HC Deb 08 July 1913 vol 55 cc365-84

Resolution reported, That, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision for the care of Feeble-minded and other Mentally Defective Persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

  1. (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;
  2. (b) the salaries or remuneration of the Commissioners and their officers, and other Expenses incurred in the execution of such Act."

Resolution read a second time.


I beg to move as an Amendment, to add at the end of the Resolution the words, "such salaries or remuneration of the Commissioners and their officers not to exceed the sum of four thousand pounds a year."

I am extremely sorry to delay the House at this hour, but it is not our fault. The object of the Amendment is to limit the amount that the Home Secretary shall spend upon the salaries of the new Commissioners and the new officials who are to be appointed under this Act. If the House is to retain any financial control, it is absolutely essential that some such limiting proviso should be inserted. Yesterday the Home Secretary told us that under the first part of this Financial Resolution the amount to be spent on contributions to the mentally defective was limited to £150,000 a year; he did not tell us the amount under the second part; that is for Commissioners and officials. Under the proposals of the Bill the existing Lunacy Commissioners is to be enlarged and in the future is to be known as the Board of Control. The number of paid Commissioners is to be increased by four. There are eight Lunacy Commissioners. Till 1911 there were only six. These eight Lunacy Commissioners now deal with 135,660 lunatics under the Lunacy Acts, or 18,000 for each Commissioner. This number is to be increased by 20,000, according to the Home Secretary; as a matter of fact, I believe the increased number to be dealt with under the Act is only about 15,000. But, taking the figures of the Home Secretary, four new Commissioners will be appointed to deal with 20,000 additional persons, or one Commissioner for every 5,000 persons, while under the Lunacy Acts each Commissioner deals with 18,000. The duties of these Commissioners under the Mental Deficiency Bill will not be as heavy as the duties of the Lunacy Commissioners under the Lunacy Acts. Under the Lunacy Acts it is provided that each institution or lunatic shall be inspected or visited once a year by two paid Commissioners. Under this Bill each institution is only to be visited by one Commissioner and in certain cases the inspection or visitation can be carried out by an official and not by the Commissioners themselves. Therefore, the duties under this Act are not so heavy as the duties of the Lunacy Commissioners under the Lunacy Acts. The number of new institutions to be set up will not be very large. The local authorities in some, if not in all, cases will make arrangements with existing institutions and will not put up new institutions. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee upstairs that the number of Commissioners would be necessary in order to safeguard the liberty of the subject, in order to see that no person was locked up unless that person was really mentally defective. As a matter of fact, it does not rest with the Commissioners to say whether a person is locked up or not. That rests entirely with the judicial authority before who the petition is heard, and in some cases the mentally defective person is sent straight to the institution by order of the Home Secretary. In no case is the consent of the Commissioners necessary, nor are they consulted. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that although he had got authority to appoint four Commissioners he was only going to appoint three. I have no reason to doubt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is riot going to remain always at the Home Office. His successor, when he finds he has power to appoint four, and that there are only three, and that he has a good fat job to give away, will appoint the fourth Commissioner. We on this side have always protested against the increase in the number of highly paid officials, and therefore I hope my hon. Friends will support this Amendment, which does not interfere with the real object of the Bill, but simply lays it down that the amount that is spent on salaries to officials shall be limited to £4,000 per year. When we consider that the total sum to be spent is only £150,000, I think we will come to the conclusion that £4,000 is sufficient for the purpose of officials. If we do wish to spend more money, and if we have the money to spend, for the purpose of dealing with the mentally defective, let us increase the Grants to local authorities, instead of spending that money on highly paid officials.


Those of us who have sat upon the Committee upstairs, I think without exception, on both sides, have felt that one of the weak points of the Bill is the vista of lavish expenditure which is opened out on this subject, and many of us are anxious to sec that some limitation should be put upon the possibilities of expenditure by the Home Office, not so much upon the right hon. Gentleman, but particularly upon the Home Office in the appointment of highly paid officials to administer this Bill. It has been stated that the salaries of the present Commissioners are about £1,000 a year, and the Home Secretary, before the Committee, asked for salaries of about that amount. All this Amendment asks for is that in the appointment of highly paid Commissioners they shall not receive in the aggregate a greater sum than £4,000 a year. It appears there is an immensely strong case for this proposal, and I think the House of Commons would be well advised to adopt the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the expenditure of this country upon officials and the administration of the Government is increasing by leaps and bounds, and the time has arrived when the House of Commons should take some steps to restrain the constantly increasing expenditure for which apparently the consent of the Treasury has been obtained. I think we should be well advised to put some limitation on the expenditure upon salaries proposed in connection with the Bill now before the Committee upstairs by adopting this Amendment.


I cannot help feeling that both the mover and seconder of this Amendment are under a misapprehension as to the powers of this House. The hon. Member for the Stowmarket Division (Mr. Goldsmith) observed that if the House wishes to retain control some such limitation as this is essential, and the seconder said that all he desired was to limit the possible expenditure on the four Commissioners to an aggregate amount of £4,000 a year. In the first place this limitation is not in the least necessary in order to maintain absolute control in this House. When the Bill comes back to the House from the Committee it will be found to contain a Clause in which the number of Commissioners is defined.


Not the number of officials.


I said the number of. Commissioners. In the same Clause the salary of the Commissioners is fixed. The Committee upstairs have decided that the number of Commissioners should not. exceed four additional paid Commissioners, and that the salaries should not exceed £1,500 a year each.


Can we have any guarantee that we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter on the Report Stage?


The hon. Member knows that I am quite unable to give any undertaking on the point and time, and that question is not really relevant to the point that the House does not lose control Supposing the Clause is not discussed, and nobody desires to discuss it, not one penny of this money can be spent until it has been voted year by year in the Estimates, and as the House knows under the existing arrangements the Noble Lord who represents the Opposition has only to express a desire to the Patronage Secretary to have a particular vote put down on a particular Thursday, and it will not be put down for discussion on that day. The House will retain absolute control whether this limitation is put into the Resolution or not, and the salaries of the Commissioners and the number of the Commissioners and the number of the officials will be precisely what the House wishes they should be.


Only in theory.


It is more than in theory; it is really in fact, because under the present Rules the particular Vote put down for discussion is the Vote required by the Opposition to be discussed.


The Opposition are in favour of this Bill.


The hon. Member for Stowmarket speaks in this matter, I think, on behalf of his party when he says that complaint has been made that this Government has appointed too many officials. The answer I make to this is that if we appoint too many officials under this Bill it will be open to hon. Members opposite to ask for a discussion of the salaries of those very officials on any Thursday they choose, and the House will retain as full control as it is possible for the House to retain over the expenditure of this money. Let me show how impossible it is to accept a limitation of this kind if the Bill is to be worked at all. The hon. Member based his case upon the fact that eight Lunacy Commissioners now have the control of very nearly 135,000 lunatics. He divides eight into 135,000 and finds that it goes very nearly seventeen times, not quite. Therefore, he says, one Lunacy Commissioner is enough for every 17,000 lunatics. It is absurd, he goes on to say, to propose to appoint four additional Commissioners to deal with a maximum number of 20,000. His figures are not correct. The new Commissioners, of whom I only propose to appoint three, not four, will consist as to one of a woman, and as to the two others of a chairman and one additional member. The existing eight Lunacy Commissioners have left to them all their existing work under the Lunacy Acts, and although we shall hope to get assistance from them, any assistance they give in the working of this Bill must be made good to them by the service of the new Commissioners.

We shall only have three new Commissioners to deal with the whole of the work which arises in consequence of this measure. The hon. Gentleman says that there will only be 20,000 defectives at the maximum to be dealt with and that therefore three or four Commissioners is an excessive number. It is quite correctly stated that the contribution from the State is £150,000, but that is to meet a compulsory contribution from the local authorities of an equal sum, making a total of £300,000 a year as the first expenditure. The number of defectives who will be dealt with will probably be somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000; it will depend on the number who are placed in institutions and the number placed under guardianship. Outside that number there will be defectives for whom provision will be made by the local authorities in excess of the amount contributed by the State. London has already made considerable provision for defectives and I am quite sure will continue to do so. But I have to be prepared. I must not ask the House to give me machinery which cannot possibly meet the contingencies which I am bound to have in view. Next, we shall have a number of defectives who do not come under these limitations at all; criminal defectives and violent defectives who are dealt with directly by the Secretary of State. It is impossible to give a definite estimate of the number of these; they will, however, total some thousands. Then there will be some thousands of other defectives who are detained in private homes. The 'number it is impossible to state, but there are many thousands. Although, under the Bill defectives in private homes will not be inspected by the Commissioners, I think the hon. Member is incorrect when he estimates the total number at. 20,000 by at least 10,000. My estimate is that when this Bill is in operation the number of defectives who will come under inspection by the Board of Control will be quite 30,000.


Is it not the fact that the existing private institutions are already inspected by the existing Lunacy Commissioners under the Idiots Act?


No. It is rather difficult to make clear the distinction, but can assure the hon. Member that the number of defectives in private homes who are not now under inspection will become inspected under this Bill, and certainly the total number that will have to be dealt with by the new Commissioners will be nearer 30,000 than 20,000. That is what we contemplate having to do immediately, and I am informed by those quite able to judge that that will be as much as we shall be able to make provision for in the first two or three years. As, however, our organisation becomes complete, and we are able to offer greater provision for the very much larger number of defectives who exist outside, we shall have ultimately to provide, whether by institutional treatment or under guardianship, as estimated by the Commissioners, for at least between 60,000 and 70,000. It might be asked, "Why not wait until your numbers are larger before you ask for full powers to appoint four Commissioners?" My reply to that is this. In the first start in the organisation of this work the labours thrown on the Board of Control will be exceptionally heavy. We have got to start an organisation entirely new. The exist- ing eight Lunacy Commissioners have their hands already more than full with their own work.


Yet you are giving them more!


My hon. Friend is so adroit that I do not wish, if I can avoid it, to enter into a controversy on this point. But he will see that in giving the Lunacy Commissioners this work we propose to add to their number so as to give them assistance. They have their hands full now; we are giving them additional work with additional assistance. In the early days the work of the organisation will be extremely heavy. We shall require the full assistance of the three additional members whom I shall propose to appoint. I take power in the relative Clause of the Bill ultimately to appoint four additional Commissioners, because we are bound to look forward to the day when the whole area of the defective field will be covered by this Bill. That is the reason—as shortly as I can state it—why we ask for this number. The hon. Member wants to limit us to an expenditure of £4,000 a year. Let me remind him that the expenditure of the Lunacy Commissioners for salaries, travelling, and incidental expenses—precisely, if I remember the terms of his Amendment, the words he uses—the amount of the expenditure of the Lunacy Commissioners is now estimated at [...]20,000 a year. He proposes to limit the additional expenditure to £4,000 a year. It is not enough if we have to appoint three additional Commissioners. [An HON. MEMBER: "At what salary."] The same salary that we settled in Committee last year, not exceeding £1,500 a year. The existing Commissioners already receive £1,500 a year. We shall have to anticipate that the three Commissioners whom I shall propose to appoint would ultimately attain to a sum of £1,500 a year, and we shall have to provide, for them alone, £4,500 a year. We shall have to appoint some additional inspectors and some additional clerks. In these circumstances to put a limitation in this Resolution of £4,000 a year would be to absolutely undo the work which has been done by the Committee upstairs, and upset all the conclusions to which they have come. I can assure the House, with really some knowledge of what the claims of the organisation of the new Board of Control will be, that it will be impossible to carry on the work with such a limitation as this. I would suggest that hon. Members should be satisfied with the control which the Estimates give, and allow this Resolution to be passed.

Mr. PRINGLE rose—




I hope the hon. Gentlemen on the benches below me will restrain themselves, and, if they desire to move the Closure, that they will at least allow us to have a consecutive Debate before they put an end to discussion. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have been so ably put before the House by the hon. Member for the Stowmarket Division (Mr. Goldsmith), but to reply to some of the observations made by the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend has sought, very ingeniously, but not very successfully, to reassure us regarding the control of the House over the expenditure provided for in this Resolution. In the first place, he says that we shall have an opportunity of debating the Clauses in the Bill in which these appointments are made, but when I took the liberty of asking whether we would have any guarantee that those Clauses will be discussed upon the Report stage, he referred me to the Prime Minister. He can hardly expect us to be satisfied with such an assurance as that statement implied. He went further, and said that even granting we were not able to discuss the Clauses on the Report stage, we should still have full control in Committee of Supply. It is only necessary to examine his contention in that respect to see how fallacious and futile it is.

He said the discussions in Committee of Supply are arranged between the Noble Lord who is Chief Whip of the Unionist party and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. But what comfort is that to any small independent minority in the House? Those Votes in Supply are set down which the Noble Lord, the Member for Sussex, asks for. But it is not the official policy of the Unionist party to question this expenditure. The official policy of the Unionist party is, and. has continuously been expressed upon this Bill by the hon Member (Mr. Steel-Maitland) who is as powerful in the councils of the Unionist party as the Noble Lord (Lord E. Talbot). Indeed he seems to have had control of the Prime Minister in this matter. But that being the case is there the slightest likelihood that if either the hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmith), the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), or my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood) were to desire the discussion of the Votes providing for the salaries of these new Commissioners and Inspectors that opportunity would be granted? Consequently when we examine the arguments of the Home Secretary in this respect we are driven to the conclusion that we cannot believe that there is any security that this House will have the slightest control over the expenditure if we allow this Resolution to pass to-night without this limitation.

On the merits the case has been admirably stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmith) and the Home Secretary has been very unsuccessful in traversing his contention. Be has indeed endeavoured to dispute the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the numbers who will be dealt with under this Bill. He says that 20,000 is too moderate an estimate and he places the number at 30,000. Of course this is purely a matter of estimate and in the region of estimate on the whole the authority of the hon. Member is not much inferior to that of the Home Secretary. Those who have been fortunate enough to be upon the Committee last year know the interest which the hon. Member took in this question, and the House will feel justified in taking his estimate as a trustworthy estimate. Under these circumstances, if we accept the statement of the Home Secretary that only three Commissioners are to be appointed, we have the situation that the new Commissioners will have to deal with 6,000 or over on the Home Secretary's estimate, with 10,000 appeals, whereas the existing. Commissioners deal with 17,000 each under the Lunacy Act. The Home Secretary said the existing Lunacy Commissioners have their hands full. We know it is only two years since their numbers were increased by 33 per cent. Their hands must have been more than full in the year 1911, when this increase was made, arid surely the addition to their numbers then was, in the opinion of the Government, adequate for the tasks which they had to discharge.

It is surely strange now, that only two years afterwards, the Home Secretary should say they have more in hand than they can accomplish. In these circumstances we are right to believe that the eight existing Commissioners are quite capable of dealing with the 17,000 lunatics with whom they have at present to deal, and on that basis even three Commissioners are too large a number for the number of mentally defectives who will come under the existing Act. What is the result of this contention? We are driven to the conclusion that under this Resolution money is being provided for a machinery altogether out of proportion to the work which is to be done. It is far too elaborate a machinery. Indeed, in this case, as in many others, the present Government are showing themselves to be slaves of machinery. They are desirous in every case of setting up elaborate machinery—a considerable paraphernalia of officials—and they think when they do this that they are entitled to acclaim it is scientific social reform. We are constantly told that we must strive after scientific and constructive social reform, but at the same time these terms "scientific" and "constructive" are becoming, as it were, mere slang words or catchwords of social reform. When a Minister is able to come down to the House and say, "This is the scientific method," he believes that all parties in the House will accept the measure without question and without cavil. The time has passed for such unquestioned belief in these meaningless labels. No matter how specious the pretext may be, the time has come when the House will look at the actual work which is to be done, and they will require a machinery which is adequate, but not more than adequate, for that work. It is in that spirit that we now ask for a limitation of the expenditure under the present Resolution. I think I am speaking for several Members on this side of the House, as well as on the other side—




More than ten. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil knows that a Welsh Commissioner is to be nominated and he is satisfied, but all of us who have not been "squared" are not in that position. A number of us have looked upon this proposal in a critical spirit. We have, it is true, been subject to a good deal of contumely and contempt for the attitude we have taken up. Our opposition has been represented as opposition to reform. The speeches made against the Bill are at least an adequate refutation of any such suggestion.


The hon. Member is now dealing with the general position in regard to the Bill. That does not come into the discussion this evening.


I am very sorry if I have been led away somewhat from the immediate subject under discussion. I always endeavour to keep myself within the rules of order. I do not intend to pursue that point further. We desire to see steps taken for dealing with the problem. Our quarrel is that too expensive a machinery is being set up, and we wish to save the money that is to be expended on machinery for the real beneficiaries under the Bill. That money should be set free from the expenses of officials for the benefit of the feeble-minded. I hope the House will accept the limitation proposed by the hon. Member opposite.


I submit that the statement of the Home Secretary is illusory. I do not even share the hope of the hon. Member who spoke last that the Whips would give us an evening to discuss the matter. The Home Secretary has power to appoint four Commissioners. If they are once appointed—I am sure they would be perfectly proper persons—the House would not afterwards disestablish them. What we say is that two Commissioners should be appointed at the present time. If they are sufficient we should save the two salaries of £1,500 each of the remaining two Commissioners, with perhaps £1,000 expenses, and then if it is found necessary to appoint extra Commissioners then the Government has power to come to the House and ask that another Commissioner or two Commissioners should be appointed. If we pass this Resolution now we are parting with our power of deciding the number of Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill. The Home Secretary takes a very favourable view of the number of people to be dealt with under this Bill. He has told us 30,000. The money that is controlled is £300,000. Assuming it to be as much as that, there is already a sufficient number of mentally deficient in the United Kingdom to be dealt with under a voluntary system. The expensive part of this Bill is the compulsory part, the part that will require the officials and Commissioners, and you are only going to provide sufficient money to deal with the good part, the voluntary part, which is the part that ought to be dealt with as soon as possible. I would therefore suggest to the House that it should pass this Amendment. If necessary the Government could come to the House afterwards for the appointment of extra Commissioners, and I am certain that the House would readily grant it. Though I am very much against the appointment of officials, yet if you have to appoint them to responsible positions you should pay them well. I respectfully ask the House not to rush into this matter and vote an unlimited letter of credit to the Home Secretary to appoint these four Commissioners which are not necessary at the present time.


I am a suporter of this Bill and voted for its Second Reading, but I was very much surprised at some of the Home Secretary's remarks with regard to the work of these Commissioners, and I am inclined to think that it would be an advantage, to restrict the number of Commissioners to be appointed in the first instance. I have served for twenty-two years on an Asylum Committee, and I have read from time to time the reports of the Commissioners who visit the Asylum Committees, and I can tell the House that the work of bringing into organisation the whole of the machinery of this Bill will not be that of the Commissioners but of the Local Committees appointed under this measure. The Commissioners visit the asylums once in every six months, and the contention that each looks after an average of 17,000 patients is an absurdity. What they do is this. They go round, I believe, every half-year visiting the asylums. They see the wards and they see the patients, and they can make any recommendation they think necessary to the Committee. They present a report to the Home Office, and that report is sent down to the local Committee. It is the Visiting Committees who do the work, and it will be the Committees, and not the Inspectors, who will do the work under this Bill.

12.0 M.

I have been present at Committee meetings where hundreds of inmates of asylums have been discharged on the recommendation of members of the Committee. The Inspectors know nothing about that work. Moreover, every Asylum Committee, in addition to a monthly visit, appoint a Sub-Committee, the members of which visit the asylums every alternate fortnight for the purpose of giving every inmate the advantage of having their case reviewed. The whole of this work is absolutely done by the Visiting Committee, and it is not done by the Inspectors. The only work of the Inspectors is to go round once every six months to inspect the asylums and make their report. It would be quite easy for any one of these Inspectors to visit one of the asylums, and if you had a small place attached to the asylum within the grounds, or in some other part of the county, it would be an easy matter for the Inspectors to pay another visit on the same journey to inspect the homes where these children are kept, or where these unfortunate imbeciles are kept, for the purpose of making their report. I venture to say four Inspectors are not needed, and that two ought to be sufficient to do the work. The rates in our localities are going up by leaps and bounds, and my complaint about this Bill, if I have any complaint, and I have said it privately as I was not a member of the Committee, is that I am afraid our local expenditure will go up. If the Inspectors go down and make extravagant suggestions to the local Committees to create big institutions, I think you will have some kind of rebellion on the part of the local authorities against this Bill. They are already protesting. I have received letters from them this week protesting against increase of rates without Imperial grants.


I do not see how those remarks are relevant to the question of the salaries of these gentlemen.


I would appeal to the Home Secretary not to increase the Parliamentary expenditure by sending down Inspectors with a view to increasing that expenditure. I am afraid if that is done the local authorities will take umbrage against the Bill.


As a member of the Staffordshire County Council I endorse everything that has just been said by the hon. Member. There is a great deal of resentment against costs being thrown on the local authority. The more permanent officials we have the more work they will make for themselves. I rose to refer to the pay of the new Commissioners. The existing Lunacy Commissioners get £1,500 per year, and are in a privileged position as they do not retire at a certain age and continue to receive that sum for life, and on the same terms as judges. Because of that we are compelled simply to preserve a certain uniformity between old and new Commissioners, to pay the new Commissioners at the same rate and with the same privileges.


The hon. Member is mistaken. The beginning salary of the new Commissioners is not so high, and the new Commissioners will be appointed on Civil Service terms.


I am very glad to hear that.


That was done last year.


As far as I remember the Bill as originally proposed provided for exactly the same salaries for the new Commissioners. The Home Secretary I think appealed to the House to do that and said that as the present Commissioners had 21,500 the new ones must have that too. I appeal to the House to fix a lower maximum salary than £1,500. In the first place we want some women among these Inspectors. Everybody knows perfectly well that if you have these very high salaries you will not get any women appointed. It is particularly important, as this measure is to deal with the poor and not with the rich, that we do have on the Board of Control representatives of the working classes. We do not want only expert physicians who go in for vivisection and all the rest of it; we want people from what I believe are called the lower orders. If the salaries are £1,500 a year does anyone imagine that you will get working men or trade unionists put into these jobs? Therefore we ought to insist upon this limitation being inserted, in order that these jobs may not be reserved for highly trained barristers and highly skilled physicians.

When we dealt with the question of small holdings this House retained control of the Board of Agriculture, and it was not possible for the Board to appoint an unlimited number of Commissioners. When they wanted more Commissioners they had to come to the House to get them appointed. It is the same with judges. When more judges are wanted the Government have to come to the House and ask for them. Why should we, in the case of a new Board of Control, of whose operations we have no means whatsoever of judging, give the Home Office a free hand? The House should retain control here just as they did in the matter of small holdings, and the only way of doing so is by inserting some such limitation as that now proposed. If that limitation is inserted three Commissioners will be appointed at sufficient salaries to secure the class of men and women that we want. I hope that all advocates of economy, all who want women and representatives of the working classes on this Board, and all who believe in retaining Parliamentary con-

trol over the expenditure of the great spending departments, will vote for the Amendment.

Mr. McKENNA rose 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, 191; Noes, 53

Division No. 182.] AYES. [12.10 a.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Hancock, J. G. O'Doherty, Philip
Addison, Dr. C. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Donnell, Thomas
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) Harmsworth, Cecll (Luton, Beds) O'Dowd, John
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) O'Grady, James
Arnold, Sydney Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Hayden, John Patrick O'Shee, James John
Barnes, G. N. Hayward, Evan O'Sullivan, Timothy
Barton, William Hazleton, Richard Parker, James (Halifax)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Helms, Sir Norval Watson Parry, Thomas H.
Bean, W. W. (T H'mts, St George) Henry, Sir Charles Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)
Black, Arthur W. Higham, John Sharp Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Boland, John P[...]us Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Pointer, Joseph
Bowerman, C. W. Hodge, John Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Hudson, Walter Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Brace, William Hughes, Spencer Leigh Radford, George Heynes
Brady, Patrick Joseph Illingworth, Percy H. Raffan, Peter Wilson
Brocklehurst, William B. Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) Reddy, Michael
Bryce, J. Annan Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Burke, E. Haviland- John, Edward Thomas Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Rendall, Athelstan
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Clancy, John Joseph Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Clough, William Joyce, Michael Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Clynes, John R. Keating, Matthew Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Kelly, Edward Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kennedy, Vincent Paul Robinson, Sidney
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Kilbride, Denis Roch, Walter F.
Cotton, William Francis King, Joseph Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Craig, Herbert.J. (Tynemouth) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Rowlands, James
Crooks, William Lardner, James C. R. Rowntree, Arnold
Crumley, Patrick Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbir[...]d, Cockerm'th) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Cullinan, John Leach, Charles Samuel, J. (Stockton)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Levy, Sir Maurice Scanlan, Thomas
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lewis, John Herbert Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.
Dawes, James Arthur Lundon, Thomas Sheehy, David
Delany, William Lyell, Charles Henry Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Lynch, Arthur Alfred Smyth, Thomas F.
Devlin, Joseph Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)
Dickinson, W. H. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Sutherland, John E.
Dixon, Charles Harvey MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Sutton, John E.
Doris, William Macpherson, James Ian Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Duffy, William J. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Tennant, Harold John
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) M'Callum, Sir John M. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) McGhee, Richard Toulmin, Sir George
Elverston, Sir Harold McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Manfield, Harry Verney, Sir Harry
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Meagher, Michael Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Esslemont, George Birnie Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Webb, H.
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Ffrench, Peter Middlebrook, William White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Field, William Millar, James Duncan Whyte, Alexander F.
Fitzgibbon, John Molloy, Michael Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Montagu, Hon. E. S. Williamson, Sir A.
Furness, Stephen Morgan, George Hay Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Gladstone, W. G. C. Muldoon, John Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Greig, Colonel James William Munro, Robert Wing, Thomas Henry
Griffith, Ellis Jones Murphy, Martin J. Young, William (Perth, East
Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.) Nolan, Joseph
Gulland, John William Nugent, Sir Walter Richard TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.
Gwynne, Stephen Lucius (Galway) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Hackett, John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Adamson, William Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Agar-Rohartes, Hon. T. C. R. Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Stanier, Beville
Baird, J. L. Magee, James Myles Starkey, John Ralph
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Barnston, H. Horner, Andrew Long Stewart, Gershom
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Hunt, Roland Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Lewisham, Viscount Thomson, W Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Mason, David M. (Coventry) Touche, George Alexander
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Morrison, Mell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Boyton, James Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Watt, Henry A.
Bridgeman, William Clive Perkins, Walter Frank Wheler, Granville C. H.
Cator, John Peto, Basil Edward Wilson, W T. (Westhoughton)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Pringle, William M. R. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Dalrymple, Viscount Pryce-Jones, Col. E. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Younger, Sir George
Goldsmith, Frank Ronaldshay, Earl of
Greene, Walter Raymond Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood and Sir John Spear.
Gretton, John Sanders, Robert Arthur
Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 191.

Division No. 183.] AYES [12.18 a.m.
Adamson, William Greene, W. R. Spear, Sir John Ward
Baird, J. L. Guinness. Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Starkey, John R.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hogge, James Myles Sutherland, J. E.
Barnes, George N. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Sutton John E.
Barnston, H. Horner, Andrew Long Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Thomson W. Mitchell- Down, N.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Touche, George Alexander
Bowerrnan, C. W. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Boyton, James Perkins, Walter Frank Watt, Henry A.
Brace, William Peto, Basil Edward Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Pointer, Joseph Wheler, Granville C. H.
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Pringle, William M. R. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Ronaldshay, Earl of Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Dalrymple, Viscount Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Dixon, C. H. Sanders, Robert A. TELLLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Gretton.
Elverston, Sir Harold Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Essiemont, George Birnie
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dawes, J. A. Hayden, John Patrick
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Delany, William Hayward, Evan
Allen, Rt. H n. Charles P. (Stroud) Denman, Hon. R. D. Hazleton, Richard
Arnold, Sydney Devlin, Joseph Helms, Sir Norval Watson
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Dickinson, W. H. Henry, Sir Charles
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Doris, William Higham, John Sharp
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Duffy, William J. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Barton, William Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Hudson, Walter
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Illingworth, Percy H.
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)
Black, Arthur W. Essex, Sir Richard Walter Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)
Boland, John Plus Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson John, Edward Thomas
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Ffrench, Peter Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll)
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Field, William Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Brady, P. J. Fitzgibbon, John Jones,.J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Brocklehurst, William B. Flavin, Michael Joseph Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclitle),
Bryce, J. Annan Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Joyce, Michael
Burke, E. Haviland- Gladstone, W. G. C. Keating, Matthew
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Greig, Colonel J. W. Kelly, Edward
Cator, John Griffith, Ellis Jones Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (D[...]set, E.) Kilbride, Denis
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) King, J.
Clancy, John Joseph Gulland, John William Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Clough, William Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Lardner, James C. R.
Clynes, John R. Hackett, J. Leach, Charles
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Levy, Sir Maurice
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hancock, John George Lewis, John Herbert
Cotton, William Francis Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Lewisham, Viscount
Crooks, William Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Lundon, T.
Crumley, Patrick Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Lyell, Charles Henry
Colinan, John Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Lynch, A. A.
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Sheehy, David
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) O'Shee, James John Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Macpherson, James Ian O'Sullivan, Timothy Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Parker, James (Halifax) Stanier, Beville
M'Callum, Sir John M. Parry, Thomas H. Steel-Maitland, A. D.
McGhee, Richard Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Stewart, Gershom
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
MantleId, Harry Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Tennant, Harold John
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Price-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Meagher, Michael Radford, G. H. Toulmin, Sir George
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Rattan, Peter Wilson Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Reddy, Michael Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Middlebrook, William Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Verney, Sir Harry
Millar, James Duncan Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Molloy, Michael Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Webb, H.
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Rendall, Athelstan White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Morgan, George Hay Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Muldoon, John Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Whyte, A. F.
Munro, Robert Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Murphy, Martin Joseph Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Williamson, Sir Archibald
Nolan, Joseph Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Robinson, Sidney Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Wing, Thomas
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Roche, Augustine (Louth) Young, William (Perth, East)
O'Doherty, Philip Rowlands, James Younger, Sir George
O'Donnell, Thomas Rowntree, Arnold
O'Dowd, John Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.
O'Grady, James Scanlan, Thomas
O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

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


claimed "that the Question be now put."

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Half Twelve of the clock a.m., Wednesday, 9th July, 1913.