§ Considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision for the care of Feeble-minded or Mentally Defective Persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of (a) contributions towards the expenses of persons detained in or removed from, certified institutions for defectives, and towards the expenses which may have been incurred by any society in assisting or supervising defectives; (b) the salaries or remuneration of the Commissioners and their officers, and other expenses incurred in the execution of such Act."
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWe have just passed the Third Reading of a Bill giving freedom to Ireland, and we pass on to a Bill intending to lock up many of our own fellow countrymen. The first Bill was promoted by the Liberal Government in the true spirit of Liberalism. This second Bill is promoted by the organising of the Tory party.
§ The CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that this is not an occasion for a review of the Bill. All we are asked to do now is simply to pass the Financial Resolution through this Committee.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI quite understand, and those were only a few preliminary remarks intended to cover the time that Members are walking out, for I am quite aware that the Mental Deficiency Bill does not usually secure a full House. We are asked to-night to vote the money for this Bill. I wish to take this occasion to restate the position that my Friends and I take up. 174 I do not want to waste the time of the House by dealing with these Money Resolutions in turn. After all that is mere detail. We shall be able to discuss it on the Report stage. But I should like to restate the position that we may get from the Secretary of State some sort of defence of justification of the attitude that up till now the Government has taken. We ask that no feeble-minded person shall be locked up for life because they are feebleminded, that they shall not be classed with lunatics; that they shall have provided for them a home where they will be well looked after. [An HON. MEMBER: "The House of Commons."] I quite understand that to hon. Members who, have not read the Bill, and whose children will not be affected by it, that it is purely a farce, and a matter for ridicule. But for some of the people we represent—the constituents of hon. Members on this side and on that—when we next go to the country, have had children taken from them, and locked up in these homes against their parents' wishes, and in spite of their mothers' tears, then it will not be a laughing matter for hon. Members who insist on forcing legislation such as this upon these people against their wishes, and in spite of their protests [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Ulster?"] Do hon. Members who speak of Ulster not think that these unfortunate people who will be dealt with under this Bill and who cannot speak for themselves, should have someone to speak for them? If hon. Members who speak for Ulster think that it. is right for that minority in Ireland—
§ The CHAIRMANI must remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have already said—that this is not at all an occasion for a review of the Bill. This is simply a question of empowering the Committee upstairs to proceed to the consideration of the Financial Clauses of the Bill.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIn that case, Mr. Whitley, I only express my regret that having been excluded from the Committee upstairs, I have not been able to deal with 175 this point. I trust, however, that we may have a free and unfettered discussion on the Bill on the Report stage, and that we shall be able to go into this point and find out what the Government's views are of taking the children from their parents and of making these homes into asylums. This Resolution provides money for three specific and different objects. The first Clause provides money for the salaries of the hoard of new officials, for the twelve or thirteen paid Commissioners—more Commissioners are always asked for by the permanent officials whichever party is in power—and the subordinate officials of the Board. An hon. Member opposite says that they will be all Radicals. I believe that most of them have been selected already, and are amongst the most enthusiastic supporters of the Bill, and when we come to vote on the Resolution finding the money for these new Commissioners, I have no doubt we shall find in the Lobby, only too anxious to get it, the bulk of the party opposite. We know that whenever any new jobs are going they will vote for the money for those jobs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down."] Got home at last! We shall divide on that proposal because it is particularly important, that, when Members denounce the appointment of permanent officials by the Government, we should see their names in black and white as voting for more permanent officials and more jobs. That we are providing the money which is really required to help the feebleminded persons. £150,000 a year is to be provided by the Treasury for these asylums. That seems to me the least objectionable part of the Resolution. That £150,000 might well be doubled in order to provide decent homes and education for these people, but I regret that the money is to be spent on finding, not homes, but prisons. Under the third Clause the Government, or rather the hon. Member for East Birmingham, proposes to find money for those societies which, uncontrolled in any way by the Board of Control, look after feeble-minded persons outside the institutions. I protest that for the State to find, as here proposed, unlimited funds for privately conducted societies free from State control, is a bad departure from the usual traditions and methods of looking after lunatics or feeble-minded persons. It seems to me that the Board of Control should have control in these cases also, and that we ought not to subsidise these societies—mostly religious societies, I admit— 176 for doing work which cannot possibly be properly supervised so long as the Board of Control are not represented upon these societies. But do not let the Committee suppose that this represents all the money that the people of the country have to find. The local authorities have to find the rest, and when the rates go up hon. Members opposite will find that it is not enough to vote upon this measure by 300 to 11, or whatever it was, but their constituents will have something to say to the way in which those votes have been given.
§ Mr. CROOKSTell the truth.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe hon. Member always does so in interjections rather than in speeches, but I hope to-night we shall hear him do so in a speech.
§ Mr. CROOKSI told you many times, but it has not the slightest effect on you.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODThe hon. Member is a specialist in truth. For the three reasons I have mentioned I oppose the Resolution.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI hope the Home Secretary will give us some explanation as to the amount of money to be spent. I have always taken up the Position here that it is not right to give the Government a blank cheque. However meritorious the case may be, the power of the Government to spend should be limited. I am one of those who look upon this Bill with a considerable amount of apprehension, but I will not go into details now as it would be out of order, but I would ask the Home Secretary to tell us what amount he considers will be required.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThree hundred thousand pounds.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is right, but I would prefer to hear it from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know yet whether it will be necessary to move a limiting Amendment, and if so whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept it. A few nights ago a limiting Amendment was accepted, and there are other precedents for that course within the last year.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)I am very glad to comply with the hon. Baronet's request. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) speaks with great sincerity on this subject, but not, I fear, with equal 177 knowledge. He has truly said that the purpose of this Resolution covers three Clauses in the Bill. The first relates to the salaries of the Commissioners and officers of the Board, but he is mistaking the existing salaries of the Lunacy Commissioners and their officers for the additional Commissioners who will be appointed under this Bill. So far from this Resolution covering the salaries of the eight existing Lunacy Commissioners, it, will only apply to the four additional paid Commissioners, and, as I have already stated, so far as I can see at present, it will not be necessary to appoint in the first instance more than three additional paid Commissioners, so that my hon. Friend when he speaks of twelve or thirteen really means three. As regards the four permanent officials of whom he speaks I may remind him that four are already in existence and are paid for annually by Vote from Parliament. The additional inspectors we shall appoint will probably bear the same proportion to four that three bears to the existing eight. As to the second point, he says that £150,000 a year will be niggardly and inadequate. I hope the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London will take a note of that suggestion. He will observe that there is already a limit in the Bill. It provides for a possible grant of £150,000 a year.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere may be a limit in the Bill, but if there is not a limit in the Resolution the limit in the Bill can be altered.
§ Mr. McKENNAI will undertake that no proposal to increase the £150,000 a year shall come from the Government. No one knows better than the hon. Baronet that in those circum stances no proposal to increase it can come from any other Member of the House. I think I can satisfy the hon. Baronet that the limit existing in the Bill will be upheld. That, of course, does not include the whole cost that may come upon the State, because defectives who are placed in institutions or under guardianship by Orders of the Secretary of State would not be included in that total, nor would defectives found guilty of an offence. The hon. Baronet will realise that when defectives are found guilty of an offence, or in any circumstances become chargeable to the State in a prison it is quite proper that they shall become chargeable to the State, or partly to the local authority and partly to the State, or when they are placed in institutions or under guardianship the State should bear 178 its proportion of the cost. The third point, I understand, is that the State helps institutions which treat defectives. These contributions will only be made with the sanction of the Treasury; they will be quite small in amount. There are some societies which are doing admirable work on very small funds.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODCan we have a list of these societies?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have not one here. They are societies which assist in taking care of defectives, and their institutions may properly be assisted by small Treasury grants. The whole sum in this case is an insignificant one.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODAre there any religious societies?
§ Mr. McKENNAI think not. I think I have said enough. If the hon. Baronet wishes for a further statement I am willing to give it.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI do not rise to oppose this Bill, but to ask for information upon a few financial points. The amount which you allow in Ireland for a lunatic from the Treasury is 4s. I have computed —I may be right or wrong—that the money in this Vote will give each defective person 7s. Is that right? The figures are not easy to follow. I suppose that this Bill does not apply to Ireland, and yet you are asking us to contribute our share of the 7s. for defective persons in England, whereas you only pay 4s. for the Irish lunatics. I do not desire to oppose this Bill or the Resolution. I simply take notice of this fact, and I wish to say that in due time we shall make our claim in reference to this matter, and you cannot then say that we have allowed this matter to pass in silence.
§ Mr. GOLDSMITHI am by no means satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answer. He told us that under the second head the grant was limited to £150,000. Most of those interested in the Bill agree that this grant of £150,000 is by no means sufficient. I think every local authority has already stated that with the proportion of the grant which they are going to receive it is absolutely impossible to carry out the provisions of the Bill. I also wish to point out that while under the second head the grant is by no means sufficient, I think the money the Government mean to spend under the first head for the payment of officials is by far too large. I should like 179 to point out that at the present time there are eight Lunacy Commissioners, and that up to two years ago there were only six. Those eight Commissioners deal with 135,631 lunatics, or an average of nearly 18,000 lunatics. Those figures are from the official report of the Lunacy Commissioners, and we must take them as correct.
Under the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced, according to the statement which he made the other day, 22,000 persons are going to be dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Bill. If you work out those figures and take the cost of a person in a home as something over 10s., which is the average cost of lunatics throughout the country, we shall not be able to deal with 20,000, but only 12,000 or 13,000 mentally deficient persons. There are additional cases to be added. A certain number may be sent from State institutions, and the cost of mentally defectives in State institutions does not come under the grant of £150,000. If we take the highest figure and say 15,000 we find four new Commissioners are going to be appointed to deal with 15,000 mentally deficient persons, while one Lunacy Commissioner at the present time deals with 18,000 lunatics. I think it would be much better that instead of spending so much on officials we should increase the amount under the second head and give more to the local authorities to enable them to carry out the provisions of the Bill, which they say they will be unable to do. If these Resolutions are put separately I shall certainly support the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme if he divides the Committee against the first proposal dealing with the payment of the Commissioners and their officials.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Stowmarket (Mr. Goldsmith), and it is refreshing to find that there is one Unionist Member willing to take up the position in this House which is usually held by his party outside on the platform at by-elections. We have heard innumerable protests on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite against the creation of new officials and the multiplication of useless offices. I agree that there is some foundation for these complaints, and some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have joined in those protests, but there has been no example in the vast of the creation of new posts and of the multiplication of officials on more shadowy ground 180 than is provided by this Money Resolution with which we are dealing to-night. The hon. Member for Stowmarket has shown that we are increasing the permanent staff of the existing Lunacy Commissioners by 50 per cent. The Home Secretary has said that only three new Commissioners are to be appointed at once, but under the Bill provision is made for four new Commissioners, and he says that the permanent staff will be proportionately increased.
We may therefore calculate that as the result of the passing of this Bill the total staff will be increased by 50 per cent. In these circumstances, we are justified in hoping that hon. Members opposite will be true to the position they have constantly taken up in the country, and that they will take this opportunity of registering an effective protest against this useless, wasteful, and extravagant expenditure. I am glad that the real author of the Bill is here this evening. We know that the real author of the Bill is the chief organiser of the Unionist party, and, while we are glad to have the independent support of hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and the hon. Member for Stowmarket, we want to know what is the official attitude of the Unionist party to this expenditure. I noticed a letter in the newspaper with reference to these proposals. An attempt was being made to influence the Prime Minister to obtain the passage of this measure, and consequently the expenditure of this money, during the present Session, and the reply to the letter was addressed to My dear Steel-Maitland."
I wonder, therefore, if the chief organiser of the Unionist party is going to direct his party to refrain from the attacks upon the present Government on the lines which they have adopted in the past, and that he is urging them to this fresh expenditure of an entirely useless sort. I am further strengthened in this attitude. When the hon. Member for Stowmarket was explaining that already the number of Lunacy Commissioners had been increased from six to eight, the hon. Member opposite for one of the divisions of St. Pancras interrupted to say that the increase had been made by the present Government. Obviously, if the further increase contemplated under this Resolution is made, it will also be added to the account of the present Government. There is a further point which the Home Secretary has not explained. He has not told us 181 what the salaries of these new Commissioners are to be. Are the new Commissioners to be paid on the very fair system on which the existing Commissioners are paid, or are they to be appointed at a reduced rate of salary? Or is there to be an increase? Is the right hon. Gentleman out of the generosity of his heart going to add to the salaries as has been done in the case of another Bill before the House—possibly on account of the increase in the cost of living, as suggested by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow? There is another point that should also be considered in relation to this. I am told by those who have longer experience in the practice of this House that it is usual when new Commissioners are provided for under an Act of Parliament, some announcement should be made as to the names of the Commissioners before the Bill passes out of the control of the House of Commons.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a point proper to be raised on the Bill itself, and not on this Resolution.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThen I will not pursue that matter further as you have intimated that this is not the proper occasion on which to raise it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) and other hon. Members who are critics of this Bill have been excluded from the Committee which has to consider it, naturally we are somewhat exacting in making opportunities for discussing it on the floor of the House. On the grounds which I have already stated we propose to divide the Committee on the question of the salaries which are to be paid to the new officials, and we take this opportunity of testing the sincerity of the hon. Members opposite in their protestations against the appointment of new officials. On this occasion, when no case has been made out, when certainly there is not a shadow of foundation for the increased charge on the public for new offices and new officials, we ask the House to divide so that the country may know where we are.
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHI think it is quite clear that the question of the number of new Commissioners and the salaries they are to receive will necessitate more discussion in Committee than it received on a similar stage this time last year. A good deal of time was then devoted to it, no doubt, but what has transpired this evening shows that further discussion is required on many of these important 182 matters, in view of the fact that the Bill is to be forced through the Committee upstairs. The point of this Resolution to which I want to draw particular attention is the number of the mentally deficient who will probably be dealt with as a result of the passing of this Bill. I believe the Royal Commission reported that there were from 60,000 to 70,000 mentally deficient people in this country.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWas not that in addition to those already provided for in institutions??
§ Mr. HICKS BEACHThat may be so. The Home Secretary told us that the Government are going to make a Grant of £150,000 a year. I wish to ask how many people will really be dealt with under a Bill containing these limitations and powers. The smallest estimate that can be put on the cost of keeping a mentally deficient person in an institution is 10s. a week, and if you divide £150,000 by £26 you get a figure between 5,000 and 6,000 as the number of extra people who will be dealt with as a result of the passing of this Bill. If you are going to provide for any number beyond that the money for their upkeep and the maintenance will have to be found out of the rates. That at any rate is my impression, if I am wrong I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman or some one else will correct me. I want, to ask the attention of the House to this fact: here we are imposing once again a further duty on the local authorities to carry out what I fear is not going to be a very popular measure. You tell the local authorities that they will have to do it whether they like it or not and they will have to find the residue of the cost out of the local rates. What has been the constant cry of both urban and rural ratepayers for years? The local ratepayer is always objecting to being called upon to pay out of local resources for what are really national services. Is not the care and control of the feeble minded a national rather than a local service?
If you want this Bill to be properly carried into effect, it is perfectly ridiculous for Parliament to vote only £150,000 a year. It is quite right to say that the Government cannot afford to find out of the taxes more than £150,000 a year. That may be true. I am glad to see that there is at least some restraining influence in the Treasury upon the extraordinary amounts that are issued with a very free hand in 183 a great many cases to other Departments. I want to impress upon the Committee the fact that if you want these mentally deficients adequately dealt with throughout the country, you will not get it done by only voting £150,000 out of the taxes. If you expect local authorities to provide the remainder out of the rates, I venture to prophesy that you will find all of them going on strike and declining to carry out the provisions of the Bill. I thought it right that this Resolution should not pass without some protest being raised on behalf of the local authorities, who feel very strongly upon the matter.
§ Mr. BOOTHI will not ask the Committee to hear any general objections to the scheme, because considerable concessions have been made to my point of view, but so long as these Commissioners are included in the Bill at this extravagant salary, it must be my duty to vote against the Resolution if a Division is challenged. I deeply regret that there is no party of economy in this House. The Opposition have lost any idea that it is their duty to criticise the expenditure of money by this House. They are always asking that the Government should make the expenditure larger, so that they may have a cry in the country. I regret that upon these benches there is not that cry for economy which was characteristic of the Radical party in the days gone by. Has there been any genuine attempt by our own. Front Bench to justify the appointment of these officials at this salary? It is taken for granted that the House is always ready to vote any new expenditure and sanction new appointments. We have had a symptom of that to-night, and I cannot let it pass without protest. I ask you, Sir, whether it is in order to demand from the Government the names of these Commissioners? Upon the Welsh Church Bill speeches were made by hon. Members opposite almost entirely upon this point. In that case the Commissioners have only a temporary duty. In a few years they will have no duties to perform, but here we are setting up additional Commissioners who will remain, apparently, for all time. They will not be subject to review of this House.
The Home Secretary, in order to make it easy to get his four Commissioners at £1,500 a year through the Committee, tries to defend it by reminding us that there are eight Lunacy Commissioners now. I desire to register my antagonism to the position taken up by the Government. The 184 fact that these eight Commissioners are the Lunacy Commissioners and that only a minority of three or four are added to them, shows that we are now authorising the salaries of men who will be beyond the purview of this House. Even if appointing a majority we could say these men should be answerable to the House of Commons, but we are authorising the expenditure of salaries to a minority and seeing that the majority are appointed by the Lord Chancellor the House will not be able to review the case of these men. Therefore the House has taken a more serious position than usual in authorising the payment of these salaries. The whole thing is so unsatisfactory from the financial standpoint that all I can do, seeing that the Government have chosen to put it at this late hour, is to indicate in a general way that this is a matter of serious concern to those who do not like the appointments to these new posts. As I have consistently voted against the appointment of these new officials unless great care is taken, and it very seldom is, I must on this occasion also, as a Radical economist, go into the Lobby against the Government.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIn reference to the point of order, is not the hon. Member right for this reason? The Committee of the whole House is asked to vote a sum of money, indefinite at present, for salaries for certain Commissioners. It may he that in the Committee upstairs hon. Members will have the power to find out who these Commissioners are, but the whole House will not have that power. It may be that certain Members of this Committee would not vote the money unless they knew who the Commissioners were, arid, therefore, I doubt whether or not it is not in order to ask the Home Secretary to whom the money is going to be given.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the point is that the proper occasion is when the Bill comes back from Committee. The number may be reduced by half or more in Committee, and it is impossible at this stage, which is only a covering Resolution.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI understand that the number of Commissioners has already been passed and cannot be cut down.
§ Mr. McKENNAThere is a complete parallel in the proposal to appoint two extra judges, and the House asked to be informed of the names of the judges before the permission was given. It is quite 185 obvious that I could not suggest either appointing or inviting or considering the appointment of any person until I have some assurance that I shall have the power to appoint the person. These gentlemen and ladies when they are appointed will be in the position of civil servants.
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo doubt it would be open to the Home Secretary to say he could not give the names for the reason he has given, but that does not touch the point as to whether or not we are in order in asking for the names.
§ The CHAIRMANUntil the House has confirmed the proceedings upstairs the number is not fixed. Therefore, it is clear we cannot discuss the names.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI feel some difficulty in supporting the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) because he is moving a direct negative opposing any money at all. He admits that some of the objects are highly desirable and there is one particular point he indicated on which I differ from him entirely and that is the question of subsidising existing homes. During the last twenty-five years I have been a supporter of various institutions of that kind and they have been doing excellent work and they have had a list of patients waiting to come in as great as the number who are inside at present, and any assistance the Government can give to paying the expenses of people who are willing to come into the asylums I shall certainly support in any way I can. There are other parts of the Bill in regard to which I am not in sympathy with the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood). If the only sum to be spent is £150,000, I would ask whether it is necessary to make the Bill compulsory at all. I think it is very doubtful. I am inclined to think that some limit should be put in the Resolution. Whether it should be done in the way indicated by the hon. Gentleman by limiting the amount of money to be spent on officials or in some other way would be well worth considering, but I think the House should hesitate before giving the Government a blank cheque. These Financial Resolutions are becoming more and more serious every day. The liberties of private Members are curtailed in the Committee upstairs. It has been freely said that the keen opponents of the Bill, unreasonably if you like, are excluded from the Committee upstairs.
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is not true.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI daresay it is not. I do not believe everything that comes from the Radical benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
§ The CHAIRMANThat is an observation which is not in order.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI did not mean that. I was simply saying that if any person makes any such suggestion as that, it means that somebody who wishes to be on the Committee is not on it. Therefore that increases our responsibility here. When it comes to the Report Stage I have less and less faith in the chances of private Members being able to discuss the Bill at length when it comes down from the Committee.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter apart from the present proceedings.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWhat I meant to say was that it was doubly important that we should not now pass a Resolution in a form which would give a blank cheque to the Government. That is my reason for referring to the difficulty of dealing with the matter on the Report Stage. The right hon. Gentleman says there is no need for putting a limit in the Resolution. I would very much sooner have it in the Resolution. Will the £150,000 be spent in other years as well as this year, or will the charges be afterwards put on the Consolidated Fund? I think the proposal of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) should be accepted.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI wish to join with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury in protesting against this House taking any steps further to increase the burden of local rates. In the borough which I have the honour to represent the rates are already Hs. Scarcely a week passes in which I am not asked to arrange for deputations from local authorities to various right hon. Gentlemen asking for some relief. It is impossible to cast any further burdens upon these local authorities. Throughout the length and breadth of the land—
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter for the Second or Third Reading of the Bill. It has reference to the framework of the Bill as a whole.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEI was encouraged to refer to the matter by the fact that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury was not called to order. I also support the con- 187 tention of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire in reference to the creation of officials by the Government. There is no question that is more generally raised than the contention that the revenue of the country goes unduly to the payment of officials. I will join the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in Voting against the Resolution.
Captain MORRISON-BELLI am in a somewhat difficult position in this matter. I am a strong supporter of this particular Bill, which is excellent in many respects, but when I find a considerable danger of placing an extra burden on the rates my position becomes difficult, for I have always maintained that under present conditions there should be no increase in the rates. Some explanation should be given as to whether this money is meant to be of real assistance to the number of people who—
§ The CHAIRMANThis is a general question on the merits of the Bill, which can be discussed on the Bill itself.
§ Mr. HODGE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ Mr. GOLDSMITH(seated and covered): Will the three portions of the Resolution be put separately, so that hon. Members who are opposed to the salaries of the new Commissioners will be able to vote against the first part of the Resolution, because we are not enabled now to move an Amendment which we intended to move limiting the amount?
§ The CHAIRMANThere is only one Question before the Committee—the Question which I put originally.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 56.
189| Division No. 179.] | AYES. | [11.59 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Joyce, Michael |
| Adamson, William | Falconer, James | Keating, Matthew |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Kelly, Edward |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Ffrench, Peter | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Arnold, Sydney | Field, William | Kilbride, Denis |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | King, Joseph |
| Barton, William | Fitzgibbon, John | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Moltan) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Bonn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | France, Gerald Ashburner | Lardner, James C. R. |
| Bentham, George J. | Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) |
| Boland, John Pius | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Leach, Charles |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Goldstone, Frank | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Brace, William | Greig, Colonel James William | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Lundon, Thomas |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Bryce, John Annan | Hackett, John | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hancock, John George | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | MacGhee, Richard |
| Clough, William | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Clynes, John R. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Manfield, Harry |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Cotton, William Francis | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Meagher, Michael |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Hayden, John Patrick | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Crooks, William | Hayward, Evan | Meehan. Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hazleton, Richard | Middlebrook, William |
| Cullinan, John | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Millar, James Duncan |
| Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) | Higham, John Sharp | Molloy, Michael |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines, Louth) | Hinds, John | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Davies. Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hodge, John | Morgan, George Hay |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Muldoon, John |
| Delany, William | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Munro, Robert |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Hudson, Walter | Murphy, Martin J. |
| Devlin, Joseph | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Doris, William | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Duffy, William J. | John, Edward Thomas | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.). | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Dowd, John |
| O'Grady, James | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Tennant, Harold John |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Roberston, John M. (Tyneside) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Robinson, Sidney | Toulmin, Sir George |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| O'Shee, James John | Roe, Sir Thomas | Verney, Sir Harry |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Rowlands, James | Wadsworth, John |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Rowntree, Arnold | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Parry, Thomas H. | Scanlan, Thomas | Webb, H. |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Sheehy, David | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Shortt, Edward | Whyte, Alexander F. |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Reddy, Michael | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Sutton, John E. | |
| Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Gilmour, Captain John | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Greene, Walter Raymond | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Barnston, Harry | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Stanler, Beville |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hogge, James Myles | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hunt, Rowland | Sutherland, John E. |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. Denis Fortescue | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Watt, Henry A. |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Macmaster, Donald | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Boyton, James | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Cator, John | Outhwaite, R. L. | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Perkins, Walter Frank | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Pringle, William M. R. | Younger, Sir George |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Raffan, Peter Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Captain Morrison-Bell. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | |
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
§ Question put accordingly.
190§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 16.
191| Division No. 180.] | AYES. | [12.10 a.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Greene, Walter Raymond |
| Adamson, William | Cotton, William Francis | Greig, Colonel James William |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Griffith, Ellis Jones |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Crooks, William | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Crumley, Patrick | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Cullinan, John | Hackett, John |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton) |
| Barton, William | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hancock, J. G. |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | Dawes, James Arthur | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Delany, William | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Bentham, George J. | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) |
| Black, Arthur W | Devlin, Joseph | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) |
| Boland, John Pius | Dickinson, W. H. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue | Doris, William | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Duffy, William J. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Boyton, James | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Brace, William | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Hayward, Evan |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Hazleton, Richard |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Helme, Sir Norval Watson |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Higham, John Sharp |
| Bryce, John Annan | Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson | Hinds, John |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Ffrench, Peter | Hodge, John |
| Cator, John | Field, William | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Fitzgibbon, John | Hudson, Walter |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Clancy, John Joseph | France, Gerald Ashburner | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Clough, William | Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) |
| Clynes, John R. | Gilmour, Captain John | John, Edward Thomas |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Munro, Robert | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Murphy, Martin J. | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Joyce, Michael | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Sheehy, David |
| Keating. Matthew | Nolan, Joseph | Shortt, Edward |
| Kelly, Edward | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Nuttall, Harry | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Kilbride, Denis | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| King, Joseph | O'Doherty, Philip | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Lambert, Rt. lion. G. (Devon, S. Melton) | O'Dowd, John | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Lardner, James C. R. | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Sutherland, John E. |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Sutton, John E. |
| Leach, Charles | O'Shee, James John | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe) |
| Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Tennant, Harold John |
| Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Lundon, Thomas | Parry, Thomas H. | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lynch, A. A. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wadsworth, John |
| Macmaster, Donald | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Webb, H. |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Reddy, Michael | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| McGhee, Richard | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs, Spalding) | Rendall, Athelstan | Whyte, Alexander F. |
| Manfield, Harry | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Meagher, Michael | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Robinson, Sidney | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Middlebrook, William | Rock, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Millar, James Duncan | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Younger, Sir George |
| Molloy, Michael | Roe, Sir Thomas | |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Rowlands, James | |
| Morgan, George Hay | Rowntree, Arnold | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. Ashburton | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | |
| Muldoon, John | Sanders, Robert Arthur | |
| NOES. | ||
| Banbury, Sir Frederic George | Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Goldsmith, Frank | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Barnston, Harry | Hill-Wood, Samuel | |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hogge, James Myles | |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Stanier, Beville | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Mr. Pringle. |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Touche, George Alexander | |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Watt, Henry A. |
§ Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).