bennett, E. N.||Brooke, Stopford|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Bertram, Julius||Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Brunnor, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T (Chesh.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Bryce, J. Annan|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford||Billson, Alfred||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Burnyeat, W. J. D.||Hooper, A. G.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Hudson, Walter||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Chance, Frederick William||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Jordan, Jeremiah||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Jowett, F. W.||Rainy, A. Rolland|
|Clark, C. Goddard||Joyce, Michael||Raphael, Herbert H.|
|Clough, William||Kearley, Hudson E.||Reddy, M.|
|Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Kekewich, Sir George||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Kelley, George D.||Rees, J. D.|
|Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)|
|Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Kincaid-Smith, Captain||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Cory, Clifford John||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Cowan, W. H.||Laidlaw, Robert||Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd|
|Cox, Harold||Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington||Robinson, S.|
|Crombie, John William||Lehmann, R. C.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Crossley, William J.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich||Rowlands, J.|
|Cullinan, J.||Levy, Maurice||Runciman, Walter|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lewis, John Herbert||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lough, Thomas||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Delany, William||Lundon, W.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Lupton, Arnold||Shackleton, David James|
|Dolan, Charles Joseph||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)|
|Duffy, William J.||Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Elibank, Master of||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Erskine, David C.||M'Callum, John M.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||M'Crae, George||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'Kean, John||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Sullivan, Donal|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Micking, Major G.||Summerbell, T.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Maddison, Frederick||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Massie, J.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Ffrench, Peter||Meagher, Michael||Toulmin, George|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Meehan, Patrick A.||Verney, F. W.|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Fullerton, Hugh||Montgomery, H. G.||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Mooney, J. J.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Gill, A. H.||Morrell, Philip||Waring, Walter|
|Ginnell, L.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Watt, H. Anderson|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Murphy, John||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Murray, James||Weir, James Galloway|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Myer, Horatio||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Napier, T. B.||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Hall, Frederick||Norman, Sir Henry||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nuttall, Harry||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Hervey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Malley, William|
|Henry, Charles S.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Parker, James (Halifax)||Whiteley and MR. J. A.|
|Hodge, John||Partington, Oswald||Pease.|
|Hogan, Michael||Paul, Herbert|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fell, Arthur||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Valentia, Viscount|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Houston, Robert Paterson||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Cave, George||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n||T. L. Corbett and Mr.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Ashley.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Dixon, Sir Daniel||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|