§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ "That it is expedient to amend the Superannuation Acts, and to make further provision out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the grant of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities to persons who have forfeited their right thereto by reason of transfer to non-pensionable service, and for the increase of this amount of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable in cases to which Section 12 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, or Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, apply, and for the payment of weekly disablement allowances in substitution for gratuities and additional allowances in certain cases."
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)
Perhaps I had better explain in a word the nature of the Bill to which this Resolution is antecedent. It is a small Bill, which, I think, is entirely uncontroversial in character, and it is designed to deal with certain hard cases which have arisen from time to time in connection with the operation of the Superannuation Acts. There is no alteration in the general principles of the Acts. The chief Clauses deal with the following points: The first is to prevent a man who receives superannuation shortly after promotion from getting less pension than he would have received had he not been promoted. The second is to preserve to a Civil servant who, at the request of the Government, leaves this country for service abroad, especially in Egypt, his pension rights while in the service. At present, if a man is invalided from the Civil 388 Service in the first ten years he receives a gratuity; and we wish, thirdly, that he should be not worse oil than if he were an ordinary insured person outside. We therefore want to take power to be able to give him not a mere gratuity, but 5s. per week during the time of his disablement. The last point of importance is one which is being felt now as a real hardship. If any member of the Civil Service becomes a pauper lunatic—I must ask the Committee to remember this Bill applies to all grades and branches of the Civil Service, postmen, policemen, and many people in humble life—by the operation of the law at present 4s. of the pension to which he is entitled has to be deducted from his dependents in order ostensibly, I suppose, to help to contribute towards the support of him in a State lunatic asylum. We have had a number of cases brought to our attention in which the dependents of persons deprived of that amount have fallen into great want and often under the Poor Law, and we think we ought to have the right to waive the condition so that the dependents may receive the full pension and not become a charge upon the Poor Law. The Bill in the main will affect the poorer classes of Civil servants. The total amount involved will not exceed £10,000 a year, and probably it will be considerably less. But it will meet real cases of hardship. I hope the Committee will consider this sufficient explanation until the Bill is produced, and after it is before the House I shall be glad to answer any further inquiries in connection with the matter.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move at the end of the Question to add the words, "such provision not to exceed the sum of £10,000 in any one year."
I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I do not know whether Civil servants in the future will become to any extent pauper lunatics, I think the rest of the community probably will become so if the present Government continues on its present career. The right 389 hon. Gentleman has given us a very courteous and very ingenious explanation of what this particular Resolution enacts. I remember when I occupied a humble position on the back benches opposite, hon. Members now on those benches displayed great indignation when a Resolution of this sort was brought forward, for they said with great truth that it was quite impossible for the House to inform itself of the actual meaning of the Resolution. It was only possible to become aware of the terms if one was on sufficiently good terms with the clerks at the Table to ask them to inconvenience themselves to open their desk and give a glimpse of a written document hidden there, so that it might be surreptitiously copied. An experience of twenty years in this House has taught me that modesty is not a very great asset, and occasionally one must assert himself to know what is going on. Consequently I obtained a sight of a copy of the Resolution in the clerk's desk, and copied it at the expense of some ink and labour. I found it was a very involved document. What it said was this: "That it is expedient to amend the Superannuation Acts and to make further provision out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the Grant of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities to persons who have forfeited their rights thereto by reason of transfer to non-pensionable service." It is good to write a thing out, as one then begins to understand it. I come to the conclusion that these words mean this: That where a civil servant in receipt of a salary say, of £500 a year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to him and says, "by reason of your great merit and great assiduity in the Civil Service, I am prepared to offer you a post worth £1,000 a year, but if you take it you will forfeit your right to a pension" The civil servant replies, "I will take that; it is a great increase in my salary and I probably shall live a considerable time." There is nothing to compel him to take it, but human nature being what it is, you may be perfectly certain a civil servant does not take the increased salary unless it is to his advantage to do so. Having taken that increased salary, he goes to the Secretary to the Treasury and says, "Now you bring in a financial Resolution, upon which you are going to found a Bill which will give to me not only the increased salary, but the pension which I 390 ferfeited." If the finance of the country is to be carried on upon that basis, we on this side of the Committee will become, and hon. Members opposite, unless they are given Civil Service posts, will also become pauper lunatics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] I do not know whether hon. Members who shout "Agreed," agree with the statement that they are going to become pauper lunatics, or with the statement that they are going to receive posts under the Government in the Civil Service. If they are, no doubt they do not want any further discussion; but as I am endeavouring to protect the pockets of the taxpayers from too rapacious a tax, I think that we might have a few moments' discussion on what, after all, is an important proposal. The Resolution goes on to say:—for the increase of the amount of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable in cases to which Section 12 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, applies.I have provided myself with the Act of 1834, and the first thing I see on opening that Act is:—Pensions to the First Lord of the Treasury, Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the India Board, and the President of the Board of Trade.I do not know whether that part of the Act is proposed to be amended. I turn to Section 12, which, as far as I can make out, is to be amended, and I find it says:—Superannuation not to be granted on advanced amount of salary received for less than three years.I commend this to the Labour party, who apparently two minutes ago were anxious to go to bed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am glad to hear that, for from their point of view it is very important. Certainly those who represent the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants have always held that superannuation should not be paid to officials in the railway service occupying high positions on the salary they have received only for a year or two, and that when a person is promoted to high office, perhaps as general manager, with a salary of £3,000 or £4,000 a year, after he has received that for only one year he is not entitled to retire and receive a pension upon that amount. That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to 391 do. He is proposing to abolish the three years' qualification. He is proposing that if a civil servant be promoted in 1912 to a position with a higher salary, and he retires in 1913, the salary which he has only received for one year is to be the basis upon which his pension is to be granted. In commercial circles, at any rate, the force of the argument of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite with regard to pensions in the Railway Clearing House has been admitted by that much-maligned class, railway directors. It remains for right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are supported by hon. Members below the Gangway, to tiring in this Resolution, which is going to give a pension to a person who has received a higher salary for one year only.
The effect of Section 7 of the Act of 1887, which it is proposed to amend, is simply that where a person who is in receipt of a pension becomes a lunatic, the State shall keep him as a lunatic, and that the cost of his keep shall be deducted from his pension and the balance shall be handed over to his family. What is unfair in that? That seems to be an absolutely fair provision. The right hon. Gentleman says there are one or two hard cases. Hard cases make bad law, and if he is going to alter these two Acts of Parliament on the ground that there are one or two hard cases, I have made out a case against the alteration of the law, and the right hon. Gentleman has not brought forward any real valid reasons why the law should be so altered. We then come to the question of the payment of weekly disablement allowances in substitution for gratuities and additional allowances in certain cases. I have not the least idea what that means. That might give the right hon. Gentleman any power, and the House at this present moment when the expenditure of the country is £180,000,000 a year, ought not to pass a Resolution of this sort. It gives the Government a blank cheque. The right hon. Gentleman says it is not going to cost more than £10,000 a year, and probably it is not going to cost as much. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly sincere when he says that, but I remember the Prime Minister not so long ago telling us that old age pensions were going to cost £6,000,000. They now cost £13,000,000, and if the Prime Minister is wrong, how much more may the Financial Secretary be 392 wrong? Therefore, without in any way calling in question either the sincerity or the ability of the right hon. Gentleman, the House, in view of the experience of the past, should not be content to take-the estimate of a Minister as being the actual estimate which the service will cost. I have seen no reason brought forward for this alteration. I do not know what these hard cases are to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes. It would have been very much better if he had given us these hard cases in detail. As he has not done so, and as I am always willing to meet hon. Members opposite in a spirit of conciliation, I beg to move my Amendment.
§ Mr. CROOKS
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was to meet exceptionally hard cases. He and his predecessor have from time to time received petitions from all sides of the House as to the payment of gratuities to widows earned by men in the service. Over and over again it has happened that men have been stricken down while they remained on the books. If these men were discharged as medically unfit their widows would have been entitled to sums amounting to £10, £15, or more straight off the reel. But if a man happens to go home not quite well, and dies before the morning, the widow loses the amount the Government actually owed the man. There is no provision made for a case of that kind. These widows should receive the amounts due to their husbands. Would the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) agree that the money should be paid to the widows? I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, before making final arrangements, whether something could not be done to enable the widows to get the sums to which they are entitled. When petitions have been presented with respect to these matters we are always met by the circumlocution office known as the Treasury, and I have never been able to understand why the money is not paid to the widows of men who were in receipt of low wages while at work.
§ Mr. MALCOLM
May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what will be the contents of the Bill which is to be founded on the Resolution? We have heard absolutely nothing except through the subterraneous excavations of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I have had a pretty long experience of the House of Commons, and to 393 me the position is quite extraordinary. We see on the Order Paper "Superannuation;—Committee thereupon," but we get no information on the matter.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I spoke. I explained the Resolution on which the Bill is to be founded, and stated that I thought it would be far more satisfactory if the House had the Bill in its hands before discussing it.
§ Mr. MALCOLM
I did hear every word that was said by the right hon. Gentleman. I thought he was making a Second Reading speech. The House of Commons ought to have the Bill in its hands before passing the Resolution. The hon. Baronet has moved an Amendment to the effect that the amount should be limited to £10,000. What is that founded upon? It is founded merely on the personal opinion of the Financial Secretary. His opinion has been rather blown upon once this week, and it is not certain in this case that his opinion is shared by others. If it were not that an Amendment is now before the Committee, I would be inclined to move that you, Mr. Chairman, report Progress and ask leave to sit again. We should have more information and know how we stand in regard to the matter.
§ Sir WILLIAM BYLES
I find myself in agreement with many of the observations which fell from the hon. Baronet, and I am rather surprised to find how often I am in agreement. The House ought to be grateful to any watch-dog of the finances of the country. There is only one of the incidences which were lucidly explained by my right hon. Friend as to which I wish to express some doubt. I think it was the 4th which proposes by this Resolution to alter an Act of Parliament which deprives a Civil servant of his pension or portion of his pension—I am not quite clear which—when he becomes a pauper.
§ Sir W. BYLES
I believe it is the rule that when a pauper becomes a pauper, it is ascertained whether he has any property before he enjoys the rates which other people pay. I do not see why Civil servants should be an exception to that rule.
I wish to know if the rule which is going to be applied to Civil servants will be applied also to men who have served in the Army and Navy. I have a document received this morning 394 which reveals one very hard case. It is that of a man who was invalided out of the Army and received a pension of 6d. a day. Unfortunately he did become a pauper lunatic and on that—I do not know whether it is the Exchequer or the local authority—the pension is dropped and the wife and children are penniless. Soldiers and sailors deserve as well of their country as Civil servants.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINE
In the case of Civil servants transferred to Egypt from India it is provided that the Government of Egypt should pay a proper proportion of the payments that have to be made so that the finances of India may not be improperly charged with pensions for that-part of the time when the Government of India has lent the services of these men to save other Government or some native state or corporation in India. That is a very great safeguard for public finance and can be, very easily embodied in transactions of the kind that have been referred to.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I think the system which authorises the Motion which has been made is an unsatisfactory one. This is a plan by which, without any notice at all, a Resolution is proposed in Committee of this House, and simply binds the House in its future proceedings on this Bill. I am quite aware that it is not a new procedure but an old procedure, and I am quite aware also that the Bill cannot be produced until the Resolution is passed. At the same time it is a very bad procedure, because it docs not give any opportunity to the House to know what is going to be done until the Resolution is actually moved. The effect of the Resolution is absolutely to limit the Bill, and I apprehend no Amendment will be in order which contravenes in any respect the Resolution which we are to pass to-night. The Resolution absolutely governs it in every respect. My hon. Friend has moved an Amendment limiting the amount. I think there is a good deal to be said for the view that if we are to have these Motions, they should be limited in amount. My hon. Friend suggested that soldiers and sailors should be included, but that would be impossible if we passed this Resolution, as no Amendment would be in order. It has also been suggested that the widow of a Government servant ought to be entitled to what her deceased husband had earned before death. An Amendment to that effect would also be out of order.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
(Mr. Maclean): This is not the opportunity to discuss procedure. The Question before the Committee is to limit the amount to £10,000, and I must ask the Noble Lord to confine his remarks to the Amendment.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
On the Amendment I can still refer to the main Question. My objection to the Motion is that we are not able to include a subject with which the right hon Gentleman has promised to deal, and on which I think he might take the opportunity to tell us when he is going to fulfil his promise in that respect. If we are to have a Resolution of this kind as the very foundation of the Bill which is to be introduced, and which will limit the Bill in all its subsequent stages, then the Resolution ought to be put on the Paper before it is brought forward.
§ Earl WINTERTON
I ask for an answer to the question which has been raised as to whether soldiers and sailors will be included.
§ Earl WINTERTON
The question was asked by my hon. Friend, who was not called to order by you, Sir, and I submit that we ought to have an answer whether the Motion applies to soldiers and sailors or only to Civil servants.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTER
Is it not absolutely impossible to decide whether or not the limit is desirable before we know whether soldiers and sailors are to be included?
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Soldiers and sailors are included, more especially the hard cases of soldiers in India.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Assuming that soldiers and sailors are dealt with. The outside estimate the Treasury gives me is £10,000.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
That is a much larger question of establishment and non-establishment, the settlement of which would involve something altogether disproportionate to this sum of £10,000.
§ Mr. CROOKS
The right hon. Gentleman ought to include power to pay people what the Government really owes them. The money has been earned, and you "scoop the pool" like an insurance society.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
If it is in order to discuss widows, I presume it is also in order to discuss teachers. I want to know whether the effect of the Amendment is that it will so limit the Bill as to make it impossible to include teachers. If that is so then I want to know when the Government propose to deal with the teachers' ease, as it is a very important matter.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Teachers are outside the scope of the Acts which this Bill proposes to amend. There is a Teachers' Superannuation Act, and I understand it is going to be amended in the near future.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I cannot say. Better ask that question of the Prime Minister. Under that provision the whole question of teachers' superannuation will arise.
§ Earl WINTERTON
Are we to understand that the case raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, and the case of the soldier who becomes a pauper lunatic, and the wife who does not receive the pension she receives prior to his becoming a pauper lunatic, although she may be very poor, that all these cases will still continue under this Bill.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
That is what this Bill is to amend.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
All pensionable persons under the Superannuation Acts who become lunatics at present have a, sum of four shillings per week deducted, originally I suppose intended to pay for their support. We now find that as a 397 result of that they are dependent on the Poor Law and have not enough money to support themselves. We propose if the House agrees that that shall be removed. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich has nothing to do with lunatics or paupers. It is a much larger question as to the rights of non-established persons and involves many thousands of persons. That is a question which I submit ought to be dealt with by a totally different Bill.
§ Mr. CROOKS
Many widows are not pensionable persons at all. This involves a very small sum, and it is a very great hardship. It is simply asking you to pay to the widow what the man if in some cases he had lived an hour longer would be entitled to. Surely if any case is entitled to come within the scope of the Bill it is a case of that kind.
§ Mr. C. E. PRICE
As an illustration of the point raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, may I give a case which came to my personal knowledge. It was the case of a doctor who was in service in the Gold Coast. He was invalided home, and after being here for six months he received a clean bill of health, and returned to the Gold Coast. Shortly afterwards he died. If he had not gone back he would have been entitled to a sum of £1,200. His widow felt greatly grieved that she should be absolutely precluded from receiving anything, and in fact the Government benefited by death to the extent of that amount. That is undoubtedly a case of very great hardship, and if we could get some indication that that aspect of the matter would be considered, it would relieve many Members on this side of the House.
§ Mr. MALCOLM
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity of seeing and discussing the Bill before he tries to pass it sub silentio? That is not too much to ask, as many aspects of the case are very important and require discussion.
§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Immediately I receive the leave of the House, I shall introduce the Bill; but I cannot introduce it until the Resolution has been reported to the House, and the fullest facilities will be given to all those interested to study the Bill before it is discussed, and to discuss it when it comes before the House.
§ Sir E. CORNWALL
But is not this the point—that if we pass the Resolution 398 now, we shall be precluded by the terms of the Resolution from inserting an Amendment embodying the views of the hon. Member for Woolwich, which views many of us share? If that is the case, why not wait and amend the Resolution, so as to enable the House to amend the Bill in a direction which I believe would receive the general assent of the House?
§ Viscount WOLMER
The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Finance Bill this year before he had settled on his Resolution. Might not that precedent be followed in this case?
§ Sir F. BANBURY
It is quite impossible to introduce a Bill unless the Financial Resolution has been passed. The rule of the House is that where a Bill deals only with a money question there must be a Financial Resolution before the Bill can be introduced. Therefore the Government are absolutely correct in the course they are pursuing. Occasionally even this Government are right. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the outside cost would be £10,000. Why then do they not accept my Amendment, which is their own figure 1 In voting for the Amendment Members will not be depriving anyone of a single farthing; all they will do will be to limit the Government to the amount which they say is the amount they desire, I would not give a blank cheque to any Government, not even one of which I was a supporter. I am prepared to take their estimate of what the cost will be; then if they want more they can bring in another Resolution, and if they make out their case we will give the increase.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
A difficulty occurs to me after listening to the observations of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir E. Cornwall). If the hon. Baronet persists in his Amendment, we cannot after disposing of that, move any further Amendment with a view to enlarging the Resolution so as to enable widows to be dealt with. This Amendment comes at the end of the Resolution, and we could not go back and insert words at an earlier point.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
Then in that case, I beg to move "That the Deputy-Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
399 This will give the Government an opportunity to reconsider this Resolution, and to see if they will not include in it words that will enable widows to be dealt with. It seems to me a matter of very great importance which has been brought to the attention of the Committee by the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Woolwich and Bethnal Green. It is clearly a matter that ought to be dealt with; and it is one that we have had really no kind of adequate explanation upon. The widows have a prior claim upon the generosity and justice of the House. The House will be acting wrongly to pass this Resolution in its present form; because if we do we shall be quite unable to deal in the Bill with the case of the widows. If, on the other hand, we report Progress, then the Government themselves can propose an Amendment to the Resolution, and in view of the general expression of feeling in the House they will probably see that it is right to propose such an Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am afraid the Noble Lord has not considered exactly the Amendment. Here is a small Bill dealing with admittedly hard cases that are pressed upon us from time to time, affecting soldiers and sailors and their wives, together with postmen and certain lower grades of the Civil Service. First of all the hon. Baronet the Member for the City wants to limit the sum to '£10,000; you must not spend a penny more whatever the grievances are. Then comes along my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich and says: "I have a grievance." That will cost £50,000 or £60,000.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The particular case that the hon. Member knows, I dare say, would not cost £50; but here is another hon. Member who has got a grievance. The Committee can take it from me that the Treasury have gone into the whole matter, and it will cost £50,000 or £60,000.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The two points are absolutely inconsistent. One hon. Member wants us to accept his Amendment and limit the sum to £10,000, while another hon. Member suggests that we should be prepared to spend another £50,000 or £60,000. Both are going to combine to destroy a Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: 400 "No, no."]—which is going to remedy grievances that are admitted. If the Committee take that view, the responsibility must be theirs. We as a Government accept responsibility to redress these few small grievances. Hon. Members are combining from different points of view to kill the Bill. The responsibility will be theirs. Suppose the Noble Lord's Motion is accepted, and we report Progress. Does he imagine that there are no other grievances that other hon. Members will not raise? It is his view, and the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, that the Government shall not be allowed to redress these small grievances unless at the same time we redress all grievances dealing with superannuation? I ask the Committee to consider the thing very seriously. It is our duty to put this matter before them. The Noble Lord raised the question of teachers.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
It has been explained to me since that there will be a separate Bill dealing with them, and I am satisfied with that.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree, but that is the point of view of the Noble-Lord. If it is the view of the Committee that we had better not proceed to deal with one matter until we are prepared to deal with all the grievances of hon. Members, then it will be for the Government, to reconsider their position.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured to put the Committee on the horns of a dilemma. He says we will deal with these grievances now or not at all. That is not the position that most Members and the Committee wish lo lake upon this matter. They want to know what the grievances are that are to be dealt with. The Secretary to the Treasury made, if I may say so, a most sloppy speech in support of the Resolution [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh," and "Withdraw."] I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will object to that expression, because he must be familiar with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
The Secretary to the Treasury must be quite familiar with the expression, because it was first used on his own side of the 401 House. I do not blame the Secretary to the Treasury for his speech, because I do not think he could possibly expect that the Resolution would be framed in the way it is. The Opposition is quite alive to the fact that this Resolution may limit the action of the Committee or the House on a future occasion, and the real complaint to-night is that this Resolution is framed in such terms that it prevents the House from discussing the matter when the Bill is brought before it. The House should be cognisant of what it is asked to vote for when the Bill is produced. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City has pointed out it is impossible to produce the Bill until the Financial Resolution is passed. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that is an answer, but surely it is not. It simply shows that the Secretary to the Treasury ought to have explained more fully to the House the limitation of the Resolution. He is proposing a Resolution which will limit the action of the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says you must pass the Resolution or else none of the grievances will be dealt with. The Secretary to the Treasury said the maximum cost under the Resolution would be £10,000.
I submit I am showing reasons why we should report Progress in order that the Secretary to the Treasury may bring forward a more concise Resolution, and one which
§ would show the House more particularly what is going to be done. This Resolution is a complete surprise to most Members of the Committee. I will undertake to say that no Member' of the House could read into the words "Superannuation—Committee thereupon" the discussion which is now taking place I think we should have had a further statement from the Secretary to the Treasury of the actual position. I support this Motion not because I wish to bring in every grievance which might be brought in, but because I am convinced that besides the matters mentioned by the Secretary to the Treasury certainly that mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich ought to be considered, and when the opportunity comes I shall have others to add.
§ Mr. CROOKS
I know that a majority of the House are in favour of dealing with pauper lunatics, for we all know the hardship in these cases. I think it might be limited to people in receipt of certain wages, say, not more than £2 a week. My difficulty is to know how to do this. I am not going to vote for anything that is going to prevent you from dealing with pauper lunatics, because I know the abominable hardships the poor women have to suffer. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point I have raised.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 241.405
|Division No. 282.]||AYES||[11.50 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Hunter, Sir C. R.|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Jowett, F. W.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Clyde, J. Avon||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr|
|Baird, J. L.||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Kyffin-Taylor, G.|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Larmor, Sir J,|
|Balcarres, Lord||Courthope, George Loyd||Lewisham, Viscount|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood||Craig, Norman (Kent)||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Croft, H. P.||Macmaster, Donald|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Dixon, C. H.||M'Mordle, Robert|
|Barrie, H. T.||Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Malcolm, Ian|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Forster, Henry William||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.||Mount, William Arthur|
|Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)||Goldsmith, Frank||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Beresford, Lord C.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Gretton, John||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Bird, A.||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Boies, Lieut. -Col. Dennis Fortescue||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Rawson, Colonel R. H.|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hodge, John||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hohler, G. Fitzroy||Royds, Edmund|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Stanier, Beville||Touche, George Alexander||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)||Tullibardine, Marquess of||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Starkey, John R.||Walker, Col. William Hall||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Stewart, Gershom||Wheler, Granville C. H.||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)||Wilkie, Alexander||Younger, Sir George|
|Talbot, Lord E.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)||Winterton, Earl of||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir|
|Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)||Wolmer, Viscount||Hildred Carlile and Mr. Philip Foster.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Gelder, Sir W. A.||Millar, James Duncan|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Molloy, M.|
|Adamson, William||Gill, A. H.||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Mooney, J. J.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Greig, Col. J. W||Morrell, Philip|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Morison, Hector|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Muldoon, John|
|Arnold, Sydney||Guest, Major Hon C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Hackett, John||Needham, Christopher|
|Ballour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Hancock, J. G.||Nellson, Francis|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)|
|Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Barton, W.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Nugent, Sir Walter R.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harvey, J. E. (Derbyshire, N.)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Boland, John Pius||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Dowd, John|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Hayden, John Patrick||Ogden, Fred|
|Brace, William||Hayward, Evan||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Brady, P. J.||Hazleton, Richard||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)||O'Malley, William|
|8runner, John F. L.||Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)||O'Shee, James John|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Higham, John Sharp||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hinds, John||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Palmer, Godfrey|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Hogge, James Myles||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Chapple, Dr. W. A.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Hudson, Walter||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Clough, William||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburghshire)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Cotton, William Francis||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Jones, W. S. Glyn (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Crean, Eugene||Joyce, Michael||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Crooks, William||Keating, M.||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Kellaway, Frederick George||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Cullinan, J.||Kelly, Edward||Reddy, M.|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Kilbride, Denis||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||King, J.||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Lamb, Ernest Henry||Rendall, Athelstan|
|De Forest. Baron||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Richards, Thomas|
|Delany, William||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Doris, W.||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Duffy, William||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robinson, Sidney|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley);||Lewis, John Herbert||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||Lundon, T.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Lynch, A. A.||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Rowlands, James|
|Essex, Richard Walter||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||McGhee, Richard||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Falconer, J.||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Macpherson, James Ian||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Samuel, J. (Stockton)|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Manfield, Harry||Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whltechapel)|
|Firench, Peter||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Field, William||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Martin, J.||Sheehy, David|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Shortt, Edward|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Meagher, Michael||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|France, G. A.||Meehan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Waring, Walter||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Sutton, John E.||Watt, Henry A.||Winfrey, Richard|
|Taylor, John w. (Durham)||Webb, H.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Tennant, Harold John||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Toulmin, Sir George||Wiles, Thomas||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Williams, Dewelyn (Carmarthen)|
§ Amendment again proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ Earl WINTERTON
I am sorry to trespass on the time of the Committee, but I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is not possible to so amend this Resolution that it shall apply to the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich as well as to those actually coming under it. May I cite a case which has been brought to my notice. It was the case of a man not borne on the list of Civil servants. I believe there are many such working in the dockyards. He totally broke down in health and became a lunatic—and having no means of support beyond his labour he of course became a pauper lunatic. A wife has no means of obtaining from the Government any form of compensation, although her husband had worked for it for many years, unless he is borne on the Civil Service and, although his lunacy may be the result of overstrain and overwork brought on by his employment, there is no redress. There are many such cases of hardship. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that if such cases were included the cost would be not £10,000 a year but £50,000 or £60,000 annually. I am not concerned with that. It is none the less a scandal that such cases should exist, and, even at the cost of a large sum of money, such gross injustice should be redressed.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The Question before the Committee is I believe that the sum shall be limited to £10,000. Is it in order to discuss a proposal to extend the amount even beyond the sum originally proposed in the Resolution?
§ 12.0 M.
§ Earl WINTERTON
This point was raised in the Debate before the Motion to report Progress. I am well aware that these persons are not included in the Resolution. I say they ought to be included. I cannot understand the defence of the right hon. Gentleman that the cost would be 406 greater than was anticipated. That is no answer to the case put forward by the hon. I Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). It is quite a new thing to learn from the Treasury that £50,000 or £60,000 is such a serious matter. I do not believe they ever heard that in the little village in the Welsh hills. The last thing that they would hear of would be a few extra thousand pounds when it was a question of feeding the; hungry or clothing the poor. There is a great case to be made out for extending the provisions of the Resolution to the cases I have mentioned. The way in which the Resolution has been brought forward, the method in which it is worded, and the refusal of the Secretary to the Treasury to give any information is symtomatic of the way business is always done now in this House. It is remarkable that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who used at one time—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Noble Lord is discussing the question of procedure. That does not arise on the Amendment.
§ Earl WINTERTON
I was discussing the method in which the Government bring forward their Financial Resolution.
§ Earl WINTERTON
I fully recognise the courtesy you have always displayed to me and everyone else when you are in the Chair. I say the manner in which the Government have brought forward this Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] It is quite in order. We are not going to suffer from one hundred Chairmen of Committees. The way in which the Resolution is moved is remarkable for a party which, before it was allied with hon. Members below the Gangway, prided itself on being a party of economy.
§ Mr. KING rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.407
§ Earl WINTERTON
The Secretary to the Treasury when he rose was unable to explain the effect of his own Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech showed that he knew no more about the Question than his right hon. Friend. To bring forward a Resolution which only deals partly with this subject—
§ Earl WINTERTON
The argument I was endeavouring, under some difficulty owing to the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to put forward was that the Resolution is brought forward in a very curious manner. If a question of this kind is going to be dealt with, all the difficulties and scandals which exist at the present time should be dealt with, and not merely a portion of them. I hope hon. Members below the Gangway, including the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks), will for once have the courage of their convictions, and vote with us. The manner in which the whole thing has been brought forward is a Parliamentary scandal of the first magnitude.
§ Lord CHARLES BERESFORD
I think if the Bill had been a little better explained, there would not have been all this disturbance.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I really cannot allow the latitude of the earlier -part of the proceedings to be further extended on this Amendment. The Amendment is that the sum be limited to the amount of £10,000 per year. All remarks of hon. Members must be strictly confined to that narrow point.
The point before the Committee is whether this shall be limited to £10,000 or more, and considering whether it should be limited to £10,000 it seems to me that we must necessarily consider whether there are claims which this Committee ought to meet which will in the aggregate exceed £10,000. I have just been able to secure a copy of the Resolution, and it is for an increased amount of superannuation. The Treasury Bench have not given us any information to show us whether £10,000 is enough or not. It is true they have said £10,000 is enough, but as the Resolution is in very wide terms, I do not propose to support my hon. Friend in his Amendment, because we are absolutely in the dark as to whether £10,000 is enough, and 408 we know that there are cases which are covered at least by the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury which require to be met. So, in order to avoid the risk of having to cut out later on when we consider the Bill, I am not going to vote for my hon. Friend, but I shall have to support the open Resolution not limited to £10,000, because we cannot judge at the moment whether that sum is enough or not. If the Secretary to the Treasury will give us further information on the subject we might be able to say whether that sum is enough or not, but rather than risk having any Amendment we may make to the Bill ruled out of order later on, I am not going to vote for the Amendment.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTER
May I ask whether or not the category of cases which have moved the spirit of the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks) can be dealt with under the Resolution, supposing it to be passed by the Committee? I am not at all clear that it can. I am inclined to think it cannot be dealt with whether this limit of £10.000 be placed in the Resolution or not.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
This deals purely with cases under the Superannuation Act. The cases referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Crooks) are not-covered by the Superannuation Act and therefore do not come under the Bill. My hon. Friend has raised a ligitimate grievance which ought to be looked into, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this Bill and could not come under it, and it ought therefore to be taken on its merits just as my hon. Friend's Amendment should be taken on its merits.
§ Mr. FORSTER
That clears away any doubt I had in my own mind as to the propriety or the reverse of supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment. His Amendment is to adopt the Government's own estimate of the cost to the nation under the Bill. If they correct their estimate, and say that on reconsideration they would prefer to make it £20,000, I am sure my hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment and move another in that form so as to limit it to the larger amount. All he has in his mind is that we shall not give to this or any other Government a blank cheque.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
My hon. Friend (Mr. Worthington-Evans) has advanced certain reasons which have been demolished by the right hon. Gentleman. I should be very loth to lose the support of my hon. Friend, 409 and I wish to assure him that my Amendment would not in any way damnify him if he desired to support some other proposal. This Resolution would be amended later on. A charge cannot be imposed on the nation on the Report stage, and therefore the only possible chance of amending the Resolution, in order to carry out what my hon. Friend desires to do, and what the hon. Member for Woolwich desires to do, was to get the Government to move an Amendment at the present moment, or to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. That was not done, and therefore we come back to this, that we are now voting for a certain limitation. It may be right or wrong. I take the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman, but if he should come afterwards and say, "I asked for £10,000, but that is not enough; I -want £20,000," I would say, "Take
§ £20,000." [An HON. MEMBER: "He said it was the outside amount."] Yes, but within an hour he may have changed his mind. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when in Opposition said this House should keep a check on the finances of the nation. They said they would "turn out the extravagant Tories." I say we ought to accept the estimate given by the Government until they come down and say they have made a mistake, and ask us to alter the amount.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Questions be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 218;. Noes, 75.411
|Division No. 283.]||AYES||[12.16 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Elverston, Sir Harold||Kilbride, Denis|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||King, Joseph|
|Adamson, William||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Lamb, Ernest Henry|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Essex, Richard Walter||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Bolton)|
|Agnew, Sir George||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickdale)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Falconer, James||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Farrell, James Patrick||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cocksm'th)|
|Alton, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Arnold, Sydney||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Ffrench, Peter||Lundon, T.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Field, William||Lynch, A. A.|
|Barton, William||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Fitzgibbon, John||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Bentham, G. J.||France, Gerald Ashburner||Macpherson, James|
|Boland, John Pius||Gelder, Sir W. A.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||McGhee, Richard|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Gill, A. H.||Manfield, Harry|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Brace, William||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Greig, Col. James William||Martin, Joseph|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Griffith. Ellis J.||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.|
|Brunner, J. F. L.||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Meagher, Michael|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, H. J|
|Burke, E Haviland||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Millar, James Duncan|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hackett, John||Molloy, Michael|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hancock, J. G.||Mond, Sir Alfred M.|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Morison, Hector|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Muldocn, John|
|Chappie, Dr. W. A.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Clough, William||Hayden, John Patrick||Neilson, Francis|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hazleton, Richard||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Dencaster>|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Cotton, William Francis||Hemmerde, Edward George||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Ellot||Higham, John Sharp||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Crooks, William||Hobhcuse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Hogge, James Myles||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Cullinan, John||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Hudson, Walter||O'Dowd, John|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Ogden, Fred|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Dawes, James A.||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Malley, William|
|De Forest, Baron||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh)|
|Delany, William||Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Shee, James John|
|Doris, William||Joyce, Michael||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Duffy, William J.||Keating, M.||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Kelly, Edward||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.||Robinson, Sidney||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Roch, Walter F.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Rose, Sir Charles Day||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Rowlands, James||Waring, Walter|
|Pointer, Joseph||Rowntree, Arnold||Warner, Sir T. C. T.|
|Pollard, Sir George H.||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Webb, H.|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Pringle, William M. R.||Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Raffan, Peter Wilson||Scanlan, Thomas||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Sheehy, David||Wllkie, Alexander|
|Reddy, Michael||Shortt, Edward||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Simon, Sir John Alisebrook||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Sutherland, J. E.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Richards, Thomas||Sutton, John E.||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Tennant, Harold John||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Croft, H. P.||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Ashley, W. W.||Dixon, Charles Henry||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Balrd, J. L.||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Foster, Philip Staveley||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Banner, John S. Harmood||Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.||Stanier, Beville|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Goldsmith, Frank||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Gretton, John||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks)||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hohler, G. F.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Bird, Alfred||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Tulibardine, Marquess of|
|Boles, Lieut. -Col. Dennis Fortescue||Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Winterton, Earl|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Larmor, Sir Joseph||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lewisham, Viscount||Worthlington-Evans, L.|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Macmaster, Donald||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Malcolm, Ian||Younger, Sir George|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Neville, Reginald J. N.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)||Rawlinson and Mr. Montague Barlow.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added.412
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 218.413
|Division No. 284.]||AYES||[12.25 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dixon, C. H||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Eyres-Monsell, B M.||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Forster, Henry William||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Foster, Phlip Staveley||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Balcarres, Lord||Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Banner, John S. Harmood||Goldsmith, Frank||Stanier, Beville|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Gretton, John||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Starkey, John R.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Bird, Alfred||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Touche, George Alexander|
|Boles, Lieut. -Col. Dennis Fortescue||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Watt, Henry A.|
|Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Kyffin-Taylor, G.||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Larmor, Sir J.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Lewisham, Viscount||Winterton, Earl|
|Clyde, James Avon||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Macmaster, Donald||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Malcolm, Ian|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Neville, Reginald J. N.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)||Frederick Banbury and Mr. E. Cecil.|
|Croft, Henry Page||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Adamson, William||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Hackett, John||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hancock, J. G.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Harvey, W E. (Derbyshire, N. E)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Pointer, Joseph|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Hayden, John Patrick||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Hazleton, Richard||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.||Hemmerde, Edward George||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Henry, Sir Charles||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Boland, John Pius||Higham, John Sharp||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Hogge, James Myles||Reddy, Michael|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Howard, Hon. Geottrey||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Brace, William||Hudson, Walter||Redmond, William (Clare. E.)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Richards, Thomas|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Burke, E. Haviland.||Jones Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Joyce, Michael||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)||Keating, Matthew||Robinson, Sidney|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Roch, Walter F.|
|Chappie, Dr. William Allen||Kelly, Edward||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Kilbride, Denis||Rowlands, James|
|Clancy, John Joseph||King, Joseph||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Clough, William||Lamb, Ernest Henry||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbirld, Cockenn'th)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Levy, Sir Maurice||Scott, A. MacCailum, (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Crooks, William||Lewis, John Herbert||Sheehy, David|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lundon, Thomas||Shortt, Edward|
|Cullinan, John||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Simon, Sir John Alisebrook|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Macpherson, James Ian||Sutherland, J. E.|
|De Forest, Baron||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Sutton, John E.|
|Delany, William||McGhee, Richard||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Manfield, Harry||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Doris, William||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Tennant, Harold John|
|Duffy, William J.||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Thorne, G. R, (Wolverhampton)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Martin, Joseph||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, tley)||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||Meagher, Michael||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Waring, Walter|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford N.)||Millar, James Duncan||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Essex, Richard Walter||Molloy, Michael||Webb, H.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Mond, Sir Alfred M.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradesto)n|
|Falconer, James||Morison, Hector||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Muldoon, John||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Ffrench, Peter||Neilson, Francis||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Field, William||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||Nolan, Joseph||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)|
|Fitzgibbon, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|France, G. A.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E)|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||O'Doherty, Philip||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||O'Donnell, Thomas||Younger, Sir George|
|Gill, A. H.||Ogden, Fred|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||O'Dowd, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Greig, Colonel J. W.||O'Malley, William|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question put accordingly.414
§ Earl WINTERTON
(seated and covered): I desire to put a point of Order, and ask you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, whether your attention was called to the fact that 415 I rose to speak on my Amendment, and, although I was on my feet for some time, you never called upon me. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. Worthing-ton-Evans) did the same.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
With respect to the Noble Lord's point, the main Question being claimed and put, the result is that no discussion can now possibly arise.
§ Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Superannuation Acts, and to make further provision out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the grant of Superannuation and other allowances and gratuities to persons who have forfeited their right thereto by reason of transfer to non-pensionable service, and for the increase of the amount of Superannuation I and other allowances and gratuities payable in cases to which section twelve of The Superannuation Act, 1834, or section seven of The Superannuation Act, 1887, apply, and for the payment of weekly disablement allowances in substitution for gratuities and additional allowances in certain cases.
§ Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday).