§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ Colonel YATEI am glad to see the Secretary of State for War in his place and wish to ask him to take into consideration the unfairness of the present rules and regulations regarding the commutation of pensions of military officers. I have already raised the question in connection with the Naval Estimates and I now ask the Secretary of State to consider the question with regard to the Army Estimates. In the case of officers who are allowed to commute their pensions, the money is taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the savings bank on a 3½ per cent. basis. The result is that there is a large surplus accruing to the State. The Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged to me not long ago that the State had already made a profit out of the officers of £200,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also agreed to look into this question, and to see whether the margin now allowed, between 3½ per cent. 1820 and 5 per cent., is not far too large. It tells unfairly on the officers, and I would ask that this question should receive consideration. Personally I am against the commutation of pensions.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWhat authority has the hon. Member for saying that pensions are included in this Bill?
§ Colonel YATEThis came into the Army Estimates.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe only Army Vote in this Bill, if my recollection serves me aright, is Vote 1.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe subject is mentioned in the Report of Supply.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not include pensions.
§ Colonel YATEI will deal, then, with the question of the pay of Reservists. The Reservist soldier is paid 6d. a. day, and I would appeal to the Secretary of State to consider the question of paying these men weekly, just as old age pensions are paid, instead of their receiving the sum of £2 5s. quarterly. The present system is not beneficial to the soldier, for quarter day is known, and men turn up for "a drink." The result is that the money is often all gone before the man gets back 1821 to his wife and family. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether the Reservists cannot be paid weekly instead of quarterly as at present.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI want to call attention to the question of the Mounted Infantry, who, I believe, get an allowance of pay over and above the ordinary allowance, and I want to know why it was that the Mounted Infantry were recently sent back to their regiments? When the 15th Hussars returned from foreign service, I am told that they were given the horses of the Mounted Infantry, and that the latter were sent back to their regiments. That seems to me rather a curious manœuvre from two points of view. In the first place the Cavalry were supplied with the cobs of the Mounted infantry, horses not being available, and in the second place it seems to me reprehensible that before their training has been completed, or even if it has been completed, they should be sent back to their regiments in order that their cobs may be available for the Cavalry. This is a case which I am informed has caused a great deal of feeling in Cavalry circles throughout the Army. I think it is one which certainly demands explanation from the Secretary of State. We are all aware that the Secretary of State for War has done perhaps more than some of his predecessors in the direction of supplying sufficient horses for the Army. I do not wish in the least to detract from what he has done in that respect. I am aware he has had the matter under review and has done a certain amount. Still it seems to me there is a prima facie case for supposing that the steps which have hitherto been taken to mount the Cavalry have been inadequate if it is necessary to disband a force of such value as the Mounted Infantry in order to mount a Cavalry regiment coming back from abroad. I am sure the House will await with interest whatever explanation the right hon. Gentleman has to give on that point. There is also a question I should like to raise on the Post Office.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is nothing about the Post Office.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI see that under the heading of Civil Service the Post Office comes in on that Vote.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat was taken in a former Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYI think the Noble Lord has done great service at this late hour of the night in raising this important question of horses for the Army. It is not the first time the question has been raised and I hope it will be often raised at every convenient and inconvenient time until the Government give proper attention to it. This question is one which has arisen almost automatically and in a way for 'which I admit the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible. Nor is the Department over which he presides wholly to blame. At the time of the South African War there was a reserve of horses to draw upon. Bus horses at that time were estimated to number at least 20,000. Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and all the great towns——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is nothing about horses in this Bill.
§ Sir F. FLANNERYSurely this Bill includes the pay of men who are mounted, and therefore I respectfully submit the question of horses in germane to the provisions of the Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt may be germane but it is not included. That is on Vote 6 and Vote 6 is not included in this Bill.
Captain MORRISON-BELLOn page 26 of the Army Estimates there is an increase of £400 in the item, "Rewards, etc., for the Apprehension of Deserters, etc." That is an increase of 20 per cent. Why has that increase taken place in this particular year? The Secretary of State has made many speeches recently saying how happy and contented the soldiers are with their lot, how splendid recruiting is, and how everything is for the best in the best of all possible armies. I imagine this increase must be due to an increased number of desertions, because these emoluments depend upon the number of desertions. Therefore we ought to have some explanation why the number of desertions has increased. In the same paragraph there is an increase of £500 in the item, "Wages of civilians attached to units." I do not know who these gentlemen are or what are their duties. Where would these civilians come in in case of active service conditions? We have a very small army, but we do not want to have its numbers artificially increased by including civilians. Another large increase occurs in connection with, "Expenses of native Indian troops"—£25,500. I am not clear who bears the expenses of these native Indian 1823 troops, but I was under the impression that they were borne entirely by the Indian Government. We ought to have an explanation of this large increase. The next item is equally important—an increase of £200 on "miscellaneous and unforeseen charges." When we are dealing with millions £200 is not a very large sum, and it is very hard to discover what the unforeseen charges may be. But we ought to be very careful in examining the Estimates to see that these miscellaneous charges are properly checked. It is very important that the House should know what these miscellaneous charges are. Unforeseen charges may occur in any branch of the Service, and we must not blame too hardly the Secretary for War. But "miscellaneous charges" is a vague expression. We should know exactly what they are, and whether they really apply to this particular Vote 1 of the Army Estimates. No doubt the Secretary of War will seize the opportunity to explain these matters to the House.
§ Mr. WALTER GUINNESSI wish to raise Vote J of the first Army Vote, which deals with the pay and establishment of the Cavalry, Mounted Infantry, Camel Corps, Signalling and Cookery School. The first part of the Vote is headed "School of Instruction for Cavalry and Yeomanry Officers." That heading is extremely misleading, because as a matter of fact, there is at present no adequate instruction whatever provided for Yeomanry officers. It is true that there is provision made at Netheravon for twelve Yeomen of a rank not lower than field officers to have a short course. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say that it is limited to twelve because in former years it has been found that field officers have not generally availed themselves of the facilities. The explanation is that the course is merely an optional course. The result is that the course, as I admit, has not been very fully attended. Those who need the course are junior officers who at the present time have no facilities for instruction whatever. It is laid down that they have to pass two examinations, and that they have to attend in some centre the training of a Cavalry regiment to get their practical experience in the field. That is a very undesirable system.
These officers are a nuisance to the Cavalry regiment to which they are attached. They crowd the officers out of the mess. 1824 It is no one's job to teach them anything, and they go wandering about in everybody's way. After that fortnight with the Cavalry regiment they generally have to spend a certain amount of money in going through a course of cramming. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to encourage energetic young men of the country to join the Yeomanry they ought not to be put to the expense of getting instruction. The right hon. Gentleman ought to provide them with an adequate system of training at Netheravon, or elsewhere, whereby they can not only have theoretical instruction, but where they can also see regiments at work. I think it is no answer whatever to say that field officers do not attend the present courses because they are optional. I think the way really to deal with the difficulty of educating the officers of the Yeomanry is to make these attendances at courses compulsory, but to make it quite easy for one who wants to learn to have an opportunity of getting the courses at a time that suits him.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERI think the point my hon. Friend has just raised is one of considerable interest to all of us who really do endeavour to do our best to make the Territorial Force, as far as it is possible to make it, a success. I do honestly think that the present state of instruction for Territorial Force and Yeomanry regiments is absolutely disgraceful. My hon. Friend has mentioned the point of teaching officers with regard to ordinary Cavalry training. I want to call attention particularly to their musketry training. Some years ago in the musketry course one was allowed to go to the School of Musketry at Hythe where one got excellent instruction and was able to give some value for the teaching. What happens at the present time? The right hon. Gentleman has instituted a system of instruction in musketry at Hythe, Bristol, Portsmouth, and other provincial towns, and also in London. Classes are held from six o'clock in the evening until ten o'clock or eleven o'clock at night with an hour's interval. That lasts for a month, and during that time the Yeomanry officer, who is paid the ordinary pay of a Cavalry officer, has to live in one of these provincial towns, and at the end of a month of that instruction he has to pass a stiff examination. During the whole of the days during that month that unfortunate officer, who is taken away from his ordinary occupation, whatever it may be, has to settle down in one of these provincial towns with nothing to do, 1825 with no means of instruction or learning unless he is able to get somebody to coach him privately. It is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows those officers that they are not going to stand that sort of thing. They are compelled before they get promotion to pass that sort of examination, and any officer who does not pass has a bad report made of him. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt hoped that this was done for the benefit of the Infantry Territorial Force——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Territorial Force are not on this Vote.
§ Sir R. BAKERI thought the schools of instruction were on the Vote.
§ Mr. SPEAKERHythe is, but the hon. Member seems to be talking about some other schools of instruction.
§ Sir R. BAKERI was trying to induce the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the system. Only a few years ago, a little before the right hon. Gentleman took up his present position, we were allowed to go to the School of Instruction at Hythe. Now the ordinary officer is made to go to those local courses instead of the School of Musketry at Hythe, where we had a useful and proper course.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat question would come more properly under the Vote for the Territorials.
§ Sir R. BAKERI will leave that side of the question, but I want to say a word or two about the Cavalry school. Here again the right hon. Gentleman has done away with the system of sending Yeomanry officers there. I know he says there are some other depots to which the officers are supposed to go, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those classes at the Cavalry school were of the greatest value to the Yeomanry officers. There is room for a Cavalry school at the other end if he will spend a little additional money upon it, or some part of the large amount now paid for these schools of instruction. The right hon. Gentleman might provide one or two additional instructors who could take say one Yeomanry class a month as they used to do, and by that means you would be able to teach your Yeomanry officers, giving them valuable instruction, and make them far more useful to take part in the defence of the country than they are at present. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this question, 1826 because there is no more burning question than these schools of instruction. We ought not to be treated in this way when we are endeavouring to do all in our power to get the Yeomanry up to a state of efficiency because the difficulties put in our way by the abolition of these schools of instruction are enormous. I hope the Secretary for War will return to the old and more sound system of training officers at schools of instruction instead of the present haphazard methods he has adopted.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHI hope the Secretary for War will take into consideration the points which have been put to him by my hon. Friends. The point I wish to raise is connected with the Central Flying School at Salisbury Plain. Last winter some of the officers and men there were living under conditions which I am sure hon. Members would not wish to continue. We must all realise that these officers and men are undergoing every day of their lives a very serious risk. It is no exaggeration to say that every time a man goes up in a flying machine he is exposed to a greater risk than any other person connected with other branches of the Army. These men have volunteered their services to secure the safety of the country, and they ought to receive every consideration at the hands of the Government. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied with the accommodation provided for these men at Salisbury Plain last winter, because some of them had to hire rooms in a public-house, and public-houses are not very up-to-date in their accommodation. I think it is wrong that officers and men risking their lives should be obliged to be put up in such a rough kind of way at Salisbury Plain, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that these men are treated better in the future than in the past. The other point I wish to raise is partly connected with the administration of the Army, but still more connected with the administration of the Navy—I refer to the increase in pay of the Royal Marines. His answer to me was that nothing was to be decided until the increased rates of pay of the junior officers of the Army had been settled by the War Office.
Officers in the Navy have already been granted an increase in pay within the last year or two, and it has been announced that the junior officers of the Army are to have increased rates of pay, but so far no 1827 announcement has been made about the junior officers of the Royal Marines. The Royal Marines are, perhaps, apt to be a little neglected by this House. They do not fill up as much of the glittering space in the eyes of the House as either the Army or the Navy, but I think everybody recognises that both the officers and men of the Royal Marines do their duty in a most admirable way when ashore or afloat, and it would be most unfair if when their fellows in the Army and Navy are to receive increased rates of pay these gentlemen who are serving in the Royal Marines were left out. I hope, therefore, that the Admiralty will pay attention to the question of increased rates of pay for the Royal Marines, and I hope also that the Secretary of State for War and his financial colleague will give attention to the question of increased rates of pay for officers in the Army and get the scheme put forward as soon as possible, because not only is there great uncertainty in the minds of the officers of the Army as to what will be the state of their pockets at the end of next year, but by the right hon. Gentleman's delay in definitely settling this scheme he gives an excuse to his colleague in dealing with the pay of the Royal Marines. I venture to hope that both right hon. Gentlemen will give their attention to these matters in the coming year.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)It may be convenient if, before the discussion on the Army closes, I reply to the points which have been raised. First of all with regard to the Central Flying School, it is quite true that those officers who run great risks have not been so well housed as we should have wished, but that is because the school was only established a year ago, and it is imposssible to do everything all at once. It is indeed satisfactory and astonishing, with the risks so great, that not one single serious accident has taken place in the school, and one can only hope that marvellous record, for which there is no parallel in any other country, may be continued. I agree that these officers ought to be well-housed, and I am glad to inform the House that arrangements have been made and the money provided to set up buildings, and they are being and will be proceeded with with the least possible delay. With regard to the other points it would have been more convenient, seeing the importance attached to them, if hon. Members had given some 1828 notice in order that I might have replied more fully.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYWe did not know that you were going to take the Bill tonight.
§ Colonel SEELYIt is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that local schools of musketry have been set up, and that was considered to be for the advantage of Yeomanry officers. It may be convenient for some people to attend the depots, but after all this seems to be the most convenient plan.
§ Sir R. BAKERWould the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of Yeomanry officers—I believe he has some body of Yeomanry officers whom he himself consults—because opinion is extremely strong on the matter.
§ Colonel SEELYI have had the advice of a great many Yeomanry officers and tonight I have had that of the hon. and. gallant Gentleman. There are two sides to this question as there are to all, and I think the balance of advantage lies with the present system—to throw them open, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, to the junior as well as the senior officers. With regard to the Miscellaneous and Unforeseen Charges I cannot agree that this is so very large a sum as to require careful consideration. Although it is desirable to keep a close watch on all expenditure, I think that even the hon. Baronet will admit that a miscellaneous and unforeseen charge of £5,000 on an expenditure running into eight millions shows very accurate accounting. It is I suggest a remarkable instance of estimating accurately. As to the item for Indian troops, that is caused by the necessity of keeping those troops in China owing to the disturbed state of affairs there. I had hoped to be able to withdraw them ere this, but the condition of matters there has not justified the taking of that step. With regard to rewards for bringing in deserters the number of deserters has been falling off in recent years. Last year there was a slight increase of arrests, but I do not know if it was due to greater vigilance, or to a lesser anxiety to escape detection. Still the amount in itself is small. Having replied to the questions as fully as I can I hope we may now be given the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
§ Colonel SEELYI will send the Noble Lord a memorandum on the subject. I can then deal with it fully, and without any fear of being called to order by the Speaker.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYMr. Speaker did not call me to order while I was suggesting that the training of Mounted Infantry and also of the 15th Hussars had been wasted.
§ Colonel SEELYI am convinced that if I were to attempt to answer the points raised by the Noble Lord, especially with regard to the size of the horses, I should have Mr. Speaker's eye upon me.
§ 12.0 M
Mr. ALAN SYKESWhile I am loth to detain the House at this late hour I wish, as the Secretary for War is here, to discuss one or two questions which certainly do cone under this Vote. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he is getting the Estimates out for next year, the items cannot be a little more sub-divided than some now are. I see we have grouped together honorary pay, guards' pay, engineers' pay, flying pay, and coast pay, and some of these items show a very considerable increase as compared with the corresponding items last year. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how much of the increase is due to flying pay? Everybody in the House must agree that the officers who undertake this somewhat new branch of Army work incur great risks and are certainly entitled to a very considerable amount of extra pay. Especially is that the case when to-day and on previous days we have had to ask questions as to deplorable accidents which have occurred, and have ascertained that new flying machines bought for the Army have collapsed owing to repairs which ought to have been executed in a better fashion than appears to have been the case. If we vote all this extra money for flying pay, we are entitled to see that the country gets good value for its money, that the Flying Corps is as efficient as it can be made, and that these deplorable accidents due to weak repairs do not occur again. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether in the future he can make, a separate heading for the flying school, so that we shall then be able to compare what we are spending one year with another upon this new branch of the Service.
I notice that under another heading, "Health Insurance; payment for soldiers," 1830 a sum is set aside for the Flying Corps. Is that due to the National Insurance Act, and do the soldiers who fly have to pay a greater risk under that Act than the Infantry, Cavalry, or any other soldiers? Lower down there are grouped together, "Contingent allowances and expenses, including funerals." The total sum is up by no less than —500 this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether that increase is due to contingent allowances and expenses or to funerals, and, if it comes under the head of funerals, what has been the cause, if any, of such increase? Then I should like some explanation as to the library allowance, which is the same as last year. We have to do a very great deal more reading in the Army than we used to do and the work entailed on the librarians in the Staff College and at Sand-hurst is considerably more than it used to be and there is somewhat of a difficulty in retaining the librarians at the Staff College, who have been working at a somewhat inadequate pay. I should like him to compare it with the pay given to the librarian at our own House here. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to the pay and allowances of Territorial officers and men.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere is a special Vote for the Territorial Force.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member will look at it he will see the character of it.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI should like to ask whether the First Lord of the Admiralty has yet made the representation to the Treasury with regard to the granting of gratuities to Sir Edward Raban and Colonel Exham which he undertook to make, and if so with what result? The cases received support from both sides, and it was generally recognised that both officers were entitled to consideration and the First Lord practically recognised that they were entitled to a gratuity. The matter has been represented to the Treasury. The House should understand that Sir Edward Raban, who had served for many years in the office of Director of Works at a moderate salary, afterwards undertook additional work of a very arduous character for which he received no extra salary or consideration whatever. 1831 I am glad to see the Home Secretary here, because he is personally acquainted with Colonel Exham's case. He will confirm me when I say that he gave a pledge to Colonel Exham to obtain for him either a pension or gratuity. I am sure it is not the right hon. Gentleman's fault that these efforts have hitherto failed. I venture to tell him that the case is not yet settled. I would ask him to continue to use his influence in the matter. I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any reply to the representations made to the Treasury on his behalf
§ Mr. HOHLERI wish to raise a point with regard to the Admiralty, as this is the last opportunity I shall have of doing so this Session. I confess to considerable disappointment that we have not yet had answers to the petitions. The answers we have had were limited to one or two cases of the pay of certain large bodies of men. I asked a question as long ago as March last, and I understood that a promise was given that the answers to the petitions would be given before the Votes dealing with the questions were taken. The only answers we have had are not the general answers to the petitions, but only with respect to a limited number. The result is highly unsatisfactory. It is quite true that the Admiralty was threatened with a strike. There were most strenuous protests against the wages paid to the men.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIs the hon. Gentleman referring to the wages in the dockyards?
§ Mr. HOHLERYes, Sir.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not borne on this Bill.
§ Mr. HOHLERI looked at this in the Vote Office, and I found that it does include the personnel of the dockyards.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has got hold of the wrong list.
§ Mr. HOHLERI bow to your ruling. I understood it included Vote 8.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt does not include Vote 8, and it is not borne on this Bill.
§ Mr. HOHLERIf that be so, the subject of wages in the dockyards will be raised on another occasion. Meanwhile it may have served a useful purpose to have reminded the Admiralty of the promise which was made. I desire to raise another question which I believe is included in this 1832 Bill, namely, the question of compensation paid to men who sustain injuries whilst employed in Government works. Since I raised this matter in the House I have been in communication with the Admiralty in reference particularly to the case of a man named Millar. Since then his claim has been rejected. I submit that a more outrageous case it is difficult to conceive. The man died suddenly and medical evidence was given by the doctor who was cognisant of his case and knew his constitution, that death was due to lead poisoning. On the other hand the Admiralty doctor denied that. The result was that the jury unanimously found that the man had been suffering from lead poisoning. That being so I want to know on what grounds the Treasury wholly rejected this man's claim? I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to again represent the case to the Treasury to find what were the grounds for the rejection. I should have thought that the Admiralty would accept the verdict of the coroner's jury without a moment's delay. I also desire to draw attention to a case which I raised before of the pension of a man who had served the Crown for fifty-five years in the humble position of messenger, and I trust that consideration may be given to that case. In reference to the position of the dockyard shipwrights I greatly regret that the First Lord has not seen his way to grant the request made for increased pay.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is going back again to dockyards.
§ Mr. HOHLERI am speaking not of dockyard shipwrights but of Naval ship wrights. They are included in Vote I, pay of the Navy, and I submit that that is in order.
§ Mr. SPEAKERYou must leave out the dockyards.
§ Mr. HOHLERThere are Naval shipwrights, not the shipwrights in the dockyards. It is difficult at this late hour to keep closely to what is included in the Vote. I understand that Members on that side of the House have gone to the Vote Office and taken off every Schedule which shows exactly what is included, and I hope that this will cause you to make allowance for any little digression that may be made. The question I want to deal with is that of the Naval shipwrights, who asked for an increase of pay, and the Admiralty made them a small concession in that 1833 direction. Many of those Naval shipwrights have been trained in the dockyards, from which they go into the Navy. They entered into the terms of a contract under which at the end of the first period of their engagement they can if they choose re-enter the dockyard. When the First Lord of the Admiralty offered them an increase of pay he said that if they were going to adhere to their contract then they would not get the increase of pay. I think that is incredibly mean. If the men were entitled to their increased pay, they were entitled to it whether the contract with the Admiralty was a good One or a bad one. Why they should have been put under this condition I am quite at a loss to understand. I would like to know what is the exact position. The threat was held out that they would get no increased pay unless they accepted certain conditions. No less than sixty-seven of these men, who belong to the port of Chatham, have refused to sign the conditions, and I should be glad of information from the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, as to what number at other ports have refused to sign the conditions. It is singularly important to know what steps you are taking to supply the places of these men.
There is another point in regard to which I have never yet elicited a satisfactory answer from the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that is in regard to the pay of engine-room artificers and engineers and chief officers. One realises that practically the whole of the engineering work of the Navy, in regard to destroyers and similar vessels, is in charge of these men. There is no officer above them, and they are responsible direct to the commander of the vessel for the whole of the engine-room work, and undoubtedly their duties are immensely responsible and are daily increasing. These men have put forward a scheme for improving their condition. I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to tell us what consideration he has given to it, and what prospect he holds out for an improvement of the conditions. Personally I rejoice that there is now the prospect of rising from the ranks to executive command on board ship, and if we are to have able seamen and petty officers getting promoted to higher rank, why has nothing been done for the engine-room artificers and engineers? It is only reasonable that those men with 1834 the whole of the responsibility should have an increase of pay. Matters in regard to the Navy are of great importance to this country. Are the Admiralty able in regard to shipwrights and engine room men to get men from outside or have they not to train their own men. If that be the case, the truth is that they are insufficiently paid and something ought to be done. I ask the First Lord to consider these matters and especially the Naval shipwrights and engine room artificers to the chief artificer; and particularly to deal with the case of Miller and remove it from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is not here to reply, but decides the case. Something should be done to compensate the woman for the loss of her husband as she is now without means.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI asked the Secretary for War some time ago to inquire into the position of non-commissioned officers and men in the Army who were married but not on the married strength of the regiments. I notice the Secretary of State is not now present, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will reply. I refer particularly to non-commissioned officers especially in the Departmental Corps such as the Army Pay, Royal Army Medical Corps, and others. The House knows that there are only a limited number of married men of the non-commissioned ranks who are allowed to be married on the strength of the regiment. It is generally about 5 per cent., but I believe there is no regulation laid down as to the number. A man applies for permission to marry on the strength, and may be recommended by his company officer or commanding officer, but in the cases of which I have heard, the invariable answer has been that there are no vacancies. There are cases of men who have had eighteen years' service in the Army Medical Corps for example—seasoned soldiers who have special technical knowledge in their own departmental corps—and I submit it is not quite the same thing as an old soldier in a cavalry or a line regiment.
It may be that the policy of the War Office is not to encourage too many old soldiers to re-engage, but that cannot be the policy with regard to departmental corps, where a man must become more and more valuable as he gains knowledge of the special work that, is carried out by that particular departmental corps, and it seems to me that if the men are allowed to re-engage for 1835 service in the corps, it is most desirable that they should be allowed to marry and live the lives of married men in connection with their work. The difference it makes to the men is enormous. Not only are there the married quarters that are given them, or, if they are not available, the married quarters' allowance, which amounts to a very considerable increase in pay, but, if they are moved from one station to another, the expense of their family's removal is paid if they are married on the strength, whereas it is not paid if they are not married on the strength, and it frequently happens when they are moved about from one station to another they are put to a large expense, or have to leave wife and family at the old station for a considerable time, and perhaps all the time if it is undecided how long they are going to stay at the new station.
I have not the least doubt there is a good case for a great number of men who have re-engaged for a second, or even a third, period of service, and, while I can understand there may be objections to what may be called the fighting branches of the Army, at any rate the objections cannot be so real in the departmental corps, and I ask the Secretary of State for War to tell me what he has done in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman promised to make an inquiry into it some four or five months ago. I raise the question tonight because this is the last opportunity we shall have this Session of getting an answer upon a question of this sort. I was in hopes that as soon as the right hon. Gentleman had made his inquiry, and had seen that the facts were as I have stated them to be, he would at least make some rule to the effect that those who had been longest in the service should have their marriages recognised, and that they should have the privileges of those who were married on the strength; but, so far as the right hon. Gentleman has given any answer, apparently nothing serious has arisen from his inquiries. I ask him now whether he can give me the result of his inquiries, or, at any rate, that within a shorter time than the official short time he will give an answer favourable to the men for whom I am now speaking.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLI should like to draw the attention of the Admiralty to the position and manning of the obsolete battleships moored in the Solent. They are extremely under-manned, and are 1836 placed in a dangerous position for the navigation of vessels which ply between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. There is only one caretaker on board, and the consequence is that in foggy weather no proper watch can be kept, and it is extremely dangerous to passenger vessels crossing the Solent. I have asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could see his way to provide at least two caretakers on board so that a proper watch could be kept. It is all very well in summer, but in winter, when there is heavy fog in the Solent, steamers very often do not cross for fear of these vessels. One of them is only a few yards out of the fair-way, and captains have told me that they would very often have crossed in thicker weather than they had if these vessels were not in the way. I asked a question the other day of the Admiralty, and I was told that the railways had made no complaint—a most miserable excuse.
We know perfectly well that the railway companies only go on sufferance into Portsmouth Harbour at all, and that if they made any complaint they would probably have to build a place outside at enormous cost. Therefore their hands are tied, and they do not like to complain. But all the captains of these vessels who cross the Solent continually complain, and it is a standing grievance to all the inhabitants of the island. There is plenty of room around these large estuaries in which to place these obsolete vessels, and why the Admiralty should choose this spot no one but the Admiralty can understand. I would ask the First Lord if he could see his way to go into the question. I know he is very frequently on the "Enchantress," and has probably seen these vessels. If he has crossed over to Ryde from Southsea, he must know what a dangerous position they are in. I ask him to inquire into the question for the safety of the public. It is only a question of removing the vessels a few hundred yards.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEI rise to call attention to a question of very great importance, but which I do not in any sense mean to be a personal attack on the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is with reference to the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress." Under Vote I. of the Navy Estimates we have voted pay and wages for something like ten officers and 186 men for the "Enchantress." It seems to me that the time has come when this very expensive yacht should be done away with. The 1837 First Lord of the Admiralty in an answer the other day gave the cost of depreciation, the amount of coal the yacht had used, and so on. When we want every man and every penny we can get for the Navy it seems to me we ought not to be spending on this yacht what amounts to something like the interest on a million of money, for the yacht must cost £30,000 a year at least. In addition to that these officers and men are kept away from their other duties, although they are very much required in the service at the present time. The usefulness of this yacht appears no longer to exist. I am not making any sort of personal attack on the First Lord. I know that other First Lords have had the yacht before. We heard the other day in reply to a question that the right hon. Gentleman had been 186 days afloat in the yacht. That is certainly a tribute to his energy, but my point is that it is not necessary for the First Lord of the Admiralty to go to sea at all. If he has to inspect Naval stations around the coasts of these islands he can do it much more quickly and better by rail. The Naval stations are not out at sea, and as they are dotted round the coast——
§ Mr. SPEAKERCriticisms of the conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty as such ought to come on the Vote for his salary.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEI was endeavouring to bring forward reasons why the number of officers and men who are at present employed in the "Enchantress" should be curtailed and this yacht done away with in order to set free those officers and men to serve in His Majesty's Navy. With respect to that it may be argued that the yacht is required to go to the Mediterranean for the purpose of the inspection of the Naval stations there. But I can see no reasons why the yacht should be sent to the Mediterranean any more than that it should be sent to the Cape, to China, to Australia, or to any other stations. All the Naval stations in the Mediterranean are fully garrisoned, and, if anything, they are over-inspected. If further inspection is needed, it should not be done by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat should come upon Vote 12.
§ Major ARCHER-SHEEIt is very difficult to bring forward reasons for doing away with the Admiralty yacht 1838 without in some way mentioning the First Lord of the Admiralty. Of course, strictly speaking, this is not the time to raise a very important point like this, but I think it is a subject which ought to be raised, and I hope it will be dealt with in the future, no matter what Government is in power. There is, I submit, no necessity for this yacht. Therefore, the money might be much better spent in other ways connected with the Navy, and the officers and men who form the crew might be much better employed in performing their ordinary Naval duties than they are in serving on a ship which, after all, is only kept up as an expensive luxury for the First Lord of the Admiralty.
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill)The question which the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has raised is, after all, I would remind the House, one of policy, and decisions in regard to it have been taken for a great number of years past by different Administrations. The most important decision was the one taken by the late Conservative Administration, when Lord Selborne decided to build a new Admiralty yacht, and constructed the present vessel at a cost of over £120,000. Whether a yacht costing so much should have been built or not is a difficult question into which at this moment I will not enter at any great length. There are a good many people who think that some old vessel might have been converted for the purpose for which the Admiralty yacht is required. I am bound to say that I, personally, would be very sorry to place upon the Naval Estimates, for which I am responsible, such a very large sum for a non-combatant vessel as that spent on the present yacht, and when I have been asked to provide a sum of money for yachts in China waters I have cast about to find some expedient which might more thriftily serve the needs of the Service. But, as I have said, the decision was taken by the late Conservative Government to spend this money, and I am neither blaming nor approving what they did.
The yacht is now built, and I should suppose from its structure that it is not a vessel which could very easily be put to any other purpose than that for which it is now employed, except that possibly in time of war it might be used as an auxiliary hospital ship. Nor is it a vessel which, if put on the sale list, would realise a sum of money 1839 that would approximate at all to the amount spent on the original construction. The depreciation of this yacht at, say, twenty years' sinking fund would amount to £7,000 or £8,000 a year, whether the yacht were used or not, and the decision in policy having been taken so deliberately by the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs, it would be plainly a waste of money if the yacht were not employed for the purpose for which it was originally intended. It would simply depreciate and rot away, or else it would be sold for a sum wholly incommensurate with its original cost. That being so it is quite clear that while the yacht is in a condition of efficiency and has not yet exhausted its life, it would be premature to reconsider the general question of policy. As far as I can gather, I think it is probable that this vessel will continue in a state of useful activity for six or seven years more. After that time I dare say the question will arise of providing a new yacht. If it does arise and if the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs should happen to be in power then—though I should think that is a very questionable matter—it would, I suggest, be a very suitable opportunity, should he still be among our body, for him to raise the question of effecting a change in the policy of providing the Board of Admiralty with a yacht, which I should not be in order in dealing with generally now. Meanwhile I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which has frequently been given in this House on the subject, and say that the whole of the personnel of the yacht, officers and men, would be appropriated by the war fleet in time of war, and disposed of in fighting vessels, and that the vessel itself would be used as an auxiliary hospital ship.
The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Douglas Hall) who spoke immediately before the hon. Member for Finsbury used a rather uncomplimentary phrase about the Admiralty. He said that the old ships to which he was referring were placed in stations which would appear very ridiculous to anybody but the Admiralty. I do not think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will think that is a very useful or suitable remark to have made about the great naval service of this country. After all the Admiralty in a matter like that probably represents the highest possible naval authority on where to put a ship without danger to navigation. I think it would not be possible in the whole 1840 world to find any authority which could more safely decide how a ship was to be manned, or where a ship was to be moored at anchor.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLThey have done it badly in this case.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLHere is the hon. Gentleman, a member of the patriotic party, dismissing the Admiralty with a scornful phrase of this character. Whether there was any serious purpose behind the phrase, or whether it was only put in to fill up time while the hon. Gentleman was thinking out something else to say, I cannot tell. I shall, however, certainly make it my business to bring the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the positions in which these old ships are placed to the attention of the expert authorities who deal with the berthing of vessels. We have great difficulty in finding proper berths for the old and the obsolete ships, which have not been sold off at the rate they might otherwise have been because it was thought possible that they might come in useful in quite exceptional circumstances during the course of a war. Meanwhile we have had to do our best to find suitable stations for them. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that if inconvenience has been suffered, and it is thought that these old ships lie in a dangerous position in regard to the fairway, we will, if that state of things can be proved, see what can be done to move them. But I must not at all be taken as admitting the truth of what he has said on the subject without inquiry in the proper quarter. As regards the Dockyard questions, these can all be dealt with, if an opportunity be provided, at a later date in our discussions. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty is quite prepared to deal with the special points which have been raised by hon. Gentlemen. So far as Colonel Exham is concerned, I promised to give the matter attention, and that I would again address my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. I can only say that the matter is now under discussion between the Departments. But in a matter of this kind the Admiralty is not the final arbiter. The Treasury deals with the affairs of all the Departments and with public officials of every class, and must be the final judge of what is just or unjust in regard to the public service. I have fully kept my promise to the hon. Gentleman opposite 1841 and I am now in correspondence with the Treasury, and I have brought under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the various new points to which the Debate, which was initiated by the hon. Gentleman opposite, called the attention of the House.
§ Mr. BAIRDI desire to bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman who represents the Office of Works the question of consular and diplomatic buildings, and I think it is the more necessary to do so because the sum is considerable, the objects upon which the money is to be spent are very important, and the knowledge displayed by the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of this topic on the last occasion was exceedingly sketchy. Further, there is no other occasion on which this question of great importance, especially to those gentlemen who serve the Empire abroad, can be raised. On the last occasion when this question was discussed my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir John Rees) made a speech of some length and went into a great many details of considerable importance on this matter, and he was answered by the hon. Gentleman who represents the Office of Works in a speech which covered only twenty-nine lines of the OFFICIAL REPORT. That Gentleman spoke of cemeteries and other minor points in connection with the subject, and he said:—
With regard to expenditure whether you rent a place here or buy a place there the matter must be left to the decision of the local officers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1913, col. 663, Vol II.]The suggestion was that the local officers only knew the circumstances. I think it is the business of his Department also to know the circumstances, so that we may find somebody in this House who is responsible. He declared to the House that this was a matter to be settled by the diplomatic and consular officers on the spot. But the diplomatic and consular officers on the spot are for ever bringing forward proposals and suggestions based upon knowledge of the local circumstances and they are being vetoed because there is no money available—because it is impossible to pay sufficient attention to them. In these circumstances it is our business in the House of Commons before we sanction the expenditure of this money to do our best to prevent a recurrence of what has been happening in this matter for many years past. With regard to St. Petersburg, the 1842 hon. Gentleman representing the Office of Works, said on the same occasion:—At St. Petersburg we continue to rent premises, but whether we rent or buy is a matter which involves local knowledge and these things have to be surveyed in a general way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1913, col. 663, Vol LI.]I venture to say that you cannot deal more unsatisfactorily with these questions of how our embassies are to be housed in places like St. Petersburg than by an offhand sentence of that kind. When we come to the question of local knowledge, is it not a fact that the Office of Works have got their own representatives? There are people who are their agents in St. Petersburg and other capitals, and it is their business to supply local knowledge to the Department and the business of the Department to supply it to this House. We have had no information of that kind, and what is the result? The result is that we saw last year the estimate was framed for £85,800, and so badly was it framed that the Government had to come down and ask for an increase of £20,000. They were almost 25 per cent. out in their estimate. If you take that as an example of the manner in which this subject is dealt with by the Department concerned, if you look at that badly drawn estimate of last year, I think there is justifiable ground for inviting the Government to give us more detailed information with regard to this expenditure which we are now asked to sanction.There is also the question of the maintenance and repair and purchase, etc., of Consular and Diplomatic Buildings. It is a very complicated arrangement. To some extent I believe it is in the hands of the Foreign Office and to some extent in the hands of the Office of Works. There is overlapping and there is an inconvenient facility which enables one Department, when something is brought to its notice or to the notice of this House, to say it is the business of the other, with the result that the particular legation, embassy, or mission as the case may be suffers, the tax-payers' money is wasted, and the work is not efficiently and promptly done. You see the result clearly in the increases of the estimates which are down in this Vote No. 7 for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings. [Interruption.] The remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite will not turn me away from my point. I am quite aware that hon. Gentlemen who never go abroad do not fully understand how important it is that our missions should be properly housed. I think these increases 1843 in the estimates do justify even at this late hour my endeavour to elicit something about them from the office concerned. In the case of one mission the estimate was £9,000 and since then it has gone up to £10,700, an increase of 19 per cent.
Coming to Sofia, where a great deal of money has been spent in improving the accommodation of the Legation, there again there has been a very substantial increase upon the original estimate, and in China you will find an increase also. In one case there was an original estimate of £5,000 which was increased to £6,100, an increase of 22 per cent., and in Pekin for the electrical generating plant the original estimate was £13,800 and the revised estimate is £19,200. I think if hon. Members opposite conducted their private affairs in that way even the allowance of £400 a year would not last very long. Since we are dealing with the money of the taxpayers it seems to me that we are entitled to a rather more detailed explanation than we have yet received with regard to this matter than was afforded to us on the last occasion. I come to the Vote for the Maintenance and repairs of buildings, state rooms, and furniture, including new works of a character such as gardens, £960. That you will find includes the Embassy houses at Berlin, Constantinople, Madrid, Paris, and Rome. For a long time considerable alterations have been in progress in the Embassy House in Paris. I should like to know where one can find out exactly what is being spent on the Embassy House in Paris, and what is likely to be spent in the future? This expenditure is obviously necessary, but I think that if sufficient care had been taken in the expenditure of a far less sum two years ago the great expenditure now necessary would have been avoided. That is not dealt with in detail in this Vote, and I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman can supply any information with regard to the progress of
§ that work which I suppose must be included in the sum of £33,652 under the head of maintenance of buildings. There are still a certain number of places where ministers have to supply their own houses, and where they are provided with a housing allowance which is quite inadequate to the increased cost of living in those places. It consequently necessitates the Government increasing the amount which would be required to supply houses. In view of that I do think it is necessary that we should have a more detailed explanation than we have had in the past, and that some indication should be given that the Office of Works do attach more importance to the subject than was shown by the very brief and superficial statement of the hon. Gentleman on the last occasion.
§ 1.0 A.M.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury)I am sorry the hon. Gentleman should think that only superficial attention has been given to the matter. That is far from being the case, and although I do not carry in my mind all the particulars of the repairs taking place in Paris, I should be prepared to give him a full statement if the hon. Member would give me until to-morrow. It is true there have been slight increases as regards the consular houses at Sofia and Cettinje, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been circumstances in those countries which involved delays in carrying out the work, and delay naturally means a slight increase in the expenditure. The same is the case in China.
§ Mr. McKENNArose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 32.
1845| Division No. 145.] | AYES. | [1.4 a.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Booth, Frederick Handel | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Bowerman, Charles W. | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Adamson, William | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Brace, William | Crumley, Patrick |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Brady, Patrick Joseph | Cullinan, John |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Brunner, John F. L. | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Bryce, J. Annan | Dawes, J. A. |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Delany, William |
| Barton, William | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Devlin, Joseph |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Doris, William |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Duffy, William J. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Clancy, John Joseph | Elverston, Sir Harold |
| Boland, John Pius | Clough, William | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Lardner, James C. R. | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Leach, Charles | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Falconer, James | Levy, Sir Maurice | Reddy, Michael |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Lundon, Thomas | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Lynch, A. A. | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Field, William | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | McGhee, Richard | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Robinson, Sidney |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Macpherson, James Ian | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Goldstone, Frank | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rowlands, James |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Meagher, Michael | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Hackett, John | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Sheehy, David |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Millar, James Duncan | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Molloy, Michael | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Mooney, John J. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Morgan, George Hay | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Muldoon, John | Tennant, Harold John |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Munro, Robert | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Hayward, Evan | Murphy, Martin J. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hazleton, Richard | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Higham, John Sharp | Needham, Christopher T. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | Neilson, Francis | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Nolan, Joseph | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Webb, H. |
| John, Edward Thomas | O'Doherty, Philip | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Dowd, John | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Malley, William | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Jowett, Frederick William | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Shee, James John | Winfrey, Richard |
| Keating, Matthew | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Wing, Thomas |
| Kelly, Edward | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| Kilbride, Denis | Pointer, Joseph | |
| King, Joseph | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Gilmour, Captain John | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Goldsmith, Frank | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | |
| Campion, W. R. | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Sandys and Captain Craig. |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) | |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ It being after half-past Eleven of the 1846 clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§
Adjourned at a quarter after One a.m. Wednesday, 2nd July.