§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, 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, 1912, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses."
§ Sir F. BANBURYI should like to have some explanation about this Vote. There are charges for inquiries before magistrates, shorthand writers, and remuneration of assessors. The first shows a small increase of £100. There is only a very short foot-note which explains that the charge is required to pay the fees of stipendiary magistrates, magistrates' clerks, and local court-keepers. I do not know whether the reason of the increase is because it was originally a bad estimate of the sum required, or whether it is due to the greater length of the sittings of the Courts. In previous years the sittings of the Courts were exactly the length of the sittings of the House of Commons, but whether it is that there are more criminals in the country or not, I do not know, but the Courts now sit for a protracted time, and for each sitting there is an additional fee of £100. I am afraid that the country is suffering very badly from the administration of the powers that be at the present moment. In regard to the remuneration there is an increase from £2,100 to £2,700, an increase of £600, or, roughly speaking, 30 per cent. I presume it is not for travelling expenses, because we have a different item for that. I should like to know why this Supplementary Vote is required on a small item of £2,100. In the case of the shorthand writers the increase is from £200 to £350, an increase of 1232 75 per cent. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present, and perhaps he will explain to us how it becomes necessary to have this increase of 75 per cent. on the original Estimate. The fact that it is a small sum makes the case no better. It docs not matter whether it is £100 or a larger sum. It shows slovenly book-keeping, slovenly financial methods, and a disregard altogether of those sound and economical methods by which alone can the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintain control. I have endeavoured to put my questions to the hon. Gentleman as shortly as possible, and I hope he will give you some satisfactory answer on these points.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)The question raised by the hon. Baronet is capable of a simple explanation, which I think has already been suggested to him by the hon. and learned Member beside him. It is impossible for the Government to forecast how many wrecks there will be, what the weather will be like, or what the size of the wrecks will be into which there will have to be inquiry in the future. Especially is that the case in three wrecks, the names of which are probably known to hon. Members, the "British Standard," the "Waratah," and the "Dunsley." These wrecks necessitated that the Court should sit longer. The scale of expenses was the same as in previous years, but on account of the length of the inquiry which took place the amount expended on the same scale was much larger. That is the simple explanation of the increased Estimate. It is an automatic increase; it depends entirely on the number of days occupied in the inquiry.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not think the explanation is altogether satisfactory, though it is better than I thought it would be. I do not know what the increase of remuneration of assessors means, and I beg to move to reduce Item G (Assessors—remuneration) by £100.
§ Mr. FELLI was considerably interested to know whether this increase of the Vote is due to further wrecks or the policy of the Government in increasing the salaries. We have just, been informed of the cause of the increase, and I suppose the payment is so much per day. With regard to the "Waratah"—
§ The CHAIRMANThe question before the House is Item G (Assessors—remuneration).
§ Mr. FELLYes, assessors' remuneration with regard to the loss of the ship, but to this day I believe some people maintain that the "Waratah" was not wrecked, and that she might turn up. To this very day she is not accounted for in any way, and nothing has been heard of her.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman is now going back on the general question.
§ Mr. FELLThen the only question is as to the assessors, who have done more work and received more pay, and this additional expense is thrown upon the public. Whether the Department could have foreseen this or not, I think, in the case of the vessel, to the name of which I must not refer, they might have foreseen, after she was missing such a very long time, that something might be required for an inquiry. In regard to the other cases, the names of which I must not mention, I suppose they could not have been foreseen. We do not know how many wrecks or inquiries there will be next year, but we can hope that the Government, will take an average and be able to arrive at the number, so that we will not have an increase in the Vote in this manner again.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI understand that my hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) objects to this Vote on the ground that the assessors are remunerated disproportionately from any of the other persons in the Vote. I would be better able to form a judgment whether he was right or not if I knew exactly what an assessor was and what he does. My conception is that he is a well-informed person who is allowed to give advice but not to decide, and that the judge, who is less well informed, is to form his own judgment. He may also be a person who assesses the damage done in a wreck or exercises some function of that kind. No doubt, the Attorney-General knows what an assessor is. Docs he not know? I though he looked as if he indicated a negative point of view. I should like if he would tell us what an assessor does for this additional sum of £600, and we might be told how many are paid by that £600. Those are points on which I think the Government ought to inform the Committee if the Committee is to have any control. Some people think that the Committee ought not to control the Government, but if we are to exercise any control we must know, I submit, what an assessor is, how many there are, and what they are paid.
§ Mr. GRETTONI hope the right hon. Gentleman will satisfy the Noble Lord's curiosity. I desire to carry the inquiry a little further. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the increase is automatic, but he did not tell us how the assessors are paid, and as to how the increase has arisen. I do not suppose there is anyone in the House who knows how they are paid, and whether by fee for the whole of the inquiry, or by the day, or in various amounts in the different cases. These are all questions of great importance to the maritime community, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy my curiosity with regard to them. My inquiry is really a business inquiry which would be asked by any board of directors before they pass the Amendment.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThis Supplementary Estimate is based on exactly the same rate of pay as is set out in the original Estimate. The only increase is due to the fact that there have been longer sittings and consequently a greater amount of pay at the same rate. The Noble Lord has asked me what an assessor is. I suppose he has heard of both nautical and legal assessors. I would refer him to the Noble Lord who sits behind him for an explanation as to what a legal assessor is, as that Noble Lord has himself sat in that capacity.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI will do my best to instruct the Committee. Of course, we all know what an assessor is; but there are different kinds of assessors, and, as has been justly remarked, sometimes they may be legal and sometimes nautical. In these cases, I presume, they are nautical, and I do not know that I am familiar with the practice as to them. The Attorney-General has evaded all the other questions by saying, with that courtesy with which he always addresses us, but not with very great fullness, that the assessors are remunerated in precisely the same way as the others under the original Estimate. That still leaves us—
§ The CHAIRMANIf it is the case that this Supplementary Vote only represents an additional number of inquiries, and that there is no alteration in the remuneration or status of the assessors, we cannot discuss that subject, now, and we can only discuss the question as to the number of wrecks.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILSurely we are entitled to discuss whether the extra amount we are asked to vote is a proper 1235 amount to vote for these assessors, and otherwise it is a pure farce to refer the Estimate to the Committee at all. If it be really true that all we can discuss is the number of wrecks that have taken place, that is not really worth asking the Committee to vote about. I submit that the only possible advantage in asking the Committee to sanction this Vote is to see that the public money is not being wasted. We must, I contend, be entitled to such information and such inquiry as will enable us to be satisfied that the money is being expended with due advantage. If that is not the case under the rules then the sooner we have an alteration in the rules of the House the better.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord was not here yesterday when the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) took exactly the same point. In reply to him I pointed out that we are not permitted to go into the whole question of the General Estimates on the Supplementary Estimates. That is a well-known rule of the House. The only thing open here is the number of wrecks.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI find in the original Estimate that these assessors are different sorts of people. The Vote is for nautical engineering and other assessors £3,100, and the previous Vote was for £1,950. There is a star which says some of those assessors are officers of the Royal Navy on the active or retired lists, Therefore, I venture to submit, that those assessors are varying in profession and that their pay does not automatically rise at all, and that this increase has arisen because some of them have had to be called in and paid for their services, therefore I submit we are entitled surely to consider whether we are justified in voting this sum to those gentlemen who are so called in.
§ The CHAIRMANIf I am informed, as I am, by the representative of the Government that there is no alteration whatever in the rate or method of remuneration, and that this Vote is introduced solely owing to the increased number of wrecks, clearly I cannot allow the Committee to reopen the question of the method or mode of remuneration.
§ Mr. SANDYSIf the hon. Baronet is going to press the Amendment to a Division, I shall follow him into the Lobby in view of the very unsatisfactory answer which has been given by the Attorney-General. 1236 The right hon. Gentleman stated that the reason for this increase was that the Government in their calculation as to the number of wrecks had made a mistake. It would have been far more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had told us how many wrecks had been estimated for the original Estimate, and how many had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his reply gave us to understand that the expenses of the inquiries were to a large extent regulated by the size of the vessels (Sir Rufus Isaacs indicated dissent). I think that is a statement which requires some further explanation, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give some explanation as to the reason for these additional charges then I shall support the Amendment. I am not going to mention the vessel which the right hon. Gentleman indicated in the course of his replies, because from the ruling of the Chairman I should be, I think, out of order in dealing with any of the details involved in the catastrophe which unfortunately overtook those three vessels. With regard to one of the vessels, I certainly think that the Government might well have anticipated that an inquiry would ultimately have to be held because the wreck took place a year before the inquiry was actually concluded. The question also arises on the Vote as to why there should have been more wrecks taking place round our coast during the last twelve months. For one of the reasons the Government are, in my opinion, responsible, because they have abolished the coast guard system by which our coasts were far better protected a few years ago than has been possible since the unnecessary economies were affected by the Government. I saw reported in the papers only a few days ago a case where a vessel was seriously endangered and a largo number of lives imperilled, and the explanation given was that the coast guards were not on duty at night since the regulation—
§ The CHAIRMANThat is clearly a question of policy to be discussed on the main Estimate.
§ Mr. SANDYSI was trying to indicate that one of the reasons why there had been a larger number of wrecks, so far as our own coasts are concerned, must be the policy pursued by the Government in withdrawing the coast guards. In view of the facts that the right hon. Gentleman has not given a satisfactory reply to the very reasonable inquiries which have been 1237 addressed to him, and that this question of wrecks is of the very gravest importance to a nation like ours having such widespread interest in our mercantile marine in every part of the world, I shall support the hon. Baronet if he goes to a Division.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI have been trying to follow the explanation given by the Attorney-General, who said that this Vote was for the remuneration of assessors and is paid under Section 491 of the Merchant Shipping Act. That Section deals with a great many other persons than assessors. It says for instance:—
There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to any wreck commissioner, judge of a Court of Survey, Assessor in any Court of Survey, or investigation under this part of this Act, Registrar of Court of Survey, Scientific Referee, or any other officer or person appointed for the purpose of any Court of Survey or investigation under this part of this Act, such salary or remuneration, if any, as the Treasury may direct.Has there been a Court of Survey in respect of which this assessors' remuneration arises, or is it solely in respect of investigations under this part of the Act? If so, are any of these assessors really what are termed in the Statute, "scientific referees"? We have had no explanation. I dare say the money has been properly spent, and that it is necessary to pay these sums; but the Committee are entitled to know what are the fees paid to these assessors, whether they are assessors in a Court of Survey, whether they have been appointed specially for the purpose of the inquiries to which the Attorney-General referred, or whether they are scientific referees. In the case of the "Waratah" there were a great number of scientific persons engaged. The questions put by
| Division No. 15.] | AYES. | [6.23 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) |
| Aitken, Sir William Max | Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Croft, Henry Page |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Bridgeman, William Clive | Denniss, E. R. B. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Faber, George D. (Clapham) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Butcher, John George | Falle, Bertram Godfray |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Fell, Arthur |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Campion, W. R. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey |
| Barnston, Harry | Cassel, Felix | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue |
| Bathurst, Hon Allen B. (Glouc., E.) | Castlereagh, Viscount | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Cator, John | Forster, Henry William |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Cave, George | Foster, Philip Staveley |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Gardner, Ernest |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) | Gibbs, G. A. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Gilmour, Captain John |
| Bigland, Alfred | Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Bird, Alfred | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) |
§ my hon. Friends have not been answered, and I think we are entitled to more information.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILHowever restricted our rights may be on this Estimate, we must be entitled to know what is the nature of the assessors who are to be paid by this money. There are different classes of assessors on wreck inquiries, some more highly paid, others less highly paid. It is evident that the amount required on this Supplementary Estimate must depend partly on whether the Government have employed the more highly paid or the less highly paid assessors. That is a matter of some importance, particularly in view of the doubts which some of us have about the way in which the Government select the officials under their control. Without making the slightest imputation in this case, I shall be glad to know who the assessors were, how they were selected, and why that particular class of assessor was selected?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI thought I had given the explanation, but I will repeat it The assessors in the particular cases dealt with in the Supplementary Estimate were appointed on exactly the same system, and under the same sanction, as the assessors on the original Estimate. The increase is due to more days having been occupied in the inquiries than it was thought would be necessary when the original Estimate was framed. The basis is exactly the same, the policy is the same, but the Estimate has turned out to be insufficient on account of the long inquiries which have been held.
§ Question put, "That Item G (Assessors—remuneration) be reduced by £100."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 240.
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Gretton, John | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor., Droitwich) | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Hambro, Angus Valdemar | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Mackinder, Halford J. | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Harris, Henry Percy | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Helmsley, Viscount | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Hills, John Waller (Durham) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Paget, Almeric Hugh | Weigall, Capt. A. G. |
| Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Hope, Harry (Bute) | Peto, Basil Edward | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Horner, Andrew Long | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Remnant, James Farquharson | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Rolleston, Sir John | Yate, Colonel, C. E. |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Younger, Sir George |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Sanders, Robert A. | |
| Lewisham, Viscount | Sanderson, Lancelot | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Joynson-Hicks. |
| Lloyd, George Ambrose | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Devlin, Joseph | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Dickinson, W. H. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Donelan, Captain A. | Jowett, F. W. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Doris, W. | Joyce, Michael |
| Armitage, R. | Duffy, William J. | Keating, M. |
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Edwards, Clement | Kilbride, Denis |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockermth) |
| Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) | Elverston, Sir Harold | Leach, Charles |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Beale, William Phipson | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Ffrench, Peter | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Lundon, T. |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Bentham, G. J. | Furness, Stephen W. | Lynch, A. A. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Gill, A. H. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Gladstone, W. G. C. | McGhee, Richard |
| Boland, John Pius | Glanville, H. J. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Goldstone, Frank | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Brunner J. F. L. | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | M'Curdy, C. A. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hackett, J. | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Marks, Sir George |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Chancellor, Henry G. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hayden, John Patrick | Meagher, Michael |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Clough, William | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Clynes, J. R. | Higham, John Sharp | Molloy, M. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hinds, John | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Hodge, John | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hogge, James Myles | Morgan, George Hay |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Holmes, Daniel Thomas | Morrell, Philip |
| Crooks, William | Holt, Richard Burning | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Crumley, Patrick | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) | Munro, R. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Hughes, S. L. | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Neilson, Francis |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | John, Edward Thomas | Nolan, Joseph |
| Delany, William | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Nuttall, Harry | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Thorne, G, R. (Wolverhampton) |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| O'Dowd, John | Robinson, Sidney | Verney, Sir Harry |
| O'Grady, James | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| O'Malley, William | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Rowlands, James | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Rowntree, Arnold | Waring, Walter |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Scanlan, Thomas | Webb, H. |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Sheehy, David | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Shortt, Edward | Wiles, Thomas |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Radford, G. H. | Snowden, P. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Winfrey, Richard |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark W.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Reddy, Michael | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Tennant, Harold John | |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.