HC Deb 14 March 1912 vol 35 cc1350-61

Postponed proceeding on Consideration of Resolutions resumed.

Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, and to enable it to make good certain statutory advances."

Resolution reported, "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."

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lord ROBERT CECIL

This is a Supplementary Estimate, which involves certain expenses of a legal character, on which a good deal of discussion took place during Committee Stage and on which we really received no information which was worthy of the name, because, owing to his many duties elsewhere, the Secretary to the Treasury was unable to be here, and the Attorney-General was quite unable to explain what was the nature of the assessors mentioned here and why there had been such a very large increase in the expenditure involved in that Vote. We asked him, I remember, over and over again, without success, to tell us who these assessors were and whether they were all the same or were different. If I recollect rightly a discussion took place as to what was the nature of the supplementary expenditure. I wish to know particularly in regard to the increase arising under Sub-head G (Assessors—remuneration). There is a very large increase of £600 in that item. I know it is said to be due to the large number of wrecks. What I wish to know from the Financial Secretary is whether there were any special circumstances which could not be foreseen when the original Estimate was framed for £2,100. What were the circumstances that caused the increase? I should further like the hon. Gentleman to explain who these assessors are. Are they all of the same character, or is it sometimes necessary to employ an assessor of a more extensive character than others? I should like to know whether the assessors are all paid the same amount, or whether, in the case of certain inquiries, it is necessary to pay more? As to travelling expenses, I say nothing. Of course, if you have an inquiry, you must have travelling expenses to the place of inquiry, wherever it takes place.

Mr. MASTERMAN

It will be in the recollection of Members of the House who were present at the discussion in Committee that the reason why more elaborate information was not given as to the nature of the inquiries was that it was ruled that it would be out of order to give that information. The Chairman ruled that on the Supplementary Estimate the real point for discussion was whether there were more wrecks.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Surely it is important to know whether all the assessors are paid the same sum or whether a special sum is paid to certain assessors.

Mr. MASTERMAN

So long as the inquiry is conducted on the same principle that question cannot be discussed. The only question is whether there were more inquiries and whether there were more wrecks. I have nothing to add to what was said by the Attorney-General when the Estimate was before the Committee. The "Waratah" was lost in the Atlantic, and a lengthy investigation was required in order to obtain any kind of authentic information which could be made the basis of a report. It is impossible to know when these long and complicated inquiries will take place, and therefore, I submit to the House that there must be justification from time to time for some expense in excess of the original Estimate.

Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,600, 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 such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lord ROBERT CECIL

This is another Estimate of a remarkable character, and I desire to move a reduction of £100.

The CHAIRMAN

It is too late now to move a reduction. I have put the Question that the House agree to the Resolution.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

Then I will divide the House against the Estimate if necessary. I observe in a note to the Estimate that the money is required to pay the expenses in connection with the trial of the election petitions for East Nottingham, Cheltenham, Kingston-upon-Hull, Exeter, West Bromwich, King's Lynn, and the Northern District of West Ham. That means seven different election petitions. I feel that the House is entitled to an explanation of how a miscalculation was made in regard to seven different elections. I can understand how a miscalculation might be made in regard to one, but there are seven in regard to which the calculation appears to have been at fault. The original Estimate was only £2,000, and this increase of £1,600 very nearly doubles the total amount. I think we are entitled to some further explanation than we have ever received how that miscalculation came about. After all, we have had some experience in election petitions, and we know all the items that go to make up the expenses of them. There is certain expense for the judge's lodging, but I do not know whether that comes on the Estimate. Then there is certain expense for counsel representing the Crown—the Crown prosecutor in effect, and there is a certain amount for printing, but all these items are perfectly well known, and it seems astonishing that there should have been so large a mistake. When the original Estimate was framed I suppose all the petitions had been presented.

Mr. MASTERMAN

No.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

We wish to know then which had not been presented. [An HON. MEMBER: "They were all presented."] The Financial Secretary says "No," and the hon. Member says they had been presented. In any case a large number had been presented, and it is noticeable that the £1,600 by no means includes the whole miscalculation, because the total amount is, according to the note, £4,480, which is a good deal more than double the original Estimate. The reason why it is necessary to grant only £1,600 is that by one of those financial juggles we are familiar with—they are very confusing to those who try to understand the Estimate—£880 is taken from some other Vote, on which there was a surplus, and applied to this Vote. The result is that there is really more than double to be paid than what was estimated for. I would like to know, Was there anything special about these petitions?

Mr. BOOTH

Yes.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

There was something special in their results, inasmuch as they were almost uniformly against the Liberal party. If there is anything special about their duration that is another thing, but as far as the outside public could judge they lasted about the usual time.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I think that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General gave a very full explanation of this in the Committee stage, when perhaps the Noble Lord was not present. In framing the original Estimates it is exceedingly difficult to know how many election petitions will be presented, how long each will last, and how many will be proceeded with or withdrawn. It is only possible to estimate roughly by what happened in the previous year. The Estimate was framed before the Treasury knew how many petitions were presented, and was estimated roughly on the cost of the petitions after the General Election in January. The fact that there were more petitions presented, and that some of them, especially the East Nottingham petition, lasted an abnormal time, increased the cost. These things are extremely difficult to estimate accurately, and therefore there can be no objection to this Supplementary Estimate.

Viscount CASTLEREAGH

I hardly think that the answer of the hon. Gentleman is satisfactory. I always understood that petitions had to be lodged within thirty days, and consequently it was within the knowledge of the Government before Parliament even met exactly how many petitions had been lodged; and I should have thought it would have been possible to put down with better judgment how much the eventual cost would be. The actual miscalculation was considerably over £2,000. These Supplementary Estimates are framed for the purpose of misguiding the guileless Member of the House of Commons. I sincerely hope that there will be a Division on this subject as a protest against the considerable miscalculation on the part of the Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman is in an unfortunate position in answering for the misdeeds of his predecessor, and I trust that steps will be taken to prevent a miscalculation of this kind from occurring again when there is every possibility of knowing how many petitions have been lodged.

Mr. POLLOCK

I support the Noble Lord who has spoken on this matter. I cannot help feeling that the Secretary to the Treasury is repeating something which he has been told without taking any steps to know whether the information is accurate. If my recollection serves me aright, there can be no petition presented of any sort after the lapse of three months. The first has to be presented within thirty days, and no further step can be taken after three months. The elections took place in December, 1910, and any petitions presented would have been known before the end of the financial year 1910–11. The Secretary to the Treasury says that he does not think all the petitions had been presented. I have given reasons to show that that information is incorrect. Then he says he was not certain how many would be withdrawn. But you cannot withdraw unless you get leave from the Court, and when those petitions are presented you have got to assume that they will be proceeded with. In almost all cases they are proceeded with, because a step like that is not taken without grave consideration. If you are going to put your Estimates on something like a real basis you ought to be able to get nearer to the sum required than obviously was done when this Estimate was framed. The original Estimate was £2,400 wrong. It might have been easily foreseen when that Estimate was framed that there would be an extra sum necessary, or they might have had some indication of the very temporary Estimate made when the original Estimate was brought before the House. It is unfortunate that these Estimates are not framed more exactly in accordance with the information available which would enable the sum required to be ascertained. This sum is calculated on a fixed basis and therefore is very easily ascertainable. The answer of the Secretary to the Treasury is an unfortunate one, which I hope he will take the trouble to investigate, because he will find that the information was

available to enable a more correct Estimate to have been framed.

Question put, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 66.

Division No. 42.] AYES. [8.35 p.m.
Adamson, William Helme, Norval Watson Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Addison, Dr. C. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pointer, Joseph
Agnew, Sir George William Higham, John Sharp Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Holmes, Daniel Turner Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Hope, John Deans (Haddington) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) John, Edward Thomas Richards, Thomas
Barnes, G. N. Johnson, William Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) Jowett, Frederick William Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Boland, John Pius Joyce, Michael Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Booth, Frederick Handel Kilbride, Denis Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Brace, William King, Joseph Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Lamb, Ernest Henry Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Brocklehurst, William B. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Lansbury, George Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Lewis, John Herbert Scanlan Thomas
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.
Clough, William Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Sheehy, David
Clynes, John R. Macpherson, James Ian Shortt, Edward
Cotton, William Francis MacVeagh, Jeremiah Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Crumley, Patrick M'Micking, Major Gilbert Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Dawes, James Arthur Marshall, Arthur Harold Sutton, John E.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Martin, Joseph Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Dickinson, W. H. Masterman, C. F. G. Toulmin, Sir George
Donclan, Captain A. Meagher, Michael Wadsworth, J.
Doris, William Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Duffy, William J. Molteno, Percy Alport Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Wardle, George J.
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Mooney, John J. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, M) Morrell, Philip White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Whitehouse, John Howard
Farrell, James Patrick Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Ffrench, Peter Nolan, Joseph Wiles, Thomas
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Norton, Captain Cecil W. Wilkie, Alexander
Gill, Alfred Henry Nuttall, Harry Williams, Penny (Middlesbrough)
Gladstone, W. G. C. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Goldstone, Frank O'Doherty, Philip Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Hackett, John O'Grady, James Young, William (Perth, East)
Hall, Frederick (Normanton) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Sullivan, Timothy
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Parker, James (Halifax) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Pearce, William (Limehouse)
NOES
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Duke, Henry Edward Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Salter, Arthur Clavell
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. Fell, Arthur Sanders, Robert Arthur
Baird, John Lawrence Forster, Henry William Sanderson, Lancelot
Balcarres, Lord Goldman, Charles Sidney Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liverp'l,Walton)
Baldwin, Stanley Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Swift, Rigby
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Talbot, Lord Edmund
Barnston, Harry Hewins, William Albert Samuel Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Larmor, Sir J. Touche, George Alexander
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Lloyd, George Ambrose Tullibardine, Marquess of
Bigland, Alfred Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Mackinder, Halford J. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) Mount, William Arthur Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Bridgeman, Clive Newton, Harry Kottingham Wolmer, Viscount
Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Nield, Herbert Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Cassel, Felix Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Worthington-Evans L.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) Wortley Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Craik, Sir Henry Perkins, Walter Frank
Dalrymple, Viscount Peto, Basil Edward TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Viscount Castlereagh.
Denniss, E. R. B. Pollock, Ernest Murray

Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £120, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Crofters' Commission."

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

This Vote is small; it is for £120, which ostensibly is not a very large increase, but which, as a matter of fact, is a larger increase than it looks, because the original Estimate was for £800, and therefore the increase of £120 is something like 15 per cent. When the House was in Committee upon this question it was asked how it was there could have been such a very large increase as 15 per cent. in regard to a matter which was only connected with travelling. The Vote is entirely for travelling. The explanation which was then given was of a very unsatisfactory kind. If you look at the Estimate you will find that the total for 1911–12 was £4,655 for the Crofters' Commission, and of that the sum of £920 seems to be a very large amount to spend on travelling. In these days of low railway charges—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] Does the hon. Member opposite dispute that? If he does I should like to hear his reason, for my experience is that railway charges are very low at the present moment. There really should be given some explanation, some satisfactory explanation, why the taxpayer is called upon to pay this large increase upon a Vote solely connected with travelling. I do not want anyone to think that I have raised this point because I am in any kind of way hostile to the Crofters' Commission. They may be doing excellent work or they may not; I know nothing about it; but I must say that there seems to be no earthly reason for the very great increase in the charge for travelling. There may be excuses to be made for the Gentleman occupying the position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury when we have large Votes before us, and I think the hon. Gentlemen will admit that I have never been too hostile to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, especially when he admits his shortcomings, and when he has an enormous Vote of some millions, and there is a difference of £50,000 or £60,000. But in the case of a small Vote of this character there is really no necessity for an increase of 15 per cent. It cannot be got over by the fact that the House of Commons sat longer than it ought last year. That has been the general explanation of all these Estimates—that the House sat eleven months last year and, therefore, the heavens and the earth are to fall because they had to give a longer time to the consideration of the affairs of the Empire. In this case it cannot be said that the increase in the travelling expenses was due to the sittings of the House of Commons.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

I think the hon. Baronet had better not pursue that question.

Sir F. BANBURY

I ask the hon. Gentleman to give me a reason for this increase, and in order to get a satisfactory reason I move the reduction.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I feel fairly certain that I can convince the hon. Baronet that this is an expense which it was impossible to foresee, and that it is entirely legitimate. The extra expense in travelling has been due entirely to the passing of a Bill which put an end to the Crofters' Commission at the close of the financial year. That was the Scottish Smallholders Bill. The result was that the members of the Commission have been clearing up all outstanding matters, and in that process have necessarily incurred travelling expenses. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Baronet will withdraw his proposition.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I hope the hon. Baronet will do no such thing. The explanation seems to me to be even more astonishing than most of the explanations which have been given by the Government on these Estimates. We are told that this Estimate was caused by the passing of a Bill. Who introduced the Bill—the Government.

Mr. KING

No.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

They passed it, at any rate. No Bill can be passed except by the Government, nowadays. You are not going to tell me that the House of Commons ever does anything. I was not in the House last Session, but an hon. Friend tells me that the Government took it over and gave time.

Mr. KING

The Noble Lord said they introduced the Bill. I called that statement in question, and I maintain that they did not.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

I withdrew that statement in view of the contradiction of the hon. Member, and said that the Government had passed it, and they knew it was going to pass. I never heard a more grotesque explanation than that that has been given to us.

Mr. MASTERMAN

The Noble Lord knows well that the Estimates were prepared months before the Bill was introduced.

Lord ROBERT CECIL

They had the whole of last Session, and I do not know that the Estimates were prepared months in advance. When were they prepared? The hon. Member does not know. The explanation is like all the other explanations given by the Government on these Estimates, and is no explanation at all. We are no wiser than we were, and the control of the House of Commons over these Estimates is a farce, as I always said it was. There is no point in submitting any of these Estimates under existing circumstances except to fulfil an ancient and historic practice. For my part I shall certainly support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.

Mr. MORTON

I do not at all object to the criticisms that are made on the Estimates, and I rather hope there will be more criticisms, but I am sorry that the representative of the City of London should try to interfere with the Crofters' Commission, even indirectly, because he would find, if he knew anything about the Commission, that it is the most economical authority or Commission we have ever had in these countries. He would also find that it is not a question of railway

charges alone, but that you have motoring, or driving, or walking, if you like.

Sir F. BANBURY

Does walking cost much in the Highlands?

Mr. MORTON

That depends upon whether you pay your shoemaker. I am in favour of criticism, because it is the proper duty of the House of Commons, and their first duty to criticise all Estimates. I am aware we have not had very much lately, but now that we have done away with the Veto of the House of Lords I claim that we ought to be allowed to go back to the old system. I am not going to recognise a Veto of the Government, because that would be utterly wrong. I do hope that the hon. Baronet will not press this proposition, because I should be ashamed of the City of London objecting to a little expense in connection with the crofting. The work of the Commission has gone on well from the beginning, and everybody acknowledges that they have done good service. If they have spent a little more in travelling, we ought to welcome that extra expense rather than otherwise, because it shows that they have visited the works they have undertaken, and have endeavoured to settle disputes. I trust the hon. Baronet will not press the reduction, because it might be misunderstood outside, and would not be worthy of the City.

Sir F. BANBURY

I very much regret not being able to comply with the request of the hon. Member.

Question put, "That '£120' stand part of the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 64.

Division No. 43.] AYES. [8.58 p.m.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Dawes, J. A. Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Adamson, William Denman, Hon. R. D. Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Addison, Dr. C. Devlin, Joseph Helme, Norval Watson
Agnew, Sir George William Dickinson, W. H. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Dillon, John Higham, John Sharp
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Donelan, Captain A. Holmes, Daniel Turner
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Doris, W. Hope, John Deans (Haddington)
Barnes, George N. Duffy, William J. John, Edward Thomas
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Johnson, W.
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Boland, John Plus Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Jowett, Frederick William
Booth, Frederick Handel Esslemont, George Birnie Joyce, Michael
Brace, William Farrell, James Patrick Kilbride, Denis
Brady, Patrick Joseph Ffrench, Peter King, J.
Brocklehurst, William B. Gelder, Sir William Alfred Lamb, Ernest Henry
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Gill, Alfred Henry Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gladstone, W. G. C. Lansbury, George
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Lewis, John Herbert
Clough, William Goldstone, Frank Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)
Clynes, John R. Hackett, J. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Cotton, William Francis Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Macpherson, James Ian
Crumley, Patrick Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Pearce, William (Limehouse) Sutton, John E.
Marshall, Arthur Harold Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Martin, Joseph Pointer, Joseph Toulmin, Sir George
Masterman, C. F. G. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wadsworth, John
Meagher, Michael Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Molteno, Percy Alport Richards, Thomas Wardle, G. J.
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Mooney, J. J. Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Morrell, Philip Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Whitehouse, John Howard
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Nolan, Joseph Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Wiles, Thomas
Norton, Capt. Cecil W. Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Wilkie, Alexander
Nuttall, Harry Roche, Augustine (Louth) Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Doherty, Philip Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
O'Grady, James Sheehy, David Young, William (Perth, East)
O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Shortt, Edward
O'Sullivan, Timothy Simon, Sir John Allsebrook TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Parker, James (Halifax) Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
NOES
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Duke, Henry Edward Peto, Basil Edward
Aitken, Sir William Max Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Pollock, Ernest Murray
Ashley, W. W. Fell, Arthur Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. Forster, Henry William Salter, Arthur Clavell
Balcarres, Lord Goldman, Charles Sydney Sanders, Robert A.
Baldwin, Stanley Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Sanderson, Lancelot
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Barnston, H. Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Talbot, Lord Edmund
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Hewins, William Albert Samuel Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hoare, Samuel John Gurney Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Hohler, G. F. Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) Touche, George Alexander
Bigland, Alfred Larmor, Sir J. Tullibardine, Marquess of
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Law, Rt. Hon. A Bonar (Bootie) Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.) Lloyd, George Ambrose Wheler, Granville C. H.
Bridgeman, William Clive Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Mackinder, Halford J. Worthington-Evans, L.
Cassel, Felix McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Castlereagh, Viscount Mount, William Arthur
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Mitchin) Newton, Harry Kottingham
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Swift.
Denniss, E. R. B. Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Perkins, Walter Frank

Original Question put, and agreed to.