§ 10. "That a sum, not exceeding £180,000, 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, 1913, for providing for an Increase in the Capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ Sir F. BANBURYThis is an extremely important Estimate, inasmuch as it practically is a change of the policy which has been continuous for something like 847 fifty years. In 1861 a Committee was appointed to consider the Civil Contingency Fund which prior to that date had been used for a variety of purposes, some of which were to defray expenses which had been incurred by the Government. The Committee recommended that for the future the fund should only be used as one from which in the event of any error being made in the Estimates the Civil Service could borrow the necessary amount, it being understood that amount should be put back; and the sum to be kept continually to the credit of the Civil Contingency Fund was fixed at £120,000. This Supplementary Estimate increases that sum for the future to £300,000, and, in order to arrive at the reasons which have induced the Government to propose this change, we must go back to 1910. The Government then brought forward Votes on Account for six weeks instead of following the usual precedent of four months. It had been the custom ever since 1896 for both parties to bring forward Votes on Account for four months. Prior to that year Votes on Account were for a shorter period, it being held that by the shorter period the control and command of the House of Commons over finance was better maintained. In the year 1896, that custom was departed from, and Votes on Account for four months or some period of that sort, were taken up to 1910, by both parties. In 1910, there was a departure from that custom, and Votes on Account for six weeks were introduced. Owing to the bad Budgeting the Vote taken for the amount required for the six weeks for the Post Office service, and the payment of salaries of teachers in Ireland, was underestimated, and the Government, instead of coming down to the House for a further Vote on Account, took the money out of the Treasury Chest, The Public Accounts Committee in their second Report last years say this:—
The Comptroller and Auditor-General reports that in 1910–11, expenditure took place in two cases in anticipation of a Vote of Parliament.The first Vote, to put it shortly, was on account of Post Office expenses, and the second Vote on account of the payment of national school teachers in Ireland. They then go on to say that as only £91,089 2s. 8d. was available out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, the balance of £50,000 was likewise provided out of the Treasury Chest Fund, and they say, "Your 848 Committee are informed that this is the first time that the Treasury Chest Fund has been used for these services." The Committee go on to say:—Your Committee adhere to the principle laid down by the Treasury in 1902, based upon the Report of the Public Expenditure Committee of 1861, that the Treasury Chest is a central banking fund which exists for the purpose of laying down funds abroad to carry on the public service generally, and they view with great jealousy any departure front that principle. In the case under review, the Treasury, not having the money to carry on the approved Parliamentary services, and there being no margin in the Civil Contingencies Fund, allowed an encroachment upon the Treasury Chest Fund, although there was no Vote of Parliament to guarantee that the sum borrowed would be repaid to the Fund. Your Committee recognise that an unforseen emergency had arisen and that the course adopted by the Treasury involved no ultimate loss of public funds, but they cannot admit that the emergency justified an encroachment upon the Treasury Chest Fund, which, in the words of the Treasury Minute of 1902, 'should only be employed for the legitimate banking operations of the Treasury Chest abroad, and for advances for public and colonial services, repayable out of Votes of Parliament or other funds applicable thereto.' Your Committee are strongly of opinion that to use the Treasury Chest Fund as an auxiliary reserve to the Civil Contingencies Fund is contrary to the wishes of Parliament, and they are glad to learn that the Treasury have no intention, in the event of future emergencies, of repeating the procedure in this case.I would like to call the attention of the House to these words:—Your Committee greatly regret that the necessity should have arisen, from what they cannot but regard as a gross miscalculation in underestimating the amount required for the Vote on Account.They say that—care ought always to be taken that the amount asked for is sufficient to cover the whole of the funds and the period for which the Vote is taken.What are the Government proposing to do? Instead of coming down to this House in a white sheet and stating they are very sorry that they did two things that were wrong, and used the banking Treasury Chest for a purpose for which it was never intended, consequent, in the words of the Public Accounts Committee, upon "making a gross miscalculation in underestimating the amount required for the Vote on Account," they put down a Supplementary Estimate, which looks an extremely innocent Estimate. I do not even know whether the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), whose vigilance with regard to the doings of the Treasury is proverbial, knew what was being done; at any rate, I call his attention to this procedure. Instead of saying that in future they will see that a proper calculation is made of the amount required for a Vote on Account, they come down with this innocent-looking Supplementary Estimate to increase the Civil Contingencies Fund from £120,000 to £300,000—that is 849 to say, they are going to provide a sum of money which they can use when they again make a gross miscalculation of the amount required for a Vote on Account. Whichever Government is in power, I strongly object to this course, and I believe a great number of Members on both sides of the House will do so. We do not want to leave a loophole for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—it is not a very large loophole, but it is a loophole. In order that they may have it, when they are in any future trouble with regard to these calculations, they have enlarged the whole fund by increasing it from £120,000 to £300,000.10.0 P.M.
I know this is a dull subject, which is not as interesting to the House as it used to be, but I must remind the House that this is not the first time during the last three or four years that we have had to draw the attention of the House to the manner in which the Government have endeavoured to evade the old regulations and customs which the wisdom of our ancestors have provided in order to obtain the control of the House of Commons over finance. I can quite understand that from the point of view of the Treasury this is a very harm less proceeding; £180,000 is not a very large sum, neither is £300,000 as amounts go at the present moment. But it is not a question of the amount; it is a question of the principle. Are we going to encourage the Government—because that is what the House will do if it sanctions this proposal—to be slack—I do not use the word in an offensive sense—to be careless, would be a better word—in the preparation of Estimates and Votes on Account? I do not want to go into the question why the Government thought it necessary to depart from the old custom of the four months' Vote on Account and go back to the six weeks' Vote. I think I have in my mind a reason for that which was not perhaps unconnected with a party emergency, but I do not want in any kind of way to put it on a party basis. I think the issue is all-important for the House generally, and I will content myself with appealing to the Government to reconsider, even at this hour, the proposal they have made, and allow it to be defeated.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe hon. Baronet has read into this proposal motives which are not exactly legitimate. I do not blame him for that. There may be some elements which may make him inclined to do so. I welcome his statement, which I desire to endorse, that this has nothing 850 whatever to do with a party question. It is the devotion of money to a certain purpose from which no kind of party capital in the ordinary sense can be gained at all. If any Minister had nearly £200,000 to spend, his natural impulse would be to spend it in a way which would get more popularity than in dealing with the Civil Contingencies Fund, which nine out of ten people have never heard of. He seemed to think it was somehow connected with the question of the shortening of the period of the Vote on Account in this historic year of 1910. I can assure him it is not so. It is perfectly true that the course adopted by the Treasury to meet the necessity at that time, was a course which led to the supplementing of the inadequate Civil Contingencies Fund out of the Treasury Fund. It is quite true also that the Public Accounts Committee, which represents the House of Commons, and whose work deserves all admiration by the House of Commons, very strongly objected to any such method of supplementing the Civil Contingencies Fund. If there had been no abnormal conditions in that year, if the normal Vote on Account had been taken, and if there had been no miscalculation of the six weeks' Vote on Account, nevertheless, I think I should still be standing now at this box proposing this addition to the capital amount of the Civil Contingencies Fund. There is one more statement made by the hon. Baronet which I wish to explain. He says that the Government or the Treasury used the Treasury Chest for the payment of services without coming to Parliament for authority.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is what the Public Accounts Committee said.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThat is not so. The money was needed at once to pay pensions, and the money was paid for pensions, but within ten days the Government came to Parliament for authority and they obtained the authority for providing that out of an actual Vote. The whole transaction was confined within ten days, and at the earliest possible opportunity we came to Parliament for sanction. The real policy underlying this proposed change is something altogether apart from such questions as that. The Civil Contingencies Fund was provided for contingencies under totally different conditions, and is inadequate for the contingencies in these days. Let me give the hon. Baronet one or two figures on the subject. In 1862 when this fund was fixed at £120,000 by Mr. Gladstone, the total amount of the 851 Civil Service Votes was £13,500,000. The Government of that day regarded it as a legitimate amount to allow for possible variations. It was £120,000 on an expenditure of £13,500,000, or nearly, 1½ per cent. To-day the Civil Service Estimates are something like £78,000,000, but the Civil Contingencies Fund has not increased. Therefore, there is a far less proportion, something like one-sixth of the amount, which is now allowed for possible contingencies, against which neither Estimates nor prudence can guard. If we are to work on the standard fixed by what the hon. Baronet calls the wisdom of our ancestors, and were to ask that we should now establish the standard of 1862, namely, a standard of 1 per cent., we should be asking that the capital fund of the Civil Contingencies Fund, for whatever Government might be in power, should be something like £750,000. We are making no such request, but we say the amount must be increased, and we suggest an increase to something like half that amount, namely, £300,000. I will ask the House to remember—I know the hon. Baronet realises it—that this is capital expenditure, and not a recurring expenditure.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI said so.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIt is a Vote once and for all, of £180,000. If it is carried, the fund will year by year stand at £300,000, and any money paid out of it will also be paid into it under the Civil Contingency Estimate in July. Therefore I am not asking the House to vote a recurring liability of £180,000. The hon. Baronet said that the whole function of the Civil Contingencies Fund was to readjust at a later date wrong Estimates made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That is not quite an accurate account. The Civil Contingencies Fund has two purposes. Hon. Members will remember that the Civil Service Votes, unlike the Army Votes and the Navy Votes, are not exchangeable. The House has always refused to accept in regard to Civil Service Votes the principle adopted in the case of the Navy and Army Votes, by which the excessive expenditure on one Vote can be met by the savings on other Votes. Each Civil Service Vote is perfectly isolated and separate. If you have only a Vote of £200,000, you cannot spend a £5 note in addition to the £200,000 without coming to Parliament for sanction. 852 Therefore it is not a case of wrong Estimates on big blocks of Votes. It is because of accurate Estimates of every single Vote which is given, and of providing a certain sum—a readjusting sum—in case any one of these enormous Estimates may be wrong, to carry on for a time until Parliamentary sanction is obtained. The Civil Contingencies Fund is not allowed to be used except at any time when Parliamentary sanction cannot be obtained. We have had Supplementary Estimates for quite trivial sums, and I have had to ask the House to vote those sums because the House has now an opportunity of meeting.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is why I object to the increase.
§ Mr. MASTERMANNever has the Civil Contingencies Fund been used to prevent Votes being brought before Parliament. As the hon. Baronet knows, there is no suggestion that the Government could be carried on by the use of this Fund without coming to Parliament. The whole of the Civil Contingencies Fund would not carry on the government of this country for one day if the ordinary Votes were exhausted. Therefore hon. Members may dismiss that suggestion from their minds. There is another purpose to which the Civil Contingencies Fund is devoted, which is equally important, that is, to deal with expenditure which must necessarily arise from time to time, often when Parliament is not sitting, of an urgent nature, which the Government has got to meet, and which it can only meet by giving money out of this Fund, and afterwards obtaining the sanction of Parliament to it. I agree that that ought not to be done on a large scale. It would be monstrous if any Government took upon itself the expenditure of, say, £1,000,000, and afterwards came to Parliament and said, "Well, we have spent this money, now give us your sanction." But it has to be done on a certain small scale, and I will give the Committee one or two examples how it has been done. In 1907–8, when Parliament was not sitting, and there was no Vote—I am not quite sure when a Parliament was sitting—the Government had to obtain a sum of £25,000 for the ransom of two Government servants, one the famous Kaid Maclean of Morocco, and the other Mr. Abbott, who was a Consul at Salonica. The lives of those gentlemen depended upon the payment of those ransoms. The sum was paid out of the Civil 853 Contingencies Fund. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you get it back?"] Later on the sum was recovered from the Governments which had let the Government into this expenditure. If the money had not been paid, no one knows what would have happened to these two Government servants. There is another case to which an allusion has been made to-day of a very mournful kind. In 1910 a sum of £20,000 had to be advanced towards the equipment of the expedition of Captain Scott to the South Pole, which has just had such a mournful and heroic ending. That money was advanced in May from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and the Vote was passed by the House in July. This year, without any warning and without expectation, we have suddenly had an unanticipated incursion of foot-and-mouth disease both in England and in Ireland. Fortunately, it has been limited within very narrow dimensions, but within those dimensions we have had to pay out of the Civil Contingencies Fund £25,000 in compensation for cattle which have been slaughtered in connection with the working of the Act, and the House to-day, on the Report stage, is going to vote that money, the earliest possible occasion when we can bring the question before the House. It might have been £100,000, and we should still have to pay. You cannot slaughter the cattle of peasants in Ireland without paying the money. These are the kind of increases, unexpected, which cannot be realised in the Estimate which the Civil Contingencies Fund is supposed to meet. Every item has to be placed before the Public Accounts Committee, and is carefully scrutinised by them, and is afterwards endorsed when the Civil Contingencies Fund Vote is voted by Parliament.
We therefore think that we are not suggesting any change of policy at all. For the last three years, quite apart from the question of altering the number of months for which we budgetted in the Vote on Account, the Civil Contingencies Fund has proved inadequate to the demands which necessarily had to be made upon it. Only this year the Treasury Chest Estimate, which I had to submit last night, contained an item of an advance to the Irish Local Government Board out of the Treasury Chest because there was no other fund from which it could be advanced, the Civil Contingencies Fund was exhausted and the King's Government had to be carried on. The Public Accounts Committee has told 854 us that they regard this as an unsuitable use of the Treasury Chest Fund. We have no wish to contest that statement, and I would ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to approve of the action which the Treasury is now taking in the matter. We want to carry out the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, and this is the first possible opportunity on which we can carry it out. As our recommendation is that in such contingencies as now arise and have arisen for the last three years Treasury Chest money should not be used, we therefore have to come to Parliament and ask for an increase of the Civil Contingencies Fund to make it more adequate to the increase in the Civil Service Estimates, which has taken place in the last few years. But for the fact that the Appropriation Accounts have been taken earlier this year we should have been confronted with the difficulty we had last year or the year before, and we should have had expenditure that we should have been obliged to meet out of the Treasury Chest, having no other fund out of which we could meet it.
Let me suggest to the hon. Baronet whether, after all, you may not be doing harm in dealing with public Estimates by making the fund for contingencies too small, just as you may be doing harm by making it too large. I entirely agree with him that if it is too large there is a danger of slipshod Estimates, and I should be the last to defend that. Certainly I should never dream of asking for such a large sum for civil contingencies as would allow people to say, "We will only have small Estimates. We will not Budget for much this year, and we will meet it out of the Civil Contingencies Fund." But there is equal danger if the fund is too small, for, if every £5 note they may spend above their Estimate there is nothing to meet it, undoubtedly you will have a tendency to overestimate in the Public Departments. They will say, "We will not take any risks, and although we are not quite sure that every farthing of this money will be wanted, yet so serious is the risk if we go over by £5 or £50 that we will put in that extra money." I think the hon. Baronet will agree that that is just as objectionable as the other.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhat the Public Accounts Committee say is:—
Your Committee greatly regret that the necessity should have arisen through what they cannot but regard as a gross miscalculation in estimating the amount.855 Their criticism is upon the gross miscalculation. They do not suggest that the Civil Contingencies Fund should be increased.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am not dealing with the gross miscalculation, as it is called, which we discussed very fully last year. The Public Accounts Committee this March will have exactly similar use of the Treasury Chest owing to the inadequate Civil Contingencies Fund, and the thing that we have to face from the Treasury is the continually increasing inadequacy of the Civil Contingency Fund on the one hand, combined with the absolute desire of the Public Accounts Committee that under no circumstances should we approach the Treasury Chest on the other hand. Under these circumstances it is evidently our duty to come to Parliament, if we wish the Public Accounts Committee Report to be fully carried out, and say we cannot guarantee, with such a tiny Civil Contingency Fund, never to derive money from the Treasury Chest. If Parliament will grant us this increase of the capital amount of the Civil Contingencies Fund, we will certainly see to it that we do all in our power not to take the Treasury Chest Fund for what is appropriate to the Civil Contingencies Fund.
Colonel WILLIAMSI quite corroborate what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said, namely, that the Public Accounts Committee last year came to the conclusion that the Civil Contingencies Fund was too small. Whether this particular increase is large enough or too large is a question which has never been before the Public Accounts Committee. It will come before the Committee in due course. What I wish to say at present is that the Public Accounts Committee felt that under no conditions whatever ought the Treasury Chest Fund to be encroached upon by the Government. It was not for that purpose it was created. It was a serious dereliction of financial duty to trench upon the Treasury Chest Fund. They ought to have come to Parliament for money instead of going to the Treasury Chest Fund. What has been done in this instance has never been done before, and I hope it will never be done again. It was in circumstances of financial distress—distress of their own creating—that the Government deliberately chose to transgress every Parliamentary rule, and, instead of facing Parliament openly, they encroached on the Treasury Chest Fund. As to this 856 special Vote, I am not prepared to say whether £180,000 is the correct amount. Personally I should have thought it rather more than was required. However, the Government have chosen on their responsibility to ask for that amount, and the question will come under review of the Public Accounts Committee in another year. It is quite certain that with the increased expenditure of the country the old Civil Contingencies Fund is not now large enough. I think the right hon. Gentleman will concur in that statement. Therefore, I am not prepared to dispute the increase in this special fund, while reserving the right to decide afterwards whether the Civil Contingencies Fund is increased to too large an amount, having regard to the general expenditure of the country.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESAs one of the signatories of the Report which was read by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), I should like to say a few words in regard to this matter. I hope I am not less a financial purist than the hon. Baronet. I think he laid down rather a counsel of perfection, as perhaps it is his duty to do, in suggesting that under no circumstances, or almost no circumstances should the Government have recourse to the Treasury Chest Fund. Of course, the ideal would be that everything should be on the Estimates of the year when they are introduced, that there should be no Supplementary Estimates, no raids on the Treasury Chest Fund, no drawings from the Civil Contingencies Fund required, no surpluses at the end of the year, and nothing to go to the Sinking Fund. That ideal state of things for a perfect world will never be attained while this or any other Government holds office in an imperfect world. There will always be unexpected expenditure which has to be met suddenly. It is not unreasonable that some margin should be asked for in the Civil Contingencies Fund having regard to the facts of the case. I understand that there is no intention on the part of the Government to vary the purposes for which the Fund exists. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee in 1877 lays down very clearly the purposes for which the money in the Fund may properly be used. It gives the Treasury view of the Fund:—
That the use of this fund should be as limited as possible and confined to the two objects; enabling the Treasury to make a cash advance to any Department, which owing to unforeseen claims upon them have arrived at the limit of their Grant, and providing funds for new and utterly unforseen services.857 Therefore the fund is intended to provide a margin for those Departments which unexpectedly reach the limit of their Grant, and to meet wholly unexpected charges which may arise during the year. But the House should remember that the use of this fund does not withdraw the matter from the consideration of the House, but only postpones it. Any sums withdrawn are repaid and must be voted in the Estimates of the following year. Consequently, all that happens is that the Department is enabled to deal with the emergency and the discussion is postponed for a time, usually a very short time, as shown by the instances given by the Financial Secretary, and no objection can be made to the use of the fund on the ground that the matter was withdrawn from the consideration of the House. The report of the Public Accounts Committee pointed to the enlargement of the Civil Contingencies Fund instead of making raids on the Treasury Chest. We were unanimous in that report and felt strongly how wrong a course it was to use the Treasury Chest for purposes for which it was not intended. Evidence was given before us that the Treasury had under consideration for some time the enlargement of the Civil Cintingencies Fund, as experience had shown that £120,000 was not sufficient. If the hon. Baronet looks at the report of the evidence he will see that Sir Thomas Heath, on behalf of the Treasury, stated that they were seriously considering the question of enlarging the amount of the Civil Contingencies Fund, and he pointed out how greatly the Estimates had grown since the amount was fixed at £120,000, and while I do not commit myself to the exact amount chosen by the Government, the action of the Government in enlarging the fund is really carrying out the spirit of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, instead of doing anything that was in any way condemned by that Report, as I think the hon. Baronet was rather inclined to lead the House to suppose.I have no reason to think, judging by analogy, that the sum fixed is too large considering what the Civil Service and Revenue Estimates are. The amount was fixed in 1861 at £120,000, and I make the Estimates for the Civil Service in that year £12,500,000, and the Secretary to the Treasury makes them £13,500,000. I took the year 1861–62, the year in which the Report was made, when the sum of £120,000 was fixed. Practically 858 that sum was 1 per cent. of the expenditure of the Civil Service and Revenue Estimates of the year. To-day the expenditure in respect of these services is £78,000,000. I am far from saying that the margin ought to be a percentage of the total. I do not think it follows. Still, the Sum fixed by the Government to-day is a good deal less than the 1 per cent. which the Committee in 1861 felt to be necessary. I cannot find anything to show that the Government is extravagant in asking for £300,000, and I feel that in enlarging the Civil Contingencies Fund they have added to the stability of our financial system.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI think the Secretary to the Treasury must have reasonable latitude to make up for unforeseen contingencies, but if the amount was not sufficient to effectually meet requirements, I submit that the manner in which the Supplementary Estimate was brought up was in the last degree unfortunate. It arose, it appears, from a miscalculation in 1907. It must be much more difficult to estimate when pressure will come in regard to particular items, it must be much more difficult to estimate what exact sum will be required in any six weeks of the financial year, than to estimate what will be required for the financial year as a whole, and it was unfortunate to take very short Votes on Account, which has led to the present difficulty. The Government say, "Because we have miscalculated in the past we now ask you to give us an increase of 150 per cent. on the former Estimate. Surely some good cause ought to have been shown in the first instance when the Vote was presented. It ought not to have been put quietly at the end of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, without any statement or explanation from the Treasury. The present figure of £120,000 arose after a very long and exhaustive inquiry by the very greatest financial authorities of the day. If hon. Members look at the Committee which sat in 1861 they will find some of the greatest names—Sir Tames Graham, who was Chairman, at any rate a member; Sir Francis Baring, Mr. Cobden, and others—and the Government only proposed a Civil Service Contingencies Fund of £120,000 in this Committee. The matter was threshed out in the most exhaustive way. If a change is required, then, in the first instance, the Public Accounts Committee ought to have been consulted. My hon. Friend the 859 Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee says that they will revise this matter afterwards, but I submit that is the wrong way to proceed. When you have a precedent going back fifty years you ought not suddenly to change it by putting in an extra figure involving an increase of 150 per cent. without any explanation at all. You ought to go back to the same authority which settled the figure in the first instance, namely, the Public Accounts Committee. I think there has been a very great tendency in recent years for the Executive to take too much upon themselves in the way of interpreting Acts
§ of Parliament, and in the way of modifying all the financial conditions of the past, and we are bound to protest against the course the Government have taken on the present occasion. It is possible that the increase of 150 per cent. may be justified, but certainly it ought to have been taken on the advice of the Public Accounts Committee in the first instance. Therefore I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the matter.
§ Question put, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House diveded: Ayes, 212; Noes, 74.
861| Division No. 600.] | AYES. | [10.36 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Mooney, J. J. |
| Adamson, William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Morgan, George Hay |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morison, Hector |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Muldoon, John |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Munro, R. |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Atherley-Jones Llewellyn A. | Hayden, John Patrick | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Hayward, Evan | Neilson, Francis |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Nolan, Joseph |
| Barnes, G. N. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Henry, Sir Charles | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Herbert, General, Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Benn, W. W.. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Higham, John Sharp | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Bentham, G. J. | Hinds, John | O'Dowd, John |
| Boland, John Pius | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon, Charles E. H. | O'Grady, James |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hodge, John | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Brady, P. J. | Hogge, James Myles | O'Malley, William |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Holmes, Daniel Turner | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh. S.) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Carllie, Sir Edward Hildred | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Shee, James John |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hughes, S. L. | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | John, Edward Thomas | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Pease, Ht. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Clough, William | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Clynes, John R. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Jewett, Frederick William | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Joyce, Michael | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Keating, Matthew | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Crooks, William | Kellaway, Frederick George | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Radford, G. H. |
| Cullinan, J. | King, J. | Reddy, M. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Davies, Ellis William (E[...]f[...]on) | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| De Forest, Baron | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leach, Charles | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Doris, W. | Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lundon, Thomas | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lyell, Charles Henry | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lynch, A. A. | Robinson, Sidney |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Roch, Walter F. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | McGhee, Richard | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Falconer, J. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon Dr. T. J. | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Farrell, James Patrick | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Macpherson, James Ian | Rowlands, James |
| Ffrench, Peter | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Furness, Stephen | Markham, Sir Arthur | Basil Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Gill, A. H. | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Ginnell, L. | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Sheehy, David |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Goldstone, Frank | Meagher, Michael | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Millar, James Duncan | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Molloy, M. | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Sutherland, John E. | Wadsworth, J. | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Sutton, John E. | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Williams, Col, R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) | Wardle, George J. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Tennant, Harold John | Watt, Henry A. | Winfrey, R. |
| Thomas, J. H. | Webb, H. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Thorne, William (West Ham) | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Toulmin, Sir George | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | |
| Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Whitehouse, John Howard | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Ure, Rt. Hon, Alexander | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Verney, Sir Harry | Wiles, Thomas | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott | Newton, Harry Kottingham |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | O'Neill, Hon. A. E.B. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Anson, Rt. Hon, Sir William R. | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baird, J. L. | Fitzroy, Hon, Edward A. | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Fletcher, John Samuel | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Barnston, Harry | Forster, Henry William | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Barrie, H. T. | Gilmour, Captain John | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Bean, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Stanier, Beville |
| Bigland, Alfred | Gretton, John | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Bird, A. | Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col, Dennis Fortescue | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Touche, George Alexander |
| Butcher, J. G. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Wheler, Granville C. H, |
| Cassel, Felix | Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G.W. | Hunt, Rowland | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hunter, Sir C. R. | Winterton, Earl |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Kerry, Earl of | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Yate, Col. Charles Edward |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Locker-Lampson, G. (Saliabury) | Younger, Sir George |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | F. Banbury and Mr. Rawlinson. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Newdegate, F. A. |
Bill read the third time, and passed.