§ (1) An inspector appointed under this Act shall, for the purposes of the execution of this Act have power to do all or any of the following things, namely:—
- (a) to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place where he has reasonable grounds for supposing that any employed contributors or workmen in an insured trade are employed;
- (b) to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary for ascertaining whether the provisions of this Act are complied with in any such premises or place;
- (c) to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he
453 thinks fit, with respect to any matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in any such premises or place, or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been an employed contributor or workman in an insured trade, and to require every such person to be so examined, and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined; - (d) to exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect.
§ (2) The occupier of any such premises or place and any other person employing any employed contributor or workman in an insured trade, and the servants and agents of any such occupier or other person, and any employed contributor or workman in an insured trade shall furnish to any inspector all such information and shall produce for inspection all such registers, books, cards, and other documents as the inspector may reasonably require.
§ (3) If any person wilfully delays or obstructs an inspector in the exercise of any power under this Section or fails to give such information or to produce such documents as aforesaid, or conceals or prevents or attempts to conceal or prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by an inspector, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds:
§ Provided that no one shall be required under this Section to answer any question or give any evidence tending to incriminate himself.
§ (4) Where any such premises or place are liable to be inspected by inspectors or other officers, or are under the control, of some other Government Department, the Insurance Commissioners or Board of Trade may make arrangements with that other Government Department for any of the powers and duties of inspectors under this Section being carried out by in spectors or other officers of such other Government Department, and where such an arrangement is made such inspectors and officers shall have all the powers of an inspector under this Section.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["under this Act shall"], to insert the words "if he has reasonable ground for believing that the provisions of the Act are not being carried out."
454 I move this Amendment for the purpose of eliciting from the Government whether or not they will be willing to accept it. The provisions of this Clause are extremely onerous, and will even remain onerous after the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes is inserted. It seems only right that the provisions of this Section should be put into force only where there are some reasonable grounds for suspicion. It ought not to be open for inspectors simply to go into any place on the chance of seeing whether or not anything is to be found out. There should be some reasonable grounds for suspicion that the provisions of the Act are not being carried out before an inspector enters upon private premises to put into force the very stringent provisions of this Act. I do not think that the Government themselves intended this Section to apply except in cases where there are some reasonable ground to suspect a violation of the provisions of the Act. I think, therefore, they will not have any difficulty in accepting this Amendment.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI do not think it is necessary to accept these words, because they do import a danger in the working of this Clause. As a matter of fact, if you look, for example, at paragraph (a) you will see that the inspector must have reasonable ground for supposing that any employed contributors or workmen in an insured trade are employed. The inspector there would have a general right to enter. I should suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that it is not necessary to insert the words he proposes. The inspector must, of course, do his duty, but he is not to enter for the mere wanton purpose of annoying persons. There must be reasonable grounds.
§ Mr. FORSTERAre there any other words the Attorney-General can suggest to meet the case? We do not want people to go into all kinds of works unnecessarily, and where there is no suspicion of any trouble of any sort or kind. We do not want some officious fellows annoying either workmen or employers.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI will consider the point.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "place," ["any premises or place"], insert the words "other than a private dwelling-house not being a workshop."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
455§ Mr. CASSELI beg leave to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (d).
Surely the powers given to these inspectors are wide enough without this provision giving them general powers! Sub-section (1) gives power to enter premises and making inquiries that may be necessary, to examine persons either alone or in the presence of other people and to take declarations from them. Sub-section (2) gives the inspectors power to examine all books, registers, cards, and documents. Now, in addition to that some further indefinite powers are to be given to these inspectors. The defined powers which are given are stringent enough, and I view with the greatest apprehension any giving to the inspectors the additional powers referred to in this paragraph (d). I do not know what the Government have in mind under this special Sub-clause, but I submit that the power definitely given is quite sufficient. Besides the definite powers of these inspectors which are held over every householder by this Section, there ought not to be an addition to those very wide definite powers. The actual effect of it no one is able to see.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI should have thought, having regard to what has just passed, that it would not be necessary to suggest the leaving out of this paragraph (d). It is essential in a Bill of this kind that we should make the provisions as elastic as possible. I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that it is desirable to have some words that would not leave the inspector quite free to inflict wanton annoyance on any persons under this Clause. I will consider that point, for it is a perfectly reasonable view to put forward. But we do want this paragraph in order to meet any point not otherwise met. It really is needful for the purpose of making the Act elastic, and it is necessary for carrying this Act into effect.
§ Mr. FORSTERWe quite recognise that there must be some elasticity, and as soon as the point is made clear that these inspectors shall not have complete power to inflict annoyance upon people I think perhaps we need not press this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. CASSELI beg to move to add at the end of the Clause a new Sub-section:
(5) Every inspector shall be furnished with a prescribed certificate of his appoint- 456 ment and on applying for admission to any premises for the purposes of this Act shall if so required produce the said certificate to the occupier.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI have not considered these words, but I accept them in substance.
§ Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. LANSBURYThis Clause is one which, under a contributory scheme, is more or less necessary, but I am surprised that the House should be so empty when Clauses such as these are going through. Even if it is necessary to have inspection I am very doubtful whether it is necessary to give the inspectors the wide powers that the Sections of this Clause give them. Under the Factory Acts the factory inspector goes round and makes investigations, but I have never yet known him to be in the position to call upon a workman or an employer to sign any document in his presence or to do anything of the kind referred to in these Sections. It seems to me this is a beginning of a scheme which must inevitably end in the workmen of the country being numbered and having dossier which he must produce when necessary. I look upon the whole of this business of inspection and State control of these societies from that point of view. I am not a lawyer, but I am very doubtful if there is any Act of Parliament on the Statute Book giving an individual man power such as is given under this Bill without any appeal to any court or authority other than themselves. I know the argument is that if you have an Act of Parliament you must have power to carry it out. Fifteen millions of people are to be insured, and I do not yet know what is to be the number of the men and women detectives necessary, but my real objection to this proposal is that I look upon it, together with some provisions in the unemployment part, as the beginning of a system identical with the German system by which every workman will be numbered.
The House of Commons before sanctioning a provision of this kind ought to discuss it and give it full consideration. We are dealing with a measure concerning millions of people who are to be controlled by inspectors responsible to no one and whom no one can bring to book. 457 The Chancellor of the Exchequer of course in leaving out domestic servants relieved one big section of the community from the formidable inquisition that will be carried on under this Bil. I think he had no more right to except them than anybody else, and if it is right that a master or a mistress may employ a servant without insuring them, it is equally right that the ordinary employer should be free to act in the same manner. At any rate, I intend to register my vote against this Clause, because I believe it is the beginning of the German system of registering each man and woman and finally making them carry about with them a record of everything they have done. I am opposed to that system. I thought at one time it might be a good thing, but I think now, after giving it considerable thought, it is not, and I am quite certain that working men and women outside have no idea where these provisions in the Bill are going to land them.
§ Mr. FELLThis Clause should not be passed without the fullest investigation and discussion. The suggestion that houses should be inspected has been abandoned—that was too monstrous to stand.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt was never proposed.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman is going by a journal which is a notorious disseminator of false news. If he reads the Bill he will see it is not proposed.
§ Mr. FELLI am not going by any journal. I made a few notes upon this Clause when I heard that it was coming on.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWill the hon. Gentleman read the Clause?
§ Mr. FELLYes.
to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place where he has reason able grounds for supposing that any employed contributors or workmen"—
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEGo on!
§ Mr. FELL"in an insured trade"—I quite agree, but an employed contributor would mean servants. However that is abandoned, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think it applies only to workmen. Does it not apply to every 458 clerk in London? Is every counting house and bank to be inspected by a man in uniform or not? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest clerks should be interviewed as to what their salaries are, what commission they earn in bringing in business and things of that sort? I suggest that it is a most inquisitorial thing which would never be allowed in any other country to say that a clerk must be examined, either privately or in the presence of witnesses, as to what he receives when, as in many cases, they are paid partly by commission on business which they bring in. It would be a most harassing business to apply these conditions to the City of London and to our large provincial towns. It was never intended that these inquiries should apply to such things. I intended to move an Amendment exempting counting houses and offices from this Clause. This means prying into the business of the whole of the country in an entirely unnecessary way. These provisions may be all very well for a factory, but to inspect counting houses and interview clerks as to whether they are contributors, or as to whether their salaries are too high to make them contributors, is something we have never yet stood in this country, and I am doubtful whether people will stand it now. We may hear of cases where the inspector has arrived at a place and the employer will say, "Well, we are all going out. I am going out; I am not going to see the inspectors; I have made my return, and if they do not believe me let them enforce this Clause against me. I made my return the same as I do any other returns, but to say my office boy is going to be interviewed to know whether he is insured, and whether the clerks are receiving £150 a year, that is a thing which was never contemplated by this Bill." I shall join with my hon. Friend in opposing the whole of these inspection Clauses. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) when he said this would lead to every workman having to keep papers. We shall end in every man having to keep in a book every engagement he has been in, with his character from every previous master. That is what this will lead up to, and a man will not be able to get a situation or place unless he produces these papers, and the whole thing looked through as to what he has done in his previous life. It might be very useful in case we had universal conscription, but to apply these conditions to private employés is not right, and I shall vote against this Clause.
§ Mr. JAMES PARKERI differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley with regard to the effect of this particular Clause upon which I do not wish to give a silent vote. A good deal has been said about each man having a secret dossier. A great many things are said and done in the name of individual liberty which have no connection with real liberty, and I see nothing whatever in this Clause which any employer of labour or any workman need object to. These inspectors are going to go round when necessary to the works where a man is employed to find out, I suppose, amongst other things, whether the whole of the men come within the scope of the Bill, whether their contributions are being paid, and such other things as are necessary for the inspector to find out. There is no liberty lost in that case. To-day we inspect all kinds of places. You send your inspectors into the business man's premises to see that he is keeping within the regulations of the Factory Acts. You send your shop inspectors to business premises to see whether the Shop Hours Act is being carried out. In all our municipalities you have inspectors connected with elementary education and sanitary law, and I ask is it possible to carry out the provisions of this Bill without a system of inspection? I am quite willing to go into the Lobby in support of this Clause.
§ Mr. CASSELI wish to protest against the attack which has been made upon the hon. Member for Yarmouth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the ground that he had misinterpreted the Bill as it originally stood, and that he had been misled by a journal which is notorious for its inaccuracy. May I say that on this occasion that journal was absolutely accurate with regard to its interpretation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill, and the writer in that journal knew the provisions of the Bill better than the right hon. Gentleman knows them himself. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had studied the provisions of his own Clause more carefully, he would have seen that the inspector has a right to enter premises if he has reasonable grounds for supposing that there are either employed contributors or workmen in the insured trades. Employed contributors would certainly include a servant, and it would entitle an inspector to enter any house in which he had reason to believe a butler, housemaid, or footman was employed. My hon. Friend was perfectly right in saying that the Bill as it 460 stood would have given power to any in spector to go into any part of any private house throughout the United Kingdom and there examine the servants and the masters and mistresses with regard to the provisions of this Bill being complied with. The best evidence of this is the Chancellor's own Amendment, because if he had already got a true interpretation of his Bill and believed that there was no right to enter a dwelling house, why did he pro pose an Amendment to exempt that case? He introduced that Amendment because it was recognised that the Bill as drafted did apply to dwelling houses. I rose to speak not so much on the Clause, but in order to protest against the absolutely unwarranted attack made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). It is perfectly true we have got inspectors, and we are going to have more and more of them, and eventually we shall have more inspectors than inspected. The mere fact that we have a large number of inspectors for other objects is not a sufficient defence for this proposal. I agree that some kind of inspection is necessary, but the only point is whether this Clause does not really go further than the necessities of the case would warrant. It is an innovation to be able to send inspectors into any bank or counting house. I know that dwelling houses are going to be exempt, and it would have been a tremendous innovation for an inspector to be able to go into any dining room or drawing room—
§ Mr. CASSELI shall not take any notice of the hon. Member's interruption, because it shows that he has not appreciated the purpose of this Clause. Counting houses, business premises, or any bank can be entered by these inspectors. I do not propose to vote against this Clause because I think some kind of inspection is necessary, but I do think these provisions are particularly harsh, and although the Government are going to introduce some mitigating provisions on the Report stage I think they are going further in the way of inspection than anything we have done before.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not accept the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has placed upon this Clause. In order to support his own interpretation he puts into the Sub-section 461 a word which is not there, and he uses the word "either" instead of "any." The word "either" is not in the Clause at all.
§ Mr. CASSELIt has the same meaning.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been a little more accurate if he had not used a word which was not there.
§ Mr. CASSELThe right hon. Gentleman says I have been misquoting the Clause. I was giving my interpretation of the effect of the Clause, and whether the word "either" is in or not does not make the slightest difference.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. and learned Gentleman says what he meant was not that the word "either" was there, but that it came to the same thing. I should have thought it made a very great difference as to whether you had the words "either employed contributor or workman," or whether you take the words of the Clause, "any employed contributor or workman in an insured trade." The intention of the Government was that it should be confined to employed contributors or workmen in an insured trade, and the moment our attention was called to the fact that the Clause might conceivably permit the inspection of private dwelling-houses we made that intention perfectly clear by putting down an Amendment to exclude private dwelling-houses. My complaint is not against the hon. Member, but against the paper referred to that they never called the attention of their readers to the fact that this Amendment had been put down making it perfectly clear what was the intention of the Government. I do not see how you can carry out any Act of this kind without some sort of inspection, and, if you have inspection of shops and factories, I do not see why on earth you should not have the same inspection of counting houses for the purposes of carrying out an Act of Parliament! I cannot imagine why those in counting houses should be immune from the same kind of inspection to which shopkeepers are subjected at the present time. Why should it be an insult to a banker to be subjected to the same kind of inspection—whether he is carrying out the law that a shopkeeper is under at the present time. It is the same kind of principle. If the hon. Member can point out any way whereby we can secure the enforcement of the law without some method of inspection, I shall be very glad to consider any proposal of that kind he makes.
§ Mr. PETOI desire to raise quite a different point. I am not prepared to admit that anything like the kind of inspection provided for by this Clause is necessary, but I want to ask this: Under Paragraph (c) there are powers taken
to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks fit, with respect to any matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in any such premises or place, or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been an employed contributor or workman in an insured trade, and to require every such person to be so examined, and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined;One of the insured trades is shipbuilding, and there will be intricate questions to be settled as to what extent auxiliary trades ought to be included in the general trade of shipbuilding. These examinations will undoubtedly occupy an enormous amount of time and cause considerable interruption of business. I want to know whether the men who are to be examined are to lose several hours, perhaps one, two, or three days when the examinations take place, or whether the employer is to bear the whole loss of the time occupied by those in their employment giving evidence on the premises to satisfy the inspector on the various intricate points to be raised. I had an Amendment down, but unfortunately I was not in my place raising the question whether it was not reasonable it should be made perfectly clear that the time lost by workmen carrying out the provisions of this Clause should be neither paid for by the workman in loss of wages nor by the employer in loss of time, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give me some satisfaction on that point. If he cannot, I shall regard the provisions of the Clause as so unjust that I shall have to join the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI want to ask a question on paragraphs (a) and (c). I am sorry I was not here to move an Amendment cutting out the words "employed contributors or," because I do not think it is at all clear whether paragraph (a) is to apply merely to an insured trade or whether it is also to apply to an employed contributor who does not happen to be in a particular trade but who is insured. It seems to me it is quite easy to read the paragraph so as to include 463 employed contributors outside an insured trade as well as workmen in an insured trade under the Bill. I am quite sure that members of friendly societies do not in the least realise, if it is the case, that ordinary members of approved societies under the Bill are, according to this Clause, going to be under inspection. I have talked to a great many of them, and I have talked to one or two leaders of the Manchester Unity, and they have been under the impression up to now that this merely refers to employed contributors in an insured trade. If it really does include employed contributors outside an insured trade, I should feel bound to divide against the Clause.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt certainly applies to every one.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTThere is certainly one class of person to whom this Clause ought not to apply, and who are not specifically excluded. I refer to the teachers
§ and head teachers in secondary schools. I am sorry they are not, as elementary school teachers, exempted.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have an Amendment down to meet their case.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIt must be clear, apart from any Amendment, it would cause very serious interference with discipline if the head teacher downwards were examined, possibly in the presence of the children, in order to obtain this information. I venture to hope, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised an Amendment, that, as the secondary teachers feel very strongly about this Bill, that Amendment will have the effect of exempting them altogether from this Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 30.
465| Division No. 388.] | AYES. | [8.45 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Donelan, Captain A. | Johnson, W. |
| Adamson, William | Doris, William | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Anderson, A. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Joyce, Michael |
| Armitage, R. | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Keating, M. |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Elverston, Sir Harold | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Kelly, Edward |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmot (Somerset) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Kemp, Sir George |
| Barnes, G. N. | Essex, Richard Walter | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Esslemont, George Birnie | Kilbride, Denis |
| Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, S. George) | Ferens, T. R. | King, J. (Somerset, N.) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Ffrench, Peter | Lardner, James Carrige Ruche |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Law, Hugh A (Donegal, West) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Coekerm'th) |
| Boland, John Pius | Furness, Stephen | Leach, Charles |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bowerman, C. W. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Lynch, A. A. |
| Brace, William | Gibson, Sir James Puckering | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Gill, A. H. | McGhee, Richard |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Gladstone, W. G. C. | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Goldstone, Frank | M'Callum, John M. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gulland, John William | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hackett, J. | Martin, Joseph |
| Clough, William | Hancock, J. G. | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Meagher, Michael |
| Dompton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Dondon, Thomas Joseph | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Molloy, M. |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Haworth, Sir Arthur A. | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Cotton, William Francis | Hayden, John Patrick | Mond, Sir Alfred M. |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hayward, Evan | Mooney, John J. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Cullinan, John | Henry, Sir Charles | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Higham, John Sharp | Muldoon, John |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Hinds, John | Munro, R. |
| Davies, E. William (Eiflon) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Hudson, Walter | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Dawes, J. A. | Hughes, S. L. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Devlin, Joseph | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Dillon, John | John, Edward Thomas | Nuttall, Harry |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) | Wadsworth, John |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Robinson, Sidney | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| O'Grady, James | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Webb, H. |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Roe, Sir Thomas | White, J. (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Scanlan, Thomas | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Sheehy, David | Wiles, Thomas |
| Pointer, Joseph | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Primrose, Hon. Neil James | Smyth, Thomas F. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Radford, George Heynes | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Reddy, M. | Summers, James Woolley | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Sutton, John E. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Richards, Thomas | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. G. Howard. |
| Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Toulmin, Sir George | |
| NOES. | ||
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Crean, Eugene | Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) | Gretton, John | Swift, Rigby |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hodge, John | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid.) | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Jowett, F. W. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Campion, W. R. | Lansbury, George | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Cassel, Felix | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Mount, William Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. Peto. |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
Question put, and agreed to.