HC Deb 12 December 1912 vol 45 cc876-91

Whenever, by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the Irish Government or by any Minister, officer, or servant of that Government, any person, including any foreign Power or the subject of any foreign Power, suffers loss or injury and any sum of money becomes payable and is paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom in respect of such loss or injury, that sum shall thereupon become payable to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom out of the Irish Exchequer and shall be made good by means of deductions from the Transferred Sum under this Act.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."


In moving this Clause, I may say the wording is somewhat complicated, but it really embodies a very simple principle. After the concession which the Attorney-General made on the last Clause, he can hardly refuse to accept this one. The principle of it is that where there is control there shall be responsibility, and where there is no control there shall not be responsibility. There will be an Executive in Ireland, and under that Executive there will be a number of officers appointed who might be brought in contact with the subject of a foreign Power. They might cause some grievance to some subject of a foreign Power accordingly. If that foreign Power takes the case up it will have to go to the Imperial Government; it will not recognise the subordinate Government. If it goes to the Imperial Government obviously the Imperial Government ought to have either control or a remedy. The Imperial Government has before now been brought into considerable embarrassment by the action of Colonial Governments. I think the principal case is that of Newfoundland. Our whole relations with France were embarrassed and to some extent embittered throughout a century or more by the question of the Newfoundland fisheries, and from incidents which arose between the Newfoundland Government and the French fishermen which called for intervention by the French Government, and when the Imperial Government wanted to be on good terms with France it found this question of great embarrassment, and yet it had no direct control. It did not wish to exercise its latent Imperial rights over an independent executive like that of Newfoundland, and it was from time to time embarrassed. Something of the same kind may easily happen again. It is quite easy to think of a number of possibilities in which the action of the Irish Executive may seriously embarrass the Imperial Government in its foreign relations, and the Imperial Government should have a remedy in its hands. I am not assuming for the purposes of my argument that the Irish Executive is either better or worse than any other Executive, but some officer of that Executive may make mistakes by which the subject of a foreign Power would be damaged and the foreign Power would have to proceed against the Imperial Government for compensation. I am only asking that we should have such power to recover such compensation from the Irish Government. It is an extremely reasonable Amendment, and I trust the Postmaster-General will accept it.

Sir J. D. REES

I wish to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend. If this Clause is not passed a cruiser of the same character as the "Alabama" might be allowed to leave one of the many harbours of the West Coast of Ireland without attracting very much attention, and in a war like the present war in the Balkans, where there is a very small fleet on one side and no fleet on the other, one armoured cruiser might alter the whole complexion of the war. Circumstances similar to those of the "Alabama," which involved this country in such prolonged litigation and very large pecuniary loss, might occur, and if this Clause were not passed there would be no redress as against the Irish Exchequer, and how the Irish Exchequer in a case like that would be compelled to make it good I do not understand. The case I put is not altogether a fanciful one. At one of the harbours on the West Coast of Ireland a squadron from France, somewhere about the time of the battle of Vinegar Hill, actually came over and landed a hostile force in the county Mayo, and that force maintained itself for more than fourteen days from that base and fought an action, which had it won it might have changed the whole political circumstances of the time. If that is the case, or if any other less serious omission or action of any officer in the service of the Irish Government might involve the British Government in serious loss, surely it becomes the Government which has made so many inroads on the pocket of the taxpayer to make even at the eleventh hour some provision for protecting the taxpayer's pocket in the manner suggested by the Amendment. The case which I have suggested seems to me the most likely to occur. It is perfectly obvious that there might be innumerable cases. I am sorry that I have not the fertility of imagination to enable me to supply them, but other Members who do not suffer from that want of imagination no doubt would be able to supply other cases in which the taxpayers would be put to serious loss if my hon. Friend's Amendment is not accepted. In the interests of this Bill the Postmaster-General would do very well to allow this Amendment to pass, because I can assure him, having recently been at several meetings in the country, that the British taxpayer is awakening to the fact that Home Rule is affecting him in his most tender spot, his pocket. It is not too late for the Government to do something to convince the taxpayer that it cares for his pocket, and it will do so by accepting this Amendment.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)

The hon. Member who has just spoken invites us to convince the British taxpayer that his interests are being safeguarded. What he proposes to do on this occasion is to provide against the case of an armoured cruiser secretly departing from the coast of Mayo to take part in some foreign war when Home Rule has come into operation, with the result that an arbitration award will be given against the Imperial Government. In the course of his many interesting contributions towards these Debates the hon. Gentleman has given us many vivid imaginary pictures, but none quite so unconvincing as this. The hon. Member who moved this Clause quoted various precedents of difficulties that have been occasioned to the Imperial Government through the action or inaction of Colonial or Dominion Parliaments or Executives, but I do not think that he has quoted any precedent for a Clause of this character in any Dominion or Colonial Constitution. This Parliament have never found it necessary to insert in any existing Constitution any safeguard of this character, and in the opinion of the Government it is not necessary now. The danger is an extraordinarily unreal one in view of the fact that the garrison in Ireland will be under the control of the Imperial Government. The whole of the naval forces will be under the control of the Imperial Government; the coastguard will be under the control of the Imperial Government; the Irish Government will have nothing to say to any question of foreign policy, or to any question of war or defence, and the contingency which has been presented by the hon. Member is exceedingly unreal. If it should conceivably happen that by some fault of the Irish Government internationally—a case of which, in my view, the improbability is so great as almost to reach the level of impossibility—if such a case should occur, and, in consequence, the Imperial Exchequer were put to the expense through that action, then the Imperial Parliament at that time could deal with the case on its merits; and, as the whole of the Irish revenue flow into the Imperial Exchequer, and all Irish funds will be paid from here, it is quite clear that we have an ample financial margin on which we could rely in need. The suspicion which hon. Members opposite entertain of all the actions of the Irish Government at every point should not be stamped on the face of the Act and therefore I ask the Committee not to accept the Clause.


May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what took place on the 8th August, 1893. A Clause was moved by Mr. Henry Hobhouse, a respected Member of this House, as follows: Whenever by reason of any act unlawfully done or omitted to be done by the Irish Government or by any Member or officer of that Government, any foreign Power or the subject of any foreign Power suffers loss or injury, and any sum of money becomes payable out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom by way of indemnity or compensation for such loss or injury, such sum shall thereupon be payable to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom from the Irish Exchequer, and shall be recoverable according to the provisions of this Act. It was argued on that occasion that the Imperial Government might be brought into serious embarrassment by the action of the Irish Government with foreign Powers, and there was cited in particular the danger in connection with the Newfoundland fisheries, and so cogent was the argument that before the speaker had concluded his speech, Sir Charles Russell, the then Attorney-General rose in his place and said:— In order to save time I may say that the Government will accept the Second Reading. Sir Charles Russell, a most eminent jurist, who would have done nothing to prejudice the interests of his country, and moreover was serving under the leadership of Mr. Gladstone, accepted the Second Reading of that Clause, and, therefore, in the name of Mr. Gladstone and Sir Charles Russell, I ask the Government to reconsider their decision.


I do not suppose the Government are really going to leave the matter where it is. They ought to consider carefully the position in which they place the Committee. My hon. Friend has moved a Clause which designs to protect the British Exchequer against default, against having to pay money caused by the default of the Irish Executive, and his position is that no British Government which is not responsible for control should be responsible for the exercise or want of exercise of control. The Postmaster-General said, in the first place, that the illustration given by my hon. Friend about the departure of a cruiser secretly was picturesque, was never likely to occur, and bore no relation whatever to the question. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Debate which took place in 1893, he will see that the very case which he said was unlikely to occur, did occur. In the case of the "Alabama" and "Shenandoah," the British Government was held liable for a very large sum of money because the Government of Victoria had failed to stop the "Shenandoah" from departing. The right hon. Gentleman says that case carries no conviction to his mind. It carried conviction to the mind of Mr. Gladstone. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Gladstone accepted a Clause which carried no conviction to him; does he think that Mr. Gladstone would agree to an argument which he did not think sound? The plain point of fact is that the Clause did not commend itself to Mr. Gladstone, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no precedent for a Clause like this in any legislation of our own Colonies, I answer him with the precedent of the Bill in 1893, and what better precedent does he want? When it suits the purpose of the Government they are always quoting the Act of 1893. They say this was proposed in 1893, and we are following that lead; or this course was not followed in 1893, neither do we follow it. Yet we have the fact that this Clause was considered of such weight by the Government in 1893, that they went out of their way to put it in the Bill, but the Postmaster-General has not only rejected this with contempt, but apparently he hears of it for the first time.


Not at all.


All I can say is that it was anything but frank of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that this had no parallel in any Colonial Act, or in any Bill of any subordinate Parliament. Now he says that he knew of this Clause under the Bill of 1893, accepted by Mr. Gladstone, I am exceedingly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt that tone, and certainly if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who interrupts me, if I remember rightly, has not once contributed anything except interruptions in these Debates, and unless he proposes to contribute something more important than that lie should allow us to proceed.


What is more important is that I have had to listen to you, and that is painful enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]


I was prepared for those cheers. At all events, we are trying to put our case as fairly as we can. We are allowed a very short time by the hon. Gentlemen opposite in which to present it, and I really do think that we ought to be treated, at all events, with the ordinary decencies of debate, and that we should not be subjected to these repeated interruptions, for it is perfectly intolerable that they should continue. I have only this to say in regard to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that frankly the position he takes up is not such as we expected in regard to a Clause which was accepted in 1893.


The hon. Member assumes that I was not acquainted, or that the Government were not acquainted, with the fact that a similar Clause was accepted in 1893. We were well aware of that, but I was dealing with the question of the Colonies, which was mentioned by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, and whose argument was that since a Colonial Administration has caused intolerable inconvenience to the British Government, we ought to put this provision into the Bill. My reply was that in no Colonial or Dominion Constitution was there a similar provision. I was dealing with that point alone. As to the Debate in 1893 what occurred was this. A similar Clause was moved by Mr. Hobhouse in a speech which lasted only two or three minutes. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Government were already convinced."] The Attorney-General got up, in order to save time, and said, "I may say that the Government accept the Second Reading of this Clause." Mr. Hobhouse thereupon, after a few-words, sat down, and that was the whole of the Debate, and why it should be assumed that the arguments had carried conviction in the mind of Mr. Gladstone and that he was so impressed with the incidents of the "Shenandoah" and "Alabama" and so forth, I do not know. It is fairly obvious that the Government, desirous of saving time, as not infrequently happens when a Debate is becoming somewhat obstructive, thought, although the Clause was of no use, it could not do much harm, and that they would accept it and get on. Under the Bill the Irish Government cannot deal with any questions relating to foreign States. In Clause 2, Sub-section (4), there are words to this effect, that the Irish Parliament is not to have the power to deal with treaties or with any relations with foreign States or relations with other parts of His Majesty's Dominions, or offences connected with any such treaties, or procedure connected with the extradition of criminals or the return of fugitive offenders. Thus it is perfectly clear that all those matters which might conceivably bring us into conflict with other Powers are reserved entirely to the Imperial Government, and that whereas the Colonies and Dominions have certain powers in this relation, and nevertheless we do not insert such a Clause, yet in the case of Ireland they have no such powers, and still less is there any reason for inserting this Clause.


We have had many strange manœuvres on the part of the Government in the course of these Debates, but we have seldom had a more extraordinary illustration of the way in which they think fit to treat our Amendments than we have had in the course of to-night. What has happened? The Clause which is moved, and which is reasonable and fair, appeared so reasonable to Mr. Gladstone and his advisers that it was accepted in 1893. What does the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General do? He tells us that all the dangers which we anticipate as possible and which give rise to this Clause are purely unreal, imaginary, highly coloured, impossible, and he gave us quite a wealth of adjectives describing the Clause as absurd in substance. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he really think this Clause is absurd and the dangers it aims at avoiding are imaginary? If so, I should like to be informed why Mr. Gladstone and his Law Officers accepted it as right. [An HON. MEMBEB: "To save time."] Somebody says to save time. Are we to suppose that Mr. Gladstone and Sir Charles Russell, and all the great men who formed that Government, were willing, for the sake of sparing a few minutes, to accept an absurd, impossible, and imaginary Clause to put into their Bill. The thing is ridiculous. It is quite obvious that they thought it was a right and proper Clause, and that they accepted it for that reason.

The Postmaster-General, in his last remarks, gave a reason which I confess quite baffled my understanding. He said that by a Sub-section of Clause 2 the Irish Parliament are prohibited from legislating in regard to offences against foreign countries, or as to anything connected with treaties, or relations with foreign countries, the extradition of criminals, and so on. He goes on to argue that because they are prevented from so legislating that therefore it is quite impossible for the Irish Government or any Irish Minister to do any wrong to a foreign country. What on earth have they got to do with each other. Although you prevent them from legislating, what is there to stop them if they think fit, or through inadvertence, doing a wrong thing to a foreign country for which compensation may be claimed? The two things have nothing to do with each other. What we say is that the Irish Government, or its Ministers, do something wrong to a foreign country for which the country claims compensation from the Exchequer of Great Britain or the United Kingdom, then that the loss so caused shall not fall upon the Exchequer of the United Kingdom but shall fall upon the Government who do the wrong, namely the Irish Government. The Postmaster-General's last excuse was, and I hope I follow his argument correctly, that if such a thing did occur, and that if the Irish Government should do something which involved the British Exchequer, then you had always got the power of the Imperial Government to legislate and deal with the question on its merits. What does that mean? It means that the British Exchequer is to pay a sum of money, probably a considerable sum, to a foreign Government for a wrong done by the Irish Government. "Oh but then," says the Postmaster-General, "the Imperial Parliament can put that right. I suppose they can bring in a Bill saying that the Irish Government must pay and claiming the payment of possibly some millions. I should like to know what hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would say to a Bill like that. What about the forty-two Members? Would they not come over by the night mail and oppose such a Bill tooth and nail, and say that it was a most grossly improper claim, and that it was a breach of good faith to ask them to pay those millions.

What then would become of your peace and harmony? You are never tired telling us that the object of this Bill is to promote peace and harmony between the Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland. Do you think you are likely to promote that by bringing in a Bill against the Irish Government and forcing them to pay? What about the effect of such a Bill on the time of this House. We are told that the great object, or one of the great objects of this Bill, is to save time in future, yet the Postmaster-General calmly suggests that we should be involved in a discussion of a Bill of that sort which would certainly be most bitterly opposed, and that that is the best way of dealing with the question rather than by a Clause put into this Bill which would settle the matter once and for all without any necessity for coming to Parliament in future. If the object of the right hon. Gentleman is really to save time in the future and to promote peace and harmony between this Parliament and the Home Rule Parliament, if ever it is set up, surely he should accept this Amendment which would lay down the principles in which cases of this sort can be directly met. The truth of the matter is that he has given us no reasons whatever for refusing to follow the precedent set by Mr. Gladstone and his Government, but he has made it quite clear what indeed he and his Government have made quite clear time after time during the course of these debates, that not one of them care one jot or tittle for the interests of the British Exchequer and the British taxpayer. I see hon. Members from Ireland cheer that as I expected they would. Of course, they do not care about the British Exchequer or the British taxpayer, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite follow example, or perhaps I should say their orders, and exhibit equal indifference towards the interests of the British taxpayer. We have to-night an admirable illustration of that cynical indifference towards the interests of the British taxpayer when this Amendment, which is a reasonable one, and which is one which was accepted by Mr. Gladstone, and which is for the sole purpose of avoiding friction in the future and protecting the interests of the British taxpayer, is first of all pooh-poohed by them as unnecessary, and they then advance certain lame, inconclusive and ridiculous reasons for not accepting our Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

With the indulgence of the Committee, since I introduced the "Alabama," into this Debate, may I venture to point out to the Postmaster-General that he has entirely ignored the whole of the facts which are behind the suggested Amendment? His answer was that the Navy would be under the Imperial Government and that the Customs would be under the Imperial Government, and he asked how could we fear such occurrences, whereas the real point is this, that the unauthorised action or omission of the Ministers or servants of the Irish Government may be such that we ought to provide that the Imperial Government shall not be penalised. The suggestion has been made in view of the case of the "Alabama," that something should be done to make provision against something against which the supervising authority could not provide or failed to provide. In that case the Attorney-General was the official concerned, and had been spending the week at his country house. He was somewhat overworked, and his wife, having regard to this, put the dispatch boxes on one side, and by that delay one day was lost, and owing to that unfortunate solicitude of this lady for her husband, this country suffered those severe damages. The suggestion now is that, in spite of the supervision of the Imperial Government, we should, owing to the omission of some Irish official, be cast in damages. The Postmaster-General said, with an air of great conviction, that Clause 2, Sub-section (4), would meet the point, but that really does not meet the case at all, and, as has been pointed out, Mr. Gladstone and his Attorney-General on the previous Bill accepted this particular Amendment, or, at any rate, one which had precisely the same effect. The Act 56 Victoria like this Bill refers to treaties and relations with foreign States, and Mr. Gladstone accepted an Amendment to the effect of this Amendment in spite of a similar provision as to foreign relations.

I do not know what the claim of the Postmaster-General is. I am afraid that he is much more interested in the conversation of hon. Gentlemen behind him than in the speeches addressed from this side, and he may be able to deal with the arguments of hon. Gentlemen behind him more easily. His claim is that Mr. Gladstone accepted this Amendment because he was bored. He appears to be able to explain Mr. Gladstone's inner mind. That was a very difficult thing to do at any time, but now that he has unfortunately passed away, I am really astonished to hear the Postmaster-General say that Mr. Gladstone accepted the Amendment because he was bored with the discussion. If that was so, if that was his motive, may I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should imitate him in that respect also, and being bored with the discussion, let him accept the Amendment. I do urge that this is a serious matter. I did not know that the incident of the "Alabama" was so pertinent until my hon. Friend brought further facts to our notice. That is a thing which might go beyond the supervision of the Imperial authorities, and this Amendment applies to a case in which ex hypothesi something occurs owing to the omission or the action of some officials of the subordinate Government. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to imitate Mr. Gladstone, and if he is bored with the discussion and cannot answer the argument, let him accept the Amendment.


I listened to the speech of the Postmaster-General, and although he endeavoured to meet the argument, he has failed to do so. The Clause proposes that if, owing to the default of the Irish Government or its servants we suffer any damage, the Irish Government shall be responsible for any sum which The Hague tribunal or some such body, say that we should pay to any foreign Power; that we shall be entitled to get back that sum from the Irish Government. How did the Postmaster-General meet that? He said we have got control of the Army and Navy and Custom Houses in Ireland. That is no answer at all. If it is a default of any of those services which we retain, it is not the default of the Irish Government. What we propose to deal with is something which is the default of the Irish Government I respectfully submit to the Postmaster-General that his argument never touched upon the point which is now raised. I was surprised by his second argument. He said that we take in our hands the revenue collected in Ireland, and that we can deduct what we like, and so refund to the Imperial Government any sum that we may be called upon to pay to any foreign Power. I submit that that is absolutely wrong. You have this Transferred Sum, and we have to pay to Ireland the proceeds of this revenue as stipulated in the earlier Clauses, and we are not entitled to make any deduction unless that deduction is expressly stated, and I say that no lawyer in this House would say that we are not bound to pay the sum as set forth in those Clauses, or that there is anything to enable us to deduct money from that sum in such a matter as this. The Postmaster-General's argument was one which really cannot be sustained. The other argument has already been referred to. It came from the bench behind him. He rested it upon Clause 2, Sub-section (4). It is pure nonsense in respect to the matter which is now raised. When he did address himself to the new Clause I understood him to suggest that there was no precedent for this Clause. He referred to the Colonies and their legislation, but surely it was within his knowledge that in the Irish Bill of 1893 there was a similar Clause. I think it would have been more germane and

more candid if he had told us that there was such a Clause accepted in the Bill of 1893, and that on further consideration the Government of the present day did not propose to accept it.

With regard to Colonial legislation, to say there was no such Clause was, in my judgment, entirely misleading. I confess I was surprised when that was quoted. We ought to have a provision which does, in fact, protect us in such an event as this. I would further point out, in regard to the arguments as to the Army, Navy, and Customs House, that the British Empire possessed these powers when the "Alabama" escaped from this country. Notwithstanding that, we had to pay a large sum of money. I cannot, for myself, see that that might not very easily happen in Ireland when you have a double power governing the country. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his determination and to admit this Clause. If, as he says, the whole matter is imaginary and problematical, that it is almost impossible of belief that such a thing might happen, how far easier it is to provide a Clause which we think is reasonable and necessary for our protection and which specifically enables us to deduct from the funds that go to Ireland the sum of money which we shall have to pay away to a foreign Power, not by virtue of our neglect, but by virtue of their neglect.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 280.

Division No. 446.] AYES. [9.50 p.m.
Aitken, Sir William Max Dixon, C. H. Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Duke, Henry Edward Hope, Major J. A (Midlothian)
Baird, J. L. Eyres-Monsell, B. M. Houston, Robert Paterson
Balcarres, Lord Faber, George Denlson (Clapham) Hume-Williams, William Ellis
Baldwin, Stanley Fell, Arthur Hunter, Sir C. R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Fletcher, John Samuel Lane-Fox, G. R.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Gardner, Ernest Larmor, Sir J.
Barnston, Harry Gastrell, Major W. H. Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Barrie, H. T. Gibbs, G. A. Lewisham, Viscount
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gilmour, Captain John Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.
Bigland, Alfred Goldman, C. S. Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee
Blair, Reginald Goldsmith, Frank Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Bridgeman, W. Clive Goulding, Edward Alfred Macmaster, Donald
Burn, Colonel C. R. Gretton, John M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Butcher, J. G. Haddock, George Bahr Magnus, Sir Philip
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Hambro, Angus Valdemar Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Campion, W. R. Hamersley, Alfred St. George Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)>
Cassel, Felix Harris, Henry Percy Mount, William Arthur
Cautley, H. S. Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Newton, Harry Kottingham
Cave, George Hill, Sir Clement L. Nield, Herbert
Chambers, J. Hills, John Waller O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender Hill-Wood, Samuel Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Denniss, E. R. B. Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Basil Edward Smith, Harold (Warrington) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Pryce-Jones, Col. E. Spear, Sir John Ward Wheler, Granville C. H.
Randles, Sir John S. Stanier, Beville Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Rees, Sir J. D. Steel-Maitland, A. D. Wills, Sir Gilbert
Remnant, James Farquharson Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)
Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Swift, Rigby Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) Talbot, Lord E. Wright, Henry Fitzherbert
Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.) Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Salter, Arthur Claveil Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Sanders, Robert A. Tobin, Alfred Aspinall TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir W. Bull and Mr. Falle.
Sanderson, Lancelot Touche, George Alexander
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Farrell, James Patrick Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Acland, Francis Dyke Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Adamson, William Ffrench, Peter Leach, Charles
Addison, Dr. Christopher Field, William Levy, Sir Maurice
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Flavin, Michael Joseph Lundon, Thomas
Alden, Percy France, G. A. Lynch, A. A.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Gilhooly, James McGhee, Richard
Armitage, Robert Gill, A. H. Maclean, Donald
Arnold, Sydney Ginnell, L. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Gladstone, W. G. C. Macpherson, James Ian
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Goldstone, Frank M'Callum, Sir John M.
Barnes, G. N. Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Barton, W. Greig, Colonel J. W. M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Beale, Sir William Phipson Griffith, Ellis J. Markham, Sir Arthur Basil
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Marshall, Arthur Harold
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Bentham, G. J. Guiney, P. Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Gulland, John William Meagher, Michael
Black, Arthur W. Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Boland, John Plus Hackett, J. Menzies, Sir Walter
Booth, Frederick Handel Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Millar, James Duncan
Bowerman, C. W. Hancock, John George Molloy, M.
Boyle, D (Mayo, N.) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Molteno, Percy Alport
Brace, William Hardie, J. Keir Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz
Brady, P. J. Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Mooney, J. J.
Brocklehurst, W. B. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Morgan, George Hay
Brunner, John F. L. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morrell, Philip
Bryce, J. Annan Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Morison, Hector
Buck master, Stanley O. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Burke, E. Haviland- Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Muldoon, John
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Munro, R.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hayden, John Patrick Nannetti, Joseph p.
Chancellor, H. G. Hayward, Evan Needham, Christopher T.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Hazieton, Richard Nolan, Joseph
Clancy, John Joseph Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Clough, William Helme, Sir Norval Watson Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Clynes, John R. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Henry, Sir Charles O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Doherty, Philip
Condon, Thomas Joseph Higham, John Sharp O'Donnell, Thomas
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hinds, John O'Dowd, John
Cotton, William Francis Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Ogden, Fred
Crean, Eugene Hodge, John O'Grady, James
Crooks, William Hogge, James Styles O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Crumley, Patrick Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Cullinan, J. Holt, Richard Durning O'Malley, William
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Hope, John Deans (Haddington) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh S.)
Davies, E. William (Eifion) Hughes, S. L. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Davies, Sir W. Hoswell (Bristol, S.) John, Edward Thomas O'Shee, James John
Delany, William O'Sullivan, Timothy
Devlin, Joseph Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Outhwalte, R. L.
Dickinson, W. H. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Parker, James (Halifax)
Doris, W. Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Duffy, William J. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Jones, W. S. Glyn (T. H'mts, Stepney) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Jowett, Frederick William Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Joyce, Michael Pirie, Duncan V.
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Kellaway, Frederick George Pointer, Joseph
Elverston, Sir Harold Kennedy, Vincent Paul Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Kilbride, Denis Power, Patrick Joseph
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) King, J. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Esslemont, George Birnie Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Falconer, J. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Pringle, William M. R. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Radford, G. H. Scanlan, Thomas Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Rattan, Peter Wilson Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Waring, Walter
Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Sheehy, David Watt, Henry A.
Reddy, M. Sherwell, Arthur James Webb, H.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Shortt, Edward White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Simon, Sir John Allsebrook White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Richards, Thomas Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wiles, Thomas
Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Snowden, Philip Wilkie, Alexander
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Sutherland, J. E. Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Sutton, John E. Williamson, Sir Archibald
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Robinson, Sidney Thomas, J. H. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Roch, Walter F. Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North) Winfrey, Richard
Roche, Augustine (Louth) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Roe, Sir Thomas Toulmin, Sir George Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Rowlands, James Trevelyan, Charles Philips Young, William (Perth, East)
Rowntree, Arnold Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Verney, Sir Harry
Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Wadsworth, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Walsh, J. (Cork, South)