Commons Sitting of 26 March 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill.

Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill.

Herne Bay Gas and Electricity Bill.

Crowborough District Gas and Electricity Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Liverpool Corporation Bill (by Order),
London County Council (Lambeth Bridge) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Blyth and Cowpen Gas Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Southampton Harbour Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Mid-Kent and East Kent District Water Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Brighton Corporation Bill,
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General to the House of Commons on the Brighton Corporation Bill (presented pursuant to Standing Order 175 a); referred to the Committee on the Bill.
Leeds Corporation Bill,
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General to the House of Commons on the Leeds Corporation Bill (presented pursuant to Standing Order 175 a); referred to the Committee on the Bill.
Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill,
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General to the House of Commons on the Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill (presented pursuant to Standing Order 175 a); referred to the Committee on the Bill.
Governesses' Benevolent Institution Bill,
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General to the House of Commons on the Governesses' Benevolent Institution Bill (presented pursuant to Standing Order 175 a); referred to the Committee on the Bill.
Oxford University (St. Edmund Hall and Gatcombe Rectory) Bill
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney-General to the House of Commons on the Oxford University (St. Edmund Hall and Gatcombe Rectory) Bill (presented pursuant to Standing Order 175 a); referred to the Committee on the Bill.

NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
Account presented of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities and any Annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all Sums of Money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January, 1913 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 29.]
EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
Return presented relative thereto (Address 24th March; Sir Henry Havelock-Allan); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 30.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  ROYAL NAVY.

    SMALL-POX (H.M. SHIPS AT DEVONPORT).
    Mr. BENTHAMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any small-pox cases have recently been reported as having occurred amongst the crews of any of His Majesty's ships at Devonport other than the "Conqueror"; and, if so, will he give the names, ages, and dates of vaccinations and revaccinations of all patients, and state whether any of the cases have proved fatal?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The answer is in the negative.

    SHIPWRIGHT AND CARPENTER RATINGS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the findings of the Departmental Committee which recently sat and reported on the shipwright and carpenter ratings?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already informed the hon. Member in detail of the action taken with regard to carpenter and shipwright ratings. This action was in accordance with the findings of the Committee.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Was the action taken with regard to the carpenters in accordance with the findings of the Committee?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: A letter is being prepared for the hon. Member, as hon. secretary of the dockyard Members which I think will cover the ground

    STRENGTH OF FLEET 1906–12.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the number of battleships, battle cruisers, armoured cruisers, first-class protected cruisers, light armoured cruisers, second-class protected cruisers, third-class protected cruisers, torpedo vessels, torpedo
    1618
    boat destroyers, torpedo boats, and submarines added to the fleet and placed in commission between 31st March, 1906, and 31st March, 1912, and the number of the same class of ships, respectively, put out of commision during the same period?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I must refer the hon. Member to the information given to the House in the Return issued in the name of the Member for North- St. Pancras, Command Paper, Number 537, and dated the 6th instant.

    DESTROYERS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many destroyers have been completed for the British and German Navies from 1906 onwards, and how many in either case have a designed speed of thirty knots or more?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The information as to numbers will be found in Parliamentary Paper, No. 537, of the 6th instant. As regards speed, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Blackpool on 14th December, 1911.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the number of torpedo-boat destroyers ordered by England and Germany, respectively, since 1906?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number for Great Britain is 120, including twelve coastal destroyers that were ordered in 1907–8. The number for Germany is seventy-two.

    LIGHT CRUISERS.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many light cruisers, not over ten years launched, are possessed by Great Britain and Germany, respectively?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The number for Great Britain is thirty-two (including the "Melbourne"). The number for Germany is twenty-one.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does our number include those that were formerly called scouts?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked when the eight light cruisers, formerly known as scouts, were paid off in order that their rearmament might be taken in hand; when in each case the work of rearmament was actually begun; and what are the estimated dates for the completion of the work?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I see no advantage in entering into these details. Similar details are not available in regard to other countries. I have already given the expected dates of completion.

    STOKER BRANCH (PAY).
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the average pay of the petty officers and men of the stoker branch in 1909–10 was £41 5s. 3d. per head, and that the average for 1913–14 is £41 15s. 7d. per head; and whether this average increase of less than 2½d. a week represents the full amount of the concession made to the stoker branch under the increases of pay announced in December last?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The figures quoted in the first part of the question are deduced from the numbers and money provision in Vote 1 of the Estimates, but they do not represent the extent of the recent increase of pay to the stoker class. The small apparent increase in the average rate of pay for this class in 1913–14 as compared with 1909–10 is partly due to the fact that the number in the former year is the maximum and in the latter the average. Had the average number been taken for 1913–14 the increase in the weekly rate would have appeared as 8¾d. It is, however, chiefly due to the fact that some 6,500 stokers have been, or will have been, entered on the initial rate of pay for their class since 1909–10. As the hon. Member is aware from the table set out in Command Paper, No. 6118, the increased rate of pay for stokers does not take effect till the completion of six years' service. A large number of men who will ultimately be qualified are thus at present outside the radius. Taking the number of stoker ratings who received an immediate benefit from the improved rates of pay as between 17,000 and 18,000, the average is, of course, much in excess of what has been stated.

    CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the difficulty of giving the approximate number of caning punishments in His Majesty's Navy as had been done in previous years, he can say that one such punishment to every three boys in the Navy as deduced from previous figures would be a probably truthful estimate; whether there is any official discouragement of these corporal punishments; and
    1620
    will he say whether the same punishments are applied impartially to cadets as to boys of the lower ranks?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not in a position to commit myself to the accuracy or otherwise of my hon. Friend's calculation. The fact that the punishment of caning is limited to serious offences may certainly be regarded as a discouragement of any unnecessary use of the cane. I may remind my hon. Friend that under existing instructions this punishment is not administered in public, and can only be awarded by the captain's orders, except in cases where he is absent for over forty-eight hours, in which case the punishment may be administered at the order of the commanding officer. As to cadets, if their conduct warrants corporal punishment, they are no more exempt from it than are the boy bluejackets.
    Mr. J. WARD: May we take it for granted that, while there is no rule against cadets being flogged, they never are flogged?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I said that if their conduct warranted corporal punishment they were not exempt.
    Mr. J. WARD: Are cadets flogged for exactly the same or similar offences as ordinary boys in the Navy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would not use the word "flogged." I do not think that a blow with a cane is a flogging. At any rate, I have had considerable personal experience, and I never considered it to be flogging.
    Mr. J. WARD: I understand that one boy in three—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put his question in an interrogative form.
    Mr. J. WARD: Do I understand that the proportion of boys in the lower ratings who are flogged or caned is the same as the proportion among the cadets?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The late First Lord of the Admiralty, in a reply to the hon. Member for Salford, stated that at that time one in three were caned. I cannot say what the proportion is now, but I can assure my hon. Friend that if a cadet misbehaves himself he is just as liable to corporal punishment as the other boys.

    OFFICERS' PAY (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked whether the Admiralty deduct Income Tax from a naval officer's pay, either on his own in come or that of his wife, pending a dispute of the amount due.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not the general practice to enforce deductions of amounts known to be in dispute pending decision by the Inland Revenue authorities. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to inquire into it.

    NEW CONSTRUCTION (1901–12).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the annual amount of money expended on new naval construction by England and Germany, respectively, from 1901 to 1912, inclusive?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Paper No. 300 of 1912.

    NAVAL EDUCATION (REPORT).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he proposes to publish the Report on Naval Education, presided over by Sir Reginald Custance?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Report should be in the hands of Members this afternoon.

    EAST INDIA STATION (H.M.S. "SWIFTSURE").
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if the sending of the "Swiftsure" to replace the "Highflyer" on the East India station marks a change of policy; and if it is intended to send a battleship to Hong Kong?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir, we think it is a good arrangement. The "Triumph" is going to Hong Kong in reserve.

    INDEPENDENT STATE OF SARAWAK.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked if there was any proposal that the independent State of Sarawak should follow the example of the Federated Malay States in making a contribution towards the composition of the British Navy?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir.

    Argentine Republic.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    1622
    whether he has received an intimation from the Government of the Argentine Republic of the proposed celebration in 1916 in Buenos Aires of the centenary of parliamentary institutions in that country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The answer is in the negative.

    Putumayo Rubber District.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government has now published their Consul's Report on his recent journey of investigation through the Putumayo district; and whether he will now publish Consul Mitchell's Report drawn up at the same time?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Report will be published in the course of a few days.

    Most-Favoured-Nation Treaties.
    Mr. HEWINSasked what countries with which the United Kingdom has Most-Favoured-Nation treaties, binding on British self-governing Dominions or to which such Dominions have acceded have consented, up to the present time, to such modifications of the treaties as will carry out the wishes of the Dominions as expressed in the resolution unanimously adopted at the Imperial Conference of 1911?
    Mr. ACLAND: Agreements have already been signed with the following countries to allow of the withdrawal of His Majesty's self-governing Dominions, if desired, from existing treaties of commerce with this country: Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Liberia, Paraguay, and Sweden.
    Mr. HEWINS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the position with regard to Austria and Italy?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid I cannot say; I will find out.

    British Interests in Southern Persia.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it has been decided to withdraw the Central Indian Horse from Shiraz; and, if so, will he explain why this regiment was sent to Shiraz, and if its withdrawal means that there are now adequate guarantees against the recurrence of disorder in Southern Persia?
    Mr. ACLAND: As was explained in the Debate yesterday, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; and as regards the second part, the regiment was sent to Shiraz solely for the protection of His Majesty's Consulate and of British life and property in the town. It is being withdrawn because His Majesty's Government do not consider its retention any longer necessary for that purpose.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Has any information reached the Foreign Office during the last few days that two large robberies have been committed on the roads around Shiraz?
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not know what information has been received in regard to that, but I do not think that anything we know will alter our intention that it is perfectly safe to withdraw this regiment, which will in all probability reach the coast in safety.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there more than one squadron?
    Mr. ACLAND: I thing there are two squadrons at Shiraz.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May we now assume that the trade routes in Southern Persia are safe?
    Mr. ACLAND: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be good enough to refer to the Debate which took place yesterday.

    British East Africa (Capital Charges).
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the trial at Nairobi Sessions, on 5th February last, of an Italian charged with the murder of a native by kicking him in the stomach; and whether, in view of the evidence and of the verdict of not guilty given by the jury, any further steps are being taken to deal with the matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have only seen a newspaper account of the trial, but I am calling for a report from the Governor.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of recent occurrences in British East Africa, he will now consider the advisability, in the case of capital charges where racial feeling may be involved, of replacing the present system of trial by jury by a method of trial more suited to secure the ends of justice?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The matter was discussed with the present Governor when he was in this country, and I am expecting a report from him when he has had time to make himself thoroughly acquainted with local conditions.
    Mr. HARVEY: If the report agrees with the newspaper account of the trial, will the right hon. Gentleman give very serious consideration to the suggestion?
    Mr. HARCOURT: We had better wait for the report before I express an opinion.

    Ceylon (Licences).
    Mr. FERENSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Ceylon is this year offering licences for the sale of arrack and toddy for a period of fifteen months instead of twelve months, as heretofore; what is the reason for this change of policy; and whether, in view of the feeling in Ceylon on the subject, he will issue instructions that licences shall be restricted to twelve months, as has hitherto been the case?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Licences are issued in Ceylon for the period of the financial year. This has previously run from 1st July to 30th June, but it will in future run from 1st October to 30th September. The present financial year ends on 30th June, 1913, and it is, therefore, necessary that the next financial period should cover fifteen instead of twelve months, i.e., from 1st July, 1913, to 30th September, 1914. It is clearly desirable that there should be uniformity in all matters relating to the accounts of the Colony, and I do not, therefore, see any reason to interfere with the action which they have taken.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ST. PATRICK'S DAY (SOLDIERS AND SHAMROCK).
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that a soldier of the King's Shropshire Light Infantry on the company parade ground at Fermoy was, on 17th March of the present year, ordered by his superior officer to remove a shamrock from his cap; whether he is aware that the soldier hesitated, took off his cap and showed the officer that it was a sprig of shamrock, and then replaced the cap upon his head with the shamrock still displayed upon it; whether he is aware that this man was thereupon placed under arrest; whether he can say what

    1625
    action was taken upon the case; whether any communication has been or will be addressed to the officer who acted in this fashion; and what are the regulations upon this subject?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The case is as stated in the first part of the question. The soldier referred to states that he is an Irishman. The official records show that he was born at Oldham, but the brigadier-general, who at once investigated the case, accepted the statement as to his nationality, and in view of paragraph 1693 King's Regulations, which permits an Irish soldier to wear a sprig of shamrock in his head-dress on St. Patrick's Day, ordered his release.

    OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
    Major McCALMONTasked whether permission given to a school to form a contingent of the junior division of the Officers' Training Corps is conditional on a supply of officers for some branch of the Army being maintained; whether contingents who fail to keep up an adequate supply of officers are to be retained; and whether any difference is made either in payment of capitation grant or in training between those contingents which supply a large percentage and those who supply amounts to a very small percentage of their strength?
    Colonel SEELY: Until the actual results in the production of officers can be more accurately gauged formation of further contingents is in abeyance except in very special cases, and the retention of those which fail to give an adequate return for the expenditure incurred in their administration and training will be duly considered. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    PROMOTION OF OFFICERS FROM THE RANKS.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked the Secretary of State for War on what date he proposes to publish his full scheme for the promotion of officers from the ranks?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not yet in a position to give a definite date for the publication of the full scheme.

    HORSE ARTILLERY CONVERSION.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked what saving will be effected by the conversion of Horse Artillery into field batteries?
    Colonel SEELY: The conversion of three Horse Artillery batteries to three Field Artillery batteries involves a saving of £4,800 a year.

    NEW ARTILLERY SCHEME.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSONasked whether the changes proposed in the new Artillery scheme involve any reduction in the total number of guns; and, if so, of what number?
    Colonel SEELY: There will be no reduction in the total number of guns.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Major HOPEasked how many aeroplanes there are at the present moment in the squadron which recently flew to Montrose which are fit and safe to attempt such a flight in peace time; and what motor or other transport for carrying spare parts and executing small repairs is now permanently in charge of this squadron?
    Colonel SEELY: I am informed that only one of these aeroplanes required overhauling, involving a few hours' work. The detachment has two lorries and three lighter cars at its disposal. I have answered this question since it has been put down, but would venture to point out that it is considered undesirable as a general rule to indicate the position of our flying squadrons and the machines in their possession.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the number of aeroplanes now available for military purposes, he will arrange to send some of them round the Territorial camps this summer so as to give a practical demonstration to the Territorials of the capabilities of this new branch of the Army?
    Colonel SEELY: This suggestion shall receive full consideration.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether the decision not to adopt large airships of the Zeppelin or other similar type was made by the Committee of Imperial Defence, the Cabinet, or the War Office; and whether, in either case, there were reports from his military advisers?
    Colonel SEELY: The answer to this question, so far as it refers to War Office action, is in the affirmative.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many of the 123 officers appointed to the Royal Flying Corps have ever flown a test equal in severity to that necessary to secure the French military brevet, which calls for a flight over a triangular course of at least 150 kilometres in extent, and which is held by over 200 French military pilots?
    Colonel SEELY: Forty-seven officers have passed the course laid down by the Central Flying School, which, as I have previously stated, is a very exacting test. About thirty more officers will have passed the same test in the course of next month.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what was the number of aeroplanes actually in the hands of the squadron commanders, flight commanders, and pilots officially gazetted as flying officers of Squadrons Nos. 2, 3, and 4, Military Wing, Royal Flying Corps, respectively, on 19th March, 1913; how many of these aeroplanes were on that day in a fit condition to have started at one hour's notice on a flight exceeding an hour's duration; and how many in such condition were then capable of exceeding a speed of sixty miles an hour in still air?
    Colonel SEELY: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to a similar question put by him on the 13th instant, to which I have nothing to add.

    Land Valuation.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will advise the Government to introduce a Bill to amend the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, so as to make it clear that an owner's profits arising out of his skill and enterprise and foresight in connection with buildings and quite distinct from increases in site value, and that only when it is found that the land itself has increased in value shall Increment Value Duty be payable?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): It is being considered whether any legislation is necessary to ensure that the Act fully carries out the intention of the Government in this matter.

    Estate Duty Valuation.
    Mr. BOYTONasked if the congestion which has so long existed at Somerset House in connection with Estate Duty valuation shows signs of abatement; and
    1628
    what is the number now awaiting settlement?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The number of Estate Duty cases with the Valuation Office which on the 27th July, 1912, was 18,025 now amounts to 14,551. It is hoped that this number will be considerably reduced in the near future.

    Trade Boards Act.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to cases of alleged evasion in Manchester of the Trade Boards Act; whether he has caused inquiries to be made; and with what result?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I have seen the reports which my hon. Friend has been good enough to forward to me on the subject of the wages paid to women homeworkers engaged in the making of patchwork quilts, shirts, and coir mats in Manchester. These trades, however, are not within the Schedule of the Trade Boards Act, and therefore the question of evasion does not arise.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the conclusions of the report on married women out-workers, to the effect that trades cannot stand this accumulation of legislation?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That does not arise out of the question.
    Sir J. D. REES: But has the hon. Gentleman seen the report?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not sure that I have.
    Mr. LEACHasked the number and names of the trades which have been brought under the Trade Boards Act, 1909?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The four trades to which the Trade Boards Act at present applies are set out in the Schedule to the Act, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
    Sir W. BYLES: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the Act will be extended?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already announced that extension is in contemplation, and the matter is now under consideration. I cannot give any further undertaking.

    Helmsdale Harbour.
    Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now completed his inquiries with regard to the dredging in Helmsdale Harbour, Sutherland; and will he see that something is done to protect those persons using the harbour?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The local agent of the Duke of Sutherland has informed the Board of Trade that the dredging of Helmsdale Harbour, contemplated in 1908, was carried out, but that he is unable to say at present if any further dredging operations will be carried out this year. If my hon. Friend will let me have any suggestions he desires to make for the better protection of persons using the harbour, I shall be glad to consider them.
    Mr. MORTON: Will not the hon. Gentleman insist that the dredging should be carried out?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have stated that a former dredging of the harbour was carried out in 1908, and that the agent is not aware that any further operations will be carried out this year.
    Mr. MORTON: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware, through his agents, that since 1908 the harbour has silted up?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have invited suggestions from the hon. Gentleman.

    Marconi Companies.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Prime Minister whether he was informed by the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they had been dealing in the shares of the American Marconi Company before the debate on the Marconi Agreement of the 11th October; if so, whether he informed any members of the Marconi Committee of this fact; and whether he can state if he has any information as to whether these or any other Ministers have been dealing in the shares of the Argentine, Canadian, Spanish, Russian, or French wireless companies associated with the British Marconi Company?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I was informed by the Master of Elibank at the end of July or the beginning of August that he and the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had purchased shares in an American Marconi Company. At a later date in August the
    1630
    Attorney-General repeated the statement to me, and I believe added that they had sold some of the shares, but retained the bulk of them. Both assured me that the purchase was made after the publication of the contract between the Post Office and the English Marconi Company, and that the American Company had no interest direct or indirect in that contract. That was the whole extent of my information at the date of the debate in October. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think it desirable that these facts should have been communicated to the House in the debate which took place at that time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I confess they seemed to have no relevance whatever to the scandalous charges which were then being circulated, and I really attached no importance to them.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the second part of the question, whether he has inquired whether the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) and the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer) were in possession of the same information before they examined the editors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. Certainly not.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Will he do so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the British Marconi Company owned 56 per cent., that is, a majority stock in the American Marconi Company, before the issue of over 8,000,000 dollars worth of stock at par in April, 1912; how much of this stock was allotted on the application of the British Marconi Company, in view of the fact that they controlled the American Company; and whether any of the shares taken up by Cabinet Ministers formed part of the shares so applied for?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have no official information on these matters. The fullest information with respect to the purchases made by my right hon. Friends is being given by them to the Select Committee of this House.

    Development Fund.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Prime Minister whether the proceedings of the Development Fund Board can be discussed in this House; and, if so, what opportunity will be afforded?
    Mr. BRIDGEMANalso asked what opportunity the House will have of discussing the administration of the Road Board Fund?
    The PRIME MINISTER: An opportunity will arise for discussing these matters when the Treasury Vote is taken.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether an application has been made by the Dublin County Council to the Road Board for a Grant to improve the road from Dublin to Garristown which serves an extensive district without any railway communication; whether that application has been refused without any reference to the Irish Advisory Committee appointed by the Board to advise as to the distribution of Grants for roads in Ireland; if so, why; and what purpose is served by the appointment of the Advisory Committee referred to if its advice is not even asked as to the merits of each case in which an application for a Grant is made to the Board?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I understand that the Road Board have received a resolution passed by the Dublin County Council on 11th February urging the Board "to make a Grant-in-Aid for the restoration of the Dublin to Garristown road." The Board understand that the proposed improvement is to enable a local motor-bus service to be started between Oldtown and Garristown. The road between the towns referred to does not form part of one of the principal trunk roads radiating from Dublin, and the Board informed the Dublin County Council that they are unable to make any contribution to its improvement until the necessary road crust, improvements on the Dublin-Bray road, Dublin-Drogheda road, and other trunk roads passing through the county have been completed. A committee of Irish road engineers has been recently appointed by the Board to advise them on certain technical matters, but there is no intention to seek advice from that engineering committee on individual questions in regard to the distribution of Grants.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the object and ultimate intention of the Development Commissioners in investing moneys, amounting to £2,500,000, belonging to the Development Fund; whether this sum and the further cash balance of £296,000 in their hands are moneys for which they have no present use or for which there is no present demand for such purposes of rural development as are specified in Section 1 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and whether the Board of Agriculture has applied for a larger aggregate amount than that which has been actually granted for its several requirements?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The object of investing moneys not immediately required for expenditure from the Development Fund is to earn interest for the benefit of the fund. It must not be assumed that moneys are being unnecessarily accumulated in the hands of the Development Commissioners. A large proportion of the balances referred to is definitely earmarked in connection with schemes of which the Commissioners have approved in principle but the details of which are still under consideration, and to meet the annual requirements over a period of years of other schemes now coming into operation which involve large expenditure. In some instances the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has applied for larger advances from the Development Fund than have been actually recommended.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury what portion of the sum of £85,391 granted by the Road Board for the purpose of widenings has been specifically allocated to and expended upon cutting off dangerous corners; and whether, considering the risk to life involved by the existence of such corners in country districts and the rash driving of pleasure-seeking motors ignorant of the locality, he will represent to the Board the urgent necessity of devoting more of the Road Improvement Fund to this object?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Improvements of corners are frequently included in schemes for widening considerable lengths of road and are also frequently described as widening in applications for Grants, and the Road Board have found it impracticable to classify such works otherwise than under the heading of "Road Widenings

    1633
    and Improvement of Curves and Corners." It is impossible, therefore, to state separately the expenditure on widenings at corners. The Board consider all applications from highway authorities for improvement of corners on their merits, and Grants are given in all cases where it appears to them that the conditions involve any exceptional risk of accident.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Grant for the purpose of cutting the hedges at dangerous corners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot give a Grant. It is given by the Road Board, which is altogether independent so far as the Grant is concerned.
    Mr. HOAREasked what has been the amount of the revenue that the Road Board has received since its creation; and what has been the amount of its expenditure up to 1st January, 1913?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The total revenue from all sources received by the Road Board since its creation up to 31st December, 1912, was £2,804,903 14s. 7d.; the total Grants to the same date were £508,559 4s. 3d., and the total loans £92,563. I may perhaps remind the hon. Member that, as stated in my answer to the hon. Member for the Wilton Division on Monday last, the amount of Grants indicated is very considerably in excess of the amount actually paid at present.
    Mr. HOAREasked what has been the amount of the revenue that the Development Commission has received since its creation; and what has been the amount of its expenditure up to 1st January, 1913?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part is £2,927,763; to the second £120,309.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if the provision of cottages for rural labourers is deemed by the Development Commissioners and the Treasury to be one of the objects towards which a portion of the Development Fund may properly be applied by way of loan or otherwise; whether any application has been made to the Commissioners for a Grant for this purpose; and, if so, whether it has received their favourable consideration?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The provision of cottages for rural labourers does not fall under any of the heads enumerated in
    1634
    Section 1 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, in respect of which advances from the Development Fund are specifically authorised, and the Commissioners have been advised that the general words at the end of Section 1 (1) cannot be held to cover economic development that is not in eodem genere and cognate with the subjects specifically named. No application for an advance for the purpose in question has been made to the Development Commissioners.

    Rural Cottage Sites.
    Mr. WEIGALLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the offer made by several landowners to give local authorities and other bodies the opportunity to acquire land for rural cottage sites; and whether he will consider referring the terms of this offer and other matters concerning the pressing need for cottages in rural areas to an impartial Committee, with a view to finding possible legislative means by which this need may be met at the earliest opportunity, in the interests of the agricultural community?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the offer to which the hon. Member refers. Various aspects of the rural housing question have recently been considered by a Departmental Committee, and I understand that their Report will be presented to the House within the next few days.

    Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Mr. YERBURGHasked the Prime Minister whether the Imperial Defence Committee have arrived at any decision upon the question of food supply in time of war?
    Mr. PETOalso asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any announcement as to the steps to be taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission on the supply of food and raw materials in time of war?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee of Imperial Defence has considered various aspects of the question of food supply in war. Certain conclusions have been arrived at as to some of these. Others are still under investigation. As regards the general question of the recommendations of the Royal Commission I can add nothing to the answer which I gave on 11th April last to the hon. and gallant Member for the Melton Division.
    Colonel YATE: Has any consideration been given to the question of erecting grain elevators at the various ports?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. That is one of the subjects that is being considered.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the recommendations which have been received will be communicated to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not pledge myself definitely as to that, because these are confidential matters, but I will give them so far as it is in the public interest.
    Mr. PETO: Is it proposed to take any steps with reference to legislation during the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so, but I would not like to pledge myself definitely.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked whether all the British Dominions are now represented on the Imperial Committee of Defence; if not, how many are so represented?
    The PRIME MINISTER: None of the Dominions are at present permanently represented on the Committee of Imperial Defence, but advantage has frequently been taken of the visits to this country of responsible representatives of the Dominions to invite them to attend meetings of the Committee. All the Dominions have at one time or another been represented in this way, the most recent example being the case of Colonel Allen, Minister of Defence for New Zealand, who attended the last meeting of the Committee.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is there any intention on the part of the Government to ask them to send any such representatives?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have repeatedly said that proposals have been made in this matter. The hon. Member will find it set out in the dispatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies of 10th December last.
    Mr. PAGES CROFT: Is it not a fact that a definite invitation was extended to the Dominion of Canada, and may I ask whether such invitations will also be ex-
    1636
    tended to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They have been. If the hon. Member would read the dispatch he would see it extends to all the Dominions.
    Mr. PAGE CROFT: Was there any reply?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes: there was a reply from South Africa.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Canadian Government have been invited to nominate a representative who shall have a seat on the Committee of Imperial Defence, whether he is prepared to provide means that they may also have proper representation in decisions upon questions of foreign policy, seeing that it is upon foreign policy that questions of defencez primarily depend?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The policy of the Government in this matter is explained in the dispatch of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Stale for the Colonies of 10th December (Cd. 6560), to which I can add nothing.

    House of Lords.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the feeling which prevails throughout this country and the British Dominions, some steps will be taken with a view to the creation of a Chamber to which all matters concerning the welfare of the Empire as a whole could be submitted; and whether he can now see his way to appoint a Select Committee to further this matter; and (2) if he will state what steps he proposes to take with reference to the reform of the House of Lords; and whether he will at the same time introduce a measure for the creation of a House of an Imperial character, the members of which shall be selected from those in the British Isles and the Dominions Overseas who have had practical opportunities of studying Imperial needs, such House to deliberate upon matters of Imperial concern, with a view to legislation in the British Isles and the Dominions Overseas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have already said with regard to the reform of the Second Chamber. As regards the other matters

    1637
    referred to, it would be premature to make any statement, but I do not consider that they are subjects which should be referred to a Select Committee.

    Ministry of Trade and Commerce.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Prime Minister whether he will take early steps for rearranging the business at present dealt with by the Home Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, and the President of the Local Government Board, with a view to creating an adequate Ministry of Trade and Commerce for the purpose of promoting British trade and industry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This is a question which has often been considered, but I see no reason to depart from the conclusion that has been arrived at that no such rearrangement is necessary.
    Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May I inquire whether the Government is carefully considering the matter as to whether the trade of this country might not somehow benefit from the rearrangement?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I said, it has been frequently considered most care-fully.

    Company Directorships (Ministers).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the practice prescribed by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman on the formation of his Administration in 1905 and hitherto rigidly observed, that the holding of a public company directorship is incompatible with membership of the Administration, is of binding obligation or liable to be broken by the heads of future Administrations; and, if the position is not one of legal but merely of moral obligation, will the Government consider the propriety of giving is a definite legal sanction by the introduction of legislation for that purpose?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think the rule is a good one, but I do not see my way to introduce legislation to make it binding on future Administrations.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the late Government eleven Cabinet Ministers held seventeen directorships, and that fifteen Members of the Administration, amongst whom was the Leader of the Opposition, held twenty-five directorships between them?

    Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he has ascertained how many of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee on Irish Finance have no objection to their evidence being published?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. The reasons were fully explained by me in answer to questions on 7th November last.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a practical pledge in Parliament last year that he would publish the evidence if approached by any considerable number of Members to do so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is not a correct statement. I refreshed my memory by looking at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to do the same.

    Foreshore Rights (Dublin).
    Mr. CLANCYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the application of Lord Talbot de Malahide for an Order prohibiting the taking of sand from the seashore at Malahide, county Dublin; whether a sworn inquiry will be held in the matter before any such Order is made; whether a representative of the Board of Trade paid a visit to the part of the foreshore in question some days ago; whether this visit is to be regarded as the holding of an inquiry; and whether, in view of the fact that the tenants on the Malahide estate have from time immemorial enjoyed the right of taking sand and gravel from the foreshore in question, and have recently entered into binding agreements to purchase their holdings under the Land Purchase Acts, and have thus become owners in equity of their lands, the Board of Trade has any precedent or any justification for making any Order of the kind mentioned?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Board of Trade have before them an application by Lord Talbot de Malahide for an Order prohibiting the taking of sand from the seashore at Malahide, county Dublin. The Board have no power to order a sworn inquiry in regard to applications of this nature, but one of the professional officers of the Board, in accordance with the usual practice, visited the spot on the 13th instant,

    1639
    and held a conference with representatives of Lord Talbot de Malahide and certain tenants of the estate who had objected to such an Order being granted. The Board are now considering the report of this officer, but, before coming to a decision in the matter, they are taking legal advice on the question of the alleged rights of the tenants to take sand from this foreshore, particularly having regard to the agreements stated to have been entered into by the tenants to purchase their holdings.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: If these tenants continue to take sand from the foreshore will they be sent to prison?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot give any answer upon a legal question which is under consideration.

    Argentine Republic (Centenary).
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to take the opportunity afforded by the national celebration of the centenary of parliamentary institutions in the Argentine Republic in 1916 to promote the interests of British trade?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I shall be glad to consider any suggestions which my hon. Friend may desire to offer.

    Colour Vision Tests.
    Lord HUGH CECILasked whether the tests for defective colour vision approved by the Board of Trade differ from those approved by the Admiralty; and, if so, whether the Board of Trade, in view of recent scientific investigation and discussion, intend to adopt the tests now approved by the Admiralty?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The colour vision tests in force for the mercantile marine are not identical with those approved by the Admiralty. As the Noble Lord is doubtless aware, a Departmental Committee, including a number of eminent scientific men, has recently considered the sight tests for the mercantile marine, and the recommendations of the Committee have been generally adopted. The new tests based on their recommendations will come into force on April 1st.
    Mr. PETO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the apparatus in use for testing defective color vision in the Admiralty is the same as that which is
    1640
    used by the principal railway companies in this country, and also in Germany, and if he persists in the colour tests contemplated by the Board of Trade the system will be practically unique, not only in this country but in the most scientifically advanced countries in Europe?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: So far as I am aware the Report of the Departmental Committee I have mentioned is the latest scientific investigation. I may refer the hon. Member to the names of the eminent scientific men on that Committee.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Is it not true that at any rate some of the gentlemen on that Committee have long held strong and partisan opinions, if I may use such an expression, on this question of colour vision tests, and therefore are not impartial guides in a matter of this kind?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not aware that that is so. There are at least half a dozen scientific men on the Committee, and possibly some of them may be committed to some old opinions.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any reason for having a different test to that employed by the Admiralty?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: This Committee was appointed to give us the best scientific advice they could give to the Board of Trade, and it was decided to follow that advice.

    Loss of Steamship "Titanic" (Lord Mersey's Report).
    Mr. COOPERasked when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give effect to recommendation No. 5 of Lord Mersey's Report on the "Titanic" disaster, requiring the production of designs and specifications of all ships in their early stages of construction to the Board of Trade?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Report in question recommended that the Departmental Committee on bulkheads and watertight compartments should inquire into, and report upon, various matters in connection with the sub-division of ships. When the Report of the Committee has been received the Board of Trade will be in a position to consider whether it will be necessary for them to seek further statutory powers with regard to the production of plans of ships before or during construction.

    Steamship "Olympic" (Alterations).
    Mr. COOPERasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would state the nature of the alterations that have been made to the steamship "Olympic"?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The alterations include the provision of an inner skin, the carrying of certain bulkheads to a greater height than before, and alterations in boat stowage, so as to comply with the new Life-Saving Appliances Rules.
    Mr. COOPER: Will the hon. Member state whether his reference to the provision of a new inner skin is intended to convey the idea that there will be a complete inner skin from one end of the vessel to the other?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I believe it is not complete. It extends from the forward end of the forward permanent bunker to the after end of the turbine engine-room, and up to the first deck above the load water line. But the hon. Gentleman will find an adequate description of the changes in the ship in the "Journal of Commerce" of Monday last.
    Mr. BARNES: Will the provisions contemplated include one for the safety of all the passengers?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The new life-saving rules are designed to that end, and the alterations have been made to comply with those rules.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the hon. Member say which, if any, of those changes were recommended by the Board of Trade surveyor during the construction of the vessel?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I should require notice of that question.

    Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (Amendment).
    Mr. PETOasked whether it is proposed to introduce during the present Session any Bill to modify the provisions of Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, so as to prevent vessels officered and manned exclusively by foreigners, as in the cases of the steamships "Indra" and "Tasso," flying the British flag?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to introduce in the present Session a Bill to modify the provisions of Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
    Mr. PETOasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce a Bill this Session on the lines of the Merchant Shipping (Certificates) Bill of last Session; and whether he will consider the advisability of making provision in such Bill that all steam vessels of over 1,000 tons burden shall carry three certificated mates, as provided by the Navigation Acts recently passed by the Legislatures of the United States and Australian?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend hopes to reintroduce shortly the Merchant Shipping (Certificates) Bill, introduced last Session. As the hon. Member is aware, the question of legislation increasing the minimum number of certificated officers on board steam vessels is now being considered by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. I have, however, considerable doubt if it would be desirable to complicate the Bill, which has already been twice introduced, and possibly retard its passage, by adding new provisions outside its present scope.

    Agricultural Labourers (Average Nominal Wage).
    Mr. PETOasked whether the right hon. Gentleman has, or can obtain, any information as to the average nominal money wage of agricultural labourers in England, Scotland, and Ireland in 1911, 1901, and 1891; whether he can state the average real wages in each case of agricultural labourers in England, Scotland, and Ireland; and, if not, whether he has taken, or will take, steps to ensure such information being available to his Department as regards agriculture, as well as all the other principal industries of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As a part of the recent general inquiry into wages and hours of labour in all industries, a Report (Cd. 5460) on agricultural labour was published in 1910 in continuation of Cd. 2376 of 1905 and Cd. 346 of 1900. This Report gives detailed information as to the total earnings, including harvest money and all allowances in kind of the principal classes of adult male workers in each county of England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. The general course of agricultural wages since 1880 is shown by index numbers in a Table on page 76 of the fifteenth Abstract of Labour Statistics (Cd. 6228), and the subject is also dealt with in the Annual Reports on Changes in Wages issued by the Board of Trade.
    Mr. PETO: Am I to understand that there is no information which the hon. Member can give relating to the year 1911 or to the other principal industries besides agriculture?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I take it that there is nothing later. If the hon. Member will give me specifically what he wants I will try to supply the information.

    Foreign-made Barrels (Differential Marking).
    Mr. PETOasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce a Bill in the present Session to provide for differential marking of foreign-made barrels and actions proved in London and Birmingham, so as to prevent the guns made up from these foreign-made parts being passed off as sporting guns of British manufacture?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to make any statement with regard to this matter.

    Whitchurch Church School (Alleged Irregularities).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will obtain from the Somerset local education authority a report of the last local inquiry held by that body into alleged irregularities occurring at Whitchurch Church of England school, and will instruct the Board's inspector to visit this school and report upon it?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): As I have already informed the hon. Member, I have to authority to call for the report made to the local education authority. The school was inspected in January of this year, and the Board are in communication with the authority with reference to the inspector's report. A further inspection will be made in the course of the year.

    School Clinics.
    Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulty experienced by school clinics in that children attending at them during school hours cannot be marked as making the attendance required by the Code; and whether, with a view of encouraging parents and teachers to send children to school clinics, he will direct that attendance at such shall count as attendance at school?
    Mr. PEASE: Attendance at clinics for special examination are allowed by the Board to be registered and counted for grant, provided that satisfactory arrangements are made for registration. But, owing to the difficulties which at present exist in connection with the registration of attendances by children for medical treatment at school clinics, hospitals, private surgeries, and elsewhere, I am not able to amend the Code in order to allow attendances at clinics for the purpose of treatment to be reckoned for grant.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of difficulty has been foreseen, and has actually been experienced, in connection with the development of school clinics by reason of the impossibility of counting attendances in the way suggested?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes, I am aware that that has been stated, but I believe those difficulties will be got over very soon.
    Mr. ALDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that attendances at an oculist are allowed?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes, but that is generally by arrangement for immediate attendance. The difficulty is connected with the hospitals, and often the children who attend are not able to be seen owing to the inadequate staff at the hospital, and consequently the children are called upon to attend day after day. I believe those difficulties will also be got over very soon.
    Mr. ALDEN: Do the children already attend the medical clinic in the school itself or somewhere adjacent to the school?
    Mr. PEASE: I would rather have notice of that question.

    Elementary Scholars (Infantile Mortality).
    Mr. KINGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in spite of an increase in population and a decline in infantile mortality, the statistics for the last completed school year show a decrease of the number of elementary scholars in England; and whether the promised Education Bill will be so framed as to secure that in those areas, especially in London, where school places are insufficient for the child population, there shall be immediately supplied enough accommodation for all possible scholars?
    Mr. PEASE: The number of scholars on the registers of public elementary schools

    1645
    for the year ended 31st July, 1912, showed an increase of 3,823 over the figure for the previous year, and the actual increase in numbers of scholars on the registers over five years of age was 19,635. The hon. Member will be aware that the question whether children under five, who are under no obligation to attend school, shall be admitted to any particular school is one which the local education authority have discretion to decide. The hon. Member must wait until the introduction of the Education Bill for an answer to his second question.

    Bristol University.
    Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked whether the Advisory Committee on University Grants consider matters of internal economy connected with universities in receipt of public money; and, if so, whether they have made any report as to the advertisement and allocation of contracts by Bristol University?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: The Committee take into account for the purpose of the allocation of grants the whole educational work of the universities, but their functions are advisory and not supervisory, and it is undesirable that the Board should attempt, through their Advisory Committee, to intervene in matters referred to in the last part of the question.

    Assistant School Inspectors.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the assistant school inspectors about to be appointed by the Board from the ranks of the teachers in elementary schools will be of equal grade and standing and equally eligible for promotion with those who are appointed as inspectors from outside the teaching profession?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: No distinction will be drawn between assistant inspectors appointed from the ranks of teachers in elementary schools and assistant inspectors, if any, appointed from outside the teaching profession in respect of grade, standing, or eligibility for promotion.
    Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask what are the qualifications required of the inspectors about to be appointed?
    Mr. PEASE: A circular has just been issued which defines exactly the qualifications. I cannot attempt to give the various qualifications. They would be rather long to give to the House in reply to a question.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Would the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy of it?
    Mr. PEASE: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education how it is proposed to attract the best of the teachers in the elementary schools into the service of the Board as assistant inspectors if the initial salary does not exceed £200 a year; and whether he will consider the advisability of making the salaries of these new officers at least as high as the maximum salary of the headmasters whose schools will be subject to their inspection?
    Mr. PEASE: The salary offered (£200, rising by regular increments to £400 or £500), the conditions of service, the prospects of promotion, and the provisions for pension, etc., seem likely to prove sufficiently attractive to secure for the Board's service the best of the teachers in the elementary schools. I have already received some hundreds of applications for these posts, and notwithstanding the restrictions as to age and experience imposed with reference to the vacancies recently announced, it appears certain that I shall have a very large field of candidates to select from. It is not practicable to make the minimum salary of every assistant inspector equal to the maximum salary of any head teacher in a public elementary school.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: What is the amount of the annual increments of these salaries?
    Mr. PEASE: I think it is £15.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I should like to know whether these appointments are new appointments or whether they are to fill vacancies?
    Mr. PEASE: They are to fill vacancies.

    Universities and University Colleges.
    Mr. MOUNTasked the percentage which it is estimated that the Grants from the Exchequer will bear to the total incomes of universities and university colleges in England and in Wales, respectively, for the year 1911–12?
    Mr. PEASE: The figures for 1911–12 are not yet available. The hon. Member will find the figures for the previous year in Table 1, Volume I., of Reports from Universities and University Colleges in Great Britain which are in receipt of Grant from the Board of Education [1912, Cd. 6245].
    Mr. MOUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the figures are likely to be available for the year 1911–12?
    Mr. PEASE: Shortly, but I am afraid I cannot at the present moment give the hon. Member the date.

    Small-pox.
    Mr. BENTHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board whether there is small-pox in Devonport, Plymouth, and Stonehouse at the present time; and, if so, whether he is able to state the number of cases of small-pox that have recently been certified in the three towns?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): No cases of small-pox have been notified recently in the towns mentioned in the question.

    Derby Workhouse Infirmary.
    Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Local Government Board whether towards the end of the year 1911 Miss Lea, Local Government Board inspector, visited the Derby workhouse infirmary and reported upon the necessity of immediate alterations of an administrative character; whether her report was submitted to the chief inspector for the district, who, in turn, submitted the same to the chairman of the house committee in a letter marked private and confidential, and in a further letter intimated that this procedure received the approval of the Local Government Board; and, having regard to the fact that each member of the guardians is responsible to his constituents, and, further, is equally responsible with other members for the expenditure of public money, whether this procedure on the part of a Government inspector in ignoring the guardians as a representative body received his sanction; and, if not, will he take steps to prevent a recurrence of such action?
    Mr. BURNS: The report of the lady inspector was made after a visit in November, 1912, and by direction of the Local Government Board the contents of the report were brought to the notice of the house committee by the general inspector of the district. About fifteen guardians were present at the meeting of the house committee at which this was done, and the inspector gave the chairman of the committee a copy of the report, asking him to treat it as a matter dealt with in committee. The action of the inspector
    1648
    has my approval. It is obvious that there are often matters which are more properly dealt with in committee and not by the full board.
    Mr. THOMAS: Does that mean that the guardians are exempt from the responsibility of expenditure then?
    Mr. BURNS: Oh, no; certainly not.

    Food Adulteration.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he intends to introduce legislation in the present Session to prevent the adulteration of flour?
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to introduce a Bill in the present Session to ensure the purity of flour used in this country and to render illegal the use of phosphates and bleaching to secure whiteness?
    Mr. BURNS: I have a Bill in preparation dealing with the question of the purity of food, and I hope to introduce it shortly.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will it deal with the adulteration of flour?
    Mr. BURNS: It will include flour.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to introduce it?
    Mr. BURNS: When one gets an opportunity.

    London Water Supply.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the reported contamination of part of the London water supply; and if he can give any information on the subject to allay public apprehension?
    Mr. BURNS: My attention has been drawn to the matter referred to, and I have been in communication with the Metropolitan Water Board, who have been investigating it since the first complaints were received. The unpleasant taste which has been noticed in the water is due to the decay of algæ, but I am glad to be able to state that it is not in any way injurious to health. The source of the trouble having been discovered, steps have, I understand, been taken to remove the ground of complaint.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General whether the Hull Corporation have been given the option of purchasing the telephone exchanges in the Hull district at present under the control of the Department; and, if such option has been given, the intentions of the Department regarding the staff at present employed in those exchanges?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: An application has been made by the Hull Corporation for a new licence for their existing telephone exchange business in the Hull area, and they have been informed that the purchase of the local system taken over from the National Telephone Company will be a necessary condition of such a licence. They have also been informed that it will be necessary to make satisfactory arrangements so as to involve no hardship to any members of the telephone staff now in the employment of the Post Office whose transfer to the corporation system may be desirable.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the number of members of the electrical staff transferred from the National Telephone Company who have resigned from the service since the transfer?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: About eighty members of the electrical staff transferred from the National Telephone Company, out of a total of over 1,300, have resigned from the service since the transfer.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that on the 31st January, 1913, he decided that he would not discuss the question of lodging allowances to telephone employés because the Select Committee intended to make an interim Report on the matter, and seeing that the Committee has no such intention, whether he will now personally deal with the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am informed that the Select Committee has not arrived at any such conclusion as that suggested in the question.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information that the Select Committee do intend to issue an interim Report?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am not sure that they have actually arrived at a decision, but I have had some communication
    1650
    with the Chairman of the Committee on the question.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Postmaster-General whether for some time past there has been a growing demand for telephone facilities in the village of Wingham, Kent; and whether he will take steps to afford such facilities in Wingham without further delay?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have had a canvass made at Wingham, and estimates of the cost of providing a telephone exchange there are now being prepared. I hope soon to be in a position to say whether the provision of such facilities would be justified.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked what arrangement has been made for providing medical benefit for insured persons who may become entitled to it while absent from their usual places of residence for holidays or otherwise?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question is being brought before the Advisory Committee to-morrow. I have nothing to add in the meantime to the previous answers I have given on this subject.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: Will the Regulations be issued as soon as possible? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as the holiday season approaches it becomes a very serious matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There are Regulations issued and provision is being made, but as there is some criticism of the present provisions the whole matter is being brought before the Advisory Committee which represents the doctors and the approved societies.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any assurance that a definite arrangement which will meet criticism will be arrived at before the holiday season comes?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I recognise as much as the hon. Gentleman the urgency of the question.

    INSURANCE COMMISSION (WOMEN CLERKS).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is the practice to grant a Saturday half-holiday to the women clerks in the National Health Insurance Commission (England);

    1651
    and, if so, whether when employed upon overtime they are required either to forego the half-holiday or to sacrifice the pay for the first three hours of any overtime they may work; and whether the women clerks who were transferred from the Post Office (where they received payment at the usual overtime rates for all work done on Saturday afternoons) to the National Health Insurance (England) were so transferred on the understanding that the conditions of their employment would remain unaltered; and, if so, will he take steps to ensure that all overtime Saturday afternoon work done by these clerks shall be paid for?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In regard to the first part of the question, the arrangements for Saturday half-holidays in the Insurance Commission are governed by the Order in Council which allows alternate Saturday afternoons subject only to the requirements of public business. As regards the second part, the ordinary arrangements apply, under which six full working days a week must have been completed before any question of overtime (i.e., work in excess of the complement of such working days) can arise. The reply to the third part is that transfers to these (as in all other) cases are made subject to the conditions of overtime prevailing in the Department to which the officer is transferred. The fourth part of the question accordingly does not arise. The question of allowing a Saturday afternoon each week instead of alternate Saturdays in Government Departments is under consideration.

    INSURED PERSONS (NUMBER).
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of persons insured under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, the total number of persons who have received unemployment benefit, and the amount of money paid for the said benefit?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The total number of workpeople to whom unemployment books were issued up to the 15th March was 2,359,320. The total number of claims to benefit made direct to the Labour Exchanges and allowed by the insurance officers up to the 12th March was 163,717, and the total amount of the payments made in respect of these direct claims was approximately £105,000. The amount repayable up to that date to associations having arrangements with the Board of
    1652
    Trade under Section 105 of the Act, is not yet precisely known, but the number of claims of members of associations allowed up to the 12th March was 52,591, so that the total payments and refunds in respect of all claims during the period of about two months ending 12th March may be roughly estimated at about £140,000.
    Mr. CLYNES: May I ask whether the Free Labour Association, which claims to have a membership of about 1,000,000 is one of the associations referred to?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I think not.

    POST OFFICE TRADESMEN (ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster-General why a carpenter in the London engineering district who contributed under Section 53 of the National Insurance Act has been refused payment for sickness by the Department; and, as this carpenter was a contributor to the late National Telephone Company's pension fund, and was promised by the Postmaster-General that he should not suffer in any respect by transfer, what action he now proposes to take?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The officer concerned was insured under Section 53 of the National Insurance Act, instead of under the ordinary provisions of the Act, through a misapprehension. Steps are being taken by the Department to effect his insurance retrospectively in accordance with the ordinary provisions of the Act, and to pay to him, also by the Department, an amount equal to the sickness benefit to which he would have been entitled under the Act had his case been properly dealt with in the first instance. The question whether sick pay should be allowed by the Post Office to tradesmen in the engineering department, who were contributors to the late company's pension fund, was raised by a deputation I recently received, and is at present under consideration.

    LOCAL HEALTH COMMITTEES.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the difficulty that members of friendly societies and trade unions experience by attending meetings of the local health committees owing to no remuneration being allowed for loss of time; and, having regard to the importance of these working men representatives and their

    1653
    inability to bear the loss of wages consequent upon the meetings being held in the afternoons, he will take steps to reimburse them from the Treasury, with a view of enabling them to continue their services both for the benefit of the State and the organisations which they represent?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I can add nothing to the previous answers which I have given to this question.
    Mr. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of public men are resigning from these committees in consequence of their inability to stand the loss of time?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I am not aware of that; but I am sure the subject is more proper for debate than for question and answer.

    TRADE UNIONS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked whether a trade union which, to meet the requirements of the Insurance Commissioners, is put to the expense of reprinting its rules can charge the cost of the new rules to the health insurance administration account; and, if not, why this cannot be done, seeing that the expense in such a case is incurred for no other reason than that of administering the benefits of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In so far as the amended rules related to the operations of the society under the National Insurance Act, the cost of printing them could be charged to the administration account of the society under the Act. When the rules have been completely revised and reprinted, the cost would have to be apportioned between the State and private sides of the society.

    REMUNERATION OF AGENTS.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in order that agents in the employment of certain assurance societies under the National Insurance Act may receive competent wages for the work they perform, he will arrange that none of the 3s. 8d. per member allowed for administrative purposes is spent in any other way or, alternatively, will he arrange that, whatever proportion of this sum is saved by economical administration, such sums will only be diverted for other purposes on ascertaining that reasonable payment is made to such agents?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee on the 13th instant, the Commissioners have no power to interfere in the rates of remuneration paid to agents for such work as they do for the National Insurance Act in addition to their normal work, as this is a matter to be settled between themselves and the societies employing them. The funds of a society are held for the benefit of the members, to whose advantage any saving due to economical administration accrues.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not competent for the Treasury to see that anything that is saved can be diverted to this purpose?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Anything saved in this way is used for the benefit of the members in order to give them increased medical benefits.

    Scottish Universities (Grants).
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the additional Grant is being withheld from any Scottish university; and, if so, why?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is proposed to pay the full Grant this year to all the Scottish universities, subject in the case of Edinburgh University to the appointment of a committee (as has already been done by Glasgow University) to consider the establishment of an inclusive fee in medicine.

    Public Record Office (Wales).
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the event of a Public Record Office being established in Wales for Welsh public records, he will undertake that only records dealing exclusively with Wales shall be removed to such office?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The recommendation of the Royal Commission on Public Records for the transfer to Wales of Welsh records does not appear to go beyond records dealing exclusively with Wales. As no decision has yet been reached upon it, I do not think it desirable to give the undertaking suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. SYKES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is much apprehension on the subject in Cheshire?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of the fact. No decision has been come to up to the present.

    Civil Service Estimates.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the total Civil Service Estimates, including those on other Estimates relating to health insurance, for the year 1913–14 amount to £6,991,844; and whether the estimate of the Government actuaries for the same year was £3,852,500?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The figure given by the hon. Gentleman appears to include the special Grant of £125,000 for the general treatment of tuberculosis amongst uninsured persons and £127,335 in respect of the National Insurance Audit Department. The cost of this latter service in relation to health insurance is also shown in the notes to the other Estimates, and thus appears twice over in the hon. Member's figure. The correct figure is thus £6,739,509. The amount included in this sum in respect of the State proportion of benefits and of the cost of administration of benefits (including contributions to the Navy and Army Special Fund and on account of low-paid labour) is £4,006,850–about £43,000 less than the actuarial estimate, which, as the hon. Member will see from paragraph 16 of Cd. 5983, was £4,050,000. The sum of £3,852,500 quoted by the hon. Member does not include the State contribution in respect of deposit contributors. The balance of £6,739,509–£2,733,000–is due as regards £1,877,000 to the special Medical Grant, and as regards the remainder to the cost of the central administration, which was expressly excluded from the actuaries' estimate.

    Irish Butter and Eggs (Consignments).
    Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the decision has been come to by English and Scotch railway companies insisting on the full name and address of the consignee being attached to every package of butter and eggs exported from Ireland to England and Scotland; that the system for the last forty years has been to consign the goods to English and Scotch termini to the order of the Irish trader; whether the new regulation is at all a legal one; whether this is an innovation calculated to strike a serious blow at the butter and egg trade between the two countries; whether notice of this revolutionary change has been given by the Railway Clearing House only ten or fourteen days ago, and whether, in view of these facts, he will urge its immediate with-
    1656
    drawal, or at least postponement, in order to avoid the difficulty and inconvenience caused thereby at the coming market at Cookstown, county Tyrone, and elsewhere throughout Ireland, on Saturday, 29th March?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am aware that the British and Irish railway companies have announced their intention of requiring that all goods consigned by rail, with certain exceptions, shall in future be sufficently addressed, but I understand that the British companies are prepared to accept a distinguishing mark and the name of the station of destination as sufficient. The question whether the requirement is a legal one is not a matter upon which I can express an opinion, but I should be glad to consider any case in which it is represented that real hardship will be caused.
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Regulations apply to Danish butter and other foreign imports as well as to Irish produce?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I should like notice of that question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NOTICES OF MOTION.
    NATIONAL THEATRE.
    On this day four weeks to call attention to the movement for a national theatre, and to move a Resolution. — [Mr. Mackinder.]
    On this day four weeks to call attention to the opium traffic in the East, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Higham.]
    RURAL DISTRICTS.
    On this day four weeks to call attention to the condition of the rural districts in Great Britain, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Beck.]
  BILL PRESENTED.
    AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKS BILL.
    "To provide for the marking of all imported meat and agricultural produce and for the registration of dealers in such meat." Presented by Mr. BARNSTON; supported by Mr. Laurence Hardy, Sir Courtenay Warner, Sir Luke White, Mr. Brace, Mr. Courthope, and Mr. Stanier; to be read a second time upon Monday, 7th April, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 1.—(Issue of £41,027,000 out of the Consolidated Fund for the Service of the Year Ending 31st March, 1914.)
    The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland, and apply towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand nine hundred and fourteen the sum of forty-one million twenty-seven thousand pounds.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to call your attention to the fact that I rose.
    The CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the hon. Member's voice.
    Mr. BOOTH: I did rise, but I was unable, owing to the shouts coming from the other side, to make my voice heard. I certainly rose.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member had spoken I should have noticed him. I was not anticipating a Division.
    Mr. BOOTH: I did speak, Sir.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's voice did not reach me. I am afraid that, having collected the voices, I cannot go back on that.
    Mr. BECK: On a point of Order. I beg to assure you, Sir, that I did see my hon. Friend rise.
    Sir W. BYLES: Will you allow me to say, Sir, that I was rising myself. [Interruption.] We shall regard it as most unfair unless we are allowed to speak.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member should have taken more active steps if he wished to make any observations. Having twice collected the voices, it is not in my power to go back.
    Mr. BOOTH: I should like to appeal to you, Sir, to know what I am to do. I rose in order to catch your eye; then as you were proceeding to put the Question to the Committee, I said, "Mr. Whitley."
    The CHAIRMAN: It has been pointed out to me that although I had called for the Ayes and the Noes, I had not declared which of the two had it. Therefore, I have not completely put the Question, and the hon. Member is entitled to address me on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask you whether it is not the invariable practice that when the voices are collected, that is to say, when both the Ayes and the Noes have responded to your request, no further Debate can take place; whether that has not been the invariable custom of the House for the last 200 years; and whether, as a matter of fact, you having said in response to me when I challenged your statement that the Ayes had it, I did not again repeat "The Noes have it."
    Mr. LEIF JONES: May I say that although you, Sir, had to some extent collected the voices, and had indeed asked for the Ayes or Noes, there was scarcely anyone in the Committee who said "Aye," and you turned to the other side,

    1675
    and while you were turning, my hon. Friend rose to my certain knowledge, and, before you had collected the "Noes," he certainly called your name. I therefore submit in that case he was in time, seeing that although you had collected the "Ayes" you certainly had not collected the "Noes" before he rose.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The question you put was, "I think the Ayes have it," and I said, "The Noes have it." You then said, "I think the Ayes have it," and I repeated, "The Noes have it." It was not until after that that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who had not risen before, rose.
    The CHAIRMAN: The challenge was so unexpected that I have thought it my duty to consult my advisers at my side. Their opinion was that I had not completed putting the question.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. I venture to point out that the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has misstated—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot address me on that point of Order. I have given my decision on that question and I have called on Mr. Booth.
    Mr. BOOTH: I must ask the indulgence of the House, and particularly of great financial critics like the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who is not so closely associated with me to-day as he sometimes is, if I raise a point which has troubled me for a very long time. I spent the first two years in this House listening to financial business and carefully following it. There are two matters in this Clause on which I should like some enlightenment. The Clause reads:—
    "The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and apply towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service for the year ending on 31st day of March."
    I should like to know why 31st March has always been regarded, without variation, as the suitable time for the finances to be made up? The ordinary calendar year ends on 31st December, but the finances of the year, as settled by this Clause, are made to terminate on 31st March. The Opposition will agree with me that this
    1676
    is a time to go to the foundation of the matter and ask ourselves whether 31st March is really an ideal date. I am not prepared, with the limited information, which back benchers have, to move a direct Amendment on this point, but if I have a satisfactory answer I may be able to withdraw my opposition to this Clause. The 31st March is the date which seems to have been adopted by the House from time immemorial as the date for the termination of the finances, and the local authorities have followed the example set by the House. That has sometimes resulted in inconvenience. Local authorities have always been able to look to this House for guidance. If the finances of the nation are carried from one 31st March to 31st March in the subsequent year, it is a natural thing that local authorities should likewise bring their finances up to the same period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I would submit that the burden of justification does not fall upon a new Member. I prefer to leave it to an expert like the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury).
    4.0 P.M.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the date has already been fixed in Committee of Supply, and it will not be competent to move an Amendment to alter the date.
    Mr. BOOTH: I was not intending to move an Amendment. What the Clause does is to set the seal of the House upon these Votes in Supply by appropriating them, and I want to raise a point on that.
    Mr. HOPE: I submit, as a point of Order, that as this is not an Appropriation Bill the hon. Member is not entitled to discuss it as if it were?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is quite true. It is not an Appropriation Bill. It is simply authorising the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums already voted in Committee of Supply.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Do I understand you, Sir, to rule that my hon. Friend is entirely precluded from discussing the date in question? Is it not competent for him to discuss 1st April as distinct from 31st March?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. If it cannot be followed up by an Amendment it is clearly not open to debate. It is a point that has been settled in Supply.
    Sir J. H. DALZIEL: Will it be possible for the hon. Member to argue that the amount £41,000,000 is too high?
    Mr. CHAIRMAN: No, it has often been ruled that it is impossible to propose a variation or reduction of the amount on the Consolidated Fund Bill. It must correspond with the amount voted in Committee of Supply and Ways and Means and approved by the House.
    Sir J. H. DALZIEL: May I submit that, following precedent, it would be competent for the hon. Member to make an appeal to the Government to endeavour to reduce this amount when they next bring a Consolidated Fund Bill forward?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. I think that would be asking the House to go back on previous decisions. I think it has often been ruled that that cannot be done.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Would it not be in order to argue that the Government in taking this £41,000,000 have taken Supply for too long or too short a period as the case may be? This is about four or five months' Supply, and a year or two ago the Government took six months' Supply. In the present Bill they have reverted to an old practice, of taking four or five months' Supply. Is it not in order for any Member of the House to protest against the action of the Government in taking four months instead of six months' Supply?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, that point ought to have been raised on the Vote in Committee. It certainly cannot be raised at this stage.
    Mr. BOOTH: There are certain considerations which will affect my vote on this Clause and I submit that I am entitled to put the considerations which will affect my vote without justifying a particular Amendment, which you might say would be out of order. I am anxious to thoroughly understand, when I vote, what I am doing. While hon. Members come here to vote blind those of us who do not hesitate to differ from our own friends when we think it necessary are entitled to thoroughly analyse the Clause so that we may give a conscientious vote. I gather there are many hon. Members opposite, loyal, constitutional Members, who wish to vote Supplies to the Crown who are in the same difficulty. They are not able to vote for the Clause without further explanation. There are several of these points which to my mind make the matter to some extent
    1678
    obscure. One of these points is the date, and while I am not suggesting any other date, we are entitled to ask why this date continually recurs.
    The CHAIRMAN: It has been ruled frequently that that point cannot be raised at this stage of the Bill. The date must correspond with the date in Committee.
    Mr. BECK: Is it not possible to ask for a little information on constitutional practice? Are we not entitled to know why the Consolidated Fund Bill is in this particular form?
    Mr. BOOTH: I am much obliged to you, Sir, for giving an explanation for the date which I was seeking. Having got it from you, I think it comes with more power than even I should take it from my own leader, and I accept it without question. But I want to ask, as a new Member seeking information, exactly the meaning of this phrase "issued out of the Consolidated Fund." They are technical words, and no doubt their meaning to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is clear. But the House is entitled to have occasionally put before it, after a long lapse of years, some definite statement from our Front Bench as to how they will carry out this Clause.
    Viscount HELMSLEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his consent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
    Mr. BOOTH: I cannot find it on the records of the House. I have been looking for several years back over these debates. I hope the older Members will be patient while the younger Members have an explanation from the Government as to the procedure which will be taken under this authorisation in Clause 1, namely, that the Treasury may "issue out of the Consolidated Fund." I will call attention to the words which follow:—
    "The Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
    We are continuing this form of words, and I should like to ask whether I should be in order in asking for a statement from the Government as to whether that will need to be varied in case the Local Government Bill for Ireland becomes law.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is really not permissible. This Clause embodies simply

    1679
    the formal method of carrying out the decisions of the House in Committee of Supply and Ways and Means. The question the hon. Member is raising is really not in order.
    Mr. BOOTH: Under those circumstances— [HON. MEMBERS: "Your majority is safe."] One would think there was a Tariff Reformer returned for Kendal.
    The CHAIRMANrose—
    Mr. KINGrose.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. King) should remember to keep seated when the Chairman is on his feet. The hon. Member (Mr. Booth) has not been able to discover anything properly relevant to the discussion of the Clause. I think I have heard the hon. Member patiently.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it the ruling of the Chair that because an Amendment to this Clause is impossible it is impossible to discuss questions which might have been the subject matter of an Amendment?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has quite correctly apprehended the Rule.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I have been asked what would be the effect if the Amendment proposed were carried.
    Mr. NORMAN CRAIG: On a point of Order. Having regard to the fact that you have said the questions put by the hon. Member were irrelevant, is it in order to answer irrelevant questions?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, it is not. I should stop the right hon. Gentleman if that was what he was proposing.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We are asked to decide whether this Clause should be rejected or not, and I am sure I shall only be fulfilling my duty in the position I occupy—[Interruption]—if I state what the consequences of its rejection would be, for it appears that every Member of the House is not quite clear what the consequences would be if the Clause was excised from the Bill. This is the operative Clause in the Bill, and if it were excised the whole Bill goes, and no payment could be made out of the Consolidated Fund for services of which the House has already approved in a series of discussions in Committee. [The right hon. Gentleman here read the words of the Clause.] Supposing
    1680
    the Amendment was carried, there would be no money to carry on the Supply of the Army and the Supply of the Navy—[Interruption]—surely an amazing proposition for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make—[Interruption]—without a word of discussion, and without any justification of their own action, either before the House or the country, to suggest that this House should reject the Clause. Not only so, but hon. Gentlemen cannot even advance any justification of their action by showing that the items which are here gathered together, and out of which money is to be paid by the Consolidated Fund, have not been approved by the House. The Consolidated Fund Bill, as the hon. Gentleman opposite knows, is the only way in which money can be released which has been voted in Committee and in Ways and Means. It is not, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) seemed to think, an Appropriation Bill, and that accounts for some of the misapprehension. The money is appropriated at the end of the Session, in August, and consequently this money can be used as general money liberated either for the Navy or the Army or any of the Civil Services.
    But what has happened? A Vote on Account has already been given. We discussed very fully, both in Committee and on the Report stage, the various items of the Vote on Account, and hon. Gentlemen had every opportunity for discussion that could be given them. I know myself that I was occupied yesterday answering questions with regard to the money which they now profess not to desire to give to the public services. You may say that the Civil Services can stay after 31st March without money, but that does not sound to me very attractive, and it does not seem to me a very patriotic action. What about the Army and the Navy? I would ask the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) whether he is going to vote for an Amendment the only result of which could be that after 31st March no money could be provided as pay for the sailor? I suggest that he should write that in his election address. All this is proposed without a word of justification either in the House or the country outside. Throw the finances into confusion, starve the Navy, starve the Army, do anything you like without any sense of responsibility! Certainly not since I have been in any way connected with the public service has such a suggestion ever been made before, and hon. Gentlemen behind me,

    1681
    whose recollection goes back many years, and even a generation, tell me that they do not remember any such suggestion before.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has imputed to hon. Members on this side of the House an objection to the Clause in the Bill. You have already ruled that you have not collected the voices.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, was giving to the Committee reasons why the Committee should not negative this Clause.
    Mr. M'NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman, I submit, is going further than that, because he is imputing to hon. Members on this side of the House action of which they are not guilty.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter that can be argued. The right hon. Gentleman is surely entitled to show what the effect will be of rejecting the Clause in the Bill.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The interruption of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division puts a new phase on the controversy. I agree that if the hon. Gentleman assures us that neither he nor his Friends have any desire after consideration—[Interruption]—after the consequences which I considered it my duty to point out to the House, and which I can realise he did not realise, would ensue—if on reflection he realises that there are some things too discreditable even for a discredited Opposition to propose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw," and Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: Will hon. Members be good enough to observe silence and not interrupt? The right hon. Gentleman has made a strong statement, but there was nothing, in my opinion, that was un-parliamentary in it, or I would have asked him to withdraw it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House in controversy make strong statements, and there is, of course, an opportunity to reply. I do not think that there is any reason for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman in the way hon. Members have done. It is relevant to point out what would be the consequences of rejecting the Clause in the Bill, and that, I think, can be done by argument, and needs no other means.
    Mr. REMNANT: Not to call us discredited.
    Mr. MASTERMANrose amid cries of "Withdraw."
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEalso rose.
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Yes, Sir. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in referring to this side of the House as a discredited Opposition?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: On the point of Order, Mr. Chairman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
    The CHAIRMAN: There is nothing to withdraw. The term used by the right hon. Gentleman is one which, I think, I have frequently heard applied from that side of the House to the Government—not merely by the present Opposition, but by other Oppositions to the Government of the day. The Chair naturally does not desire that such strong phrases should be used, but still it is not right on my part to say that it is unparliamentary.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I rather gather, Mr. Whitley, that you did not hear the expression which was used by the right hon. Gentleman. Is it in order to say "too disgraceful?"
    Mr. MASTERMANrose and was received with cries of "Withdraw."
    The CHAIRMAN: There appears to be some doubt as to what the phrase used was. [HON. MEMBERS: "We all heard it."]
    Mr. MASTERMAN: May I explain what I said? [HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Withdraw."]
    The CHAIRMAN: There appears to be some doubt—[HON. MEMBERS: "No doubt."]—as to what the phrase was that was used. [HON. MEMBERS: "None at all," and "There is no doubt."] The right hon. Gentleman is surely entitled to be heard.
    Mr. MASTERMANrose, and was again received with cries of "Withdraw."
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the word "disgraceful" was used. The word I heard at the Table was "discreditable." [HON. MEMBERS: "NO," "Both," and "Order."] The expression which was used is perfectly orderly. If the word "disgraceful" was used, in my opinion that is going beyond Parliamentary order. I should

    1683
    wish the right hon. Gentleman to explain the use of that word—the sense in which he used it. I did not myself understand that it was used.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If I used the word "disgraceful"—[HON. MEMBERS: "With-
    draw."] The word I used was "discreditable." That was the only word I did use.
    The CHAIRMANthen put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 213.

    Division No. 7.]

    AYES.

    [4.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Agar-Robartes Hon. T. C. R.

    Gilhooly, James

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Alden, Percy

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meagher, Michael

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Goldstone, Frank

    Middlebrook, William

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Molloy, Michael

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Hackett, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Morrell, Philip

    Barton, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morison, Hector

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton. Beds)

    Muldoon, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Munro, R.

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Boland, John Pius

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hayward, Evan

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Neilson, Francis

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Nuttall, Harry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hinds, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Holmes. Daniel Turner

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs, Heywood)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Grady, James

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Malley, William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Clough, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Clynes, John R.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Shee, James John

    Comoton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    John, Edward Thomas

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Crean, Eugene

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Crooks, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jowett, F. W.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Keating. Matthew

    Pointer, Joseph

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kelly, Edward

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Dawes, J. A.

    King, J.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Radford, G. H.

    Dillon, John

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Reddy, M.

    Doris, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Falconer, James

    Maclean, Donald

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Field, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowlands, James

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    France, Gerald Asbburner

    Manfield, Harry

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Thomas, James Henry

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Sheehy, David

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Wing, Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Webb, H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr-

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Malcolm, Ian

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gardner, Ernest

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Banner, J. S. Harmood-

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Moore, William

    Barnston, Harry

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Goldman, C. S.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Newman, John R. P.

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Grant, J. A.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gretton, John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Bird, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Blair, Reginald

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Boyton, James

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    pretyman, Ernest George

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Butcher, John George

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Campion, W. R.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Carson, Rt Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r., E.)

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stanier, Beville

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stewart, Gershom

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Swift, Rigby

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Croft, H. P.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Dixon, C. H.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Valentia, Viscount

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Fell, Arthur

    Macmaster, Donald

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    1686

    1687

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Younger, Sir George

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Mildmay and Mr. Joynson-Hicks

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power for the Treasury to Borrow).
    (1) The Treasury may borrow from any person, by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise, and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sum, any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole forty-one million twenty-seven thousand pounds.
    (2) The date of payment of any Treasury Bills issued under this Section shall be a date not later than the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, and Section 6 of the Treasury Bills Act, 1877 (which relates to the renewal of Bills), shall not apply with respect to those Bills.
    (3) Any money borrowed otherwise than on Treasury Bills shall be repaid, with interest not exceeding five pounds per cent. per annum, out of the growing produce of the Consolidated Fund, at any period not later than the next succeeding quarter to that in which the money was borrowed.
    (4) Any money borrowed under this Section shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer, and shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund, and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "forty-one million, twenty-seven thousand pounds" in order to insert instead thereof the words "five million pounds."
    I do not think that it is wise to give this Government too great borrowing powers and I therefore propose this Amendment. I do not know whether the Secretary to the Treasury will have any very good argument to advance in support of the proposal that the amount of £41,027,000 should be left in the Bill, but to my mind it is necessary to exercise some control, and therefore I move this Amendment.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: On a point of Order. Did I understand you, Sir, to say on a previous occasion to-day that it
    1688
    would be out of order to move any reduction.
    The CHAIRMAN: That was as to the amount to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, which must correspond with the Votes in Supply. This Clause refers to powers of temporary borrowing, and I do not see why it should not be competent to the hon. Member to propose the substitution of a lesser sum.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This is the normal Clause as it has been passed for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that this is the normal Clause, and therefore apparently he is under the impression that it requires no justification. That impression apparently is shared by hon. Members opposite, because they cheered loudly when the right hon. Gentleman said that this was the normal Clause. Was not the Clause which we were discussing a few moments ago the normal Clause, and a much more normal Clause than the present one, because the other Clause had been approved by the House, whereas this is practically a new Clause which has never been submitted to the House and which confers upon the Government certain powers of borrowing? I hope this shows how very unsatisfactory is the state of affairs at the present moment, when hon. Gentlemen opposite consider it decent to conduct the affairs of the nation in this way—when they can waste time and be called to order, and when actually a right hon. Gentleman who is a Member of the Government, and occupies a prominent position on the Front Bench, rises to obstruct the proceedings and waste time. When there is a reason, and a very excellent reason, for not entrusting this Government with borrowing powers, the only Member of the Front Bench who got up is the right hon. Gentleman who obstructed the proceedings, and who now thinks that all it is necessary to say is that this is a normal Clause.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I want, with all respect, to make the submission to you, Sir, with regard to this Amendment and to your ruling, that it is in order. May I suggest to you that by accepting the hon. Baronet's Amendment we would deny

    1689
    borrowing powers to the Government, and, in effect, destroy the purpose of this Bill, and therefore it cannot be in order, because, if you deny the Government power to borrow, you deny them the power, in certain circumstances, of carrying on the services of this country.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. It is a question of the merits.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The reason I propose to vote with my hon. Friend on this Amendment is because the only defence against it was made by the right hon. Gentleman, who this afternoon did nothing but deliberately and purposely obstruct, the proceedings. That being so, unless the Government have someone else to put up in order to explain this matter other than the right hon. Gentleman, who by his conduct this afternoon has discredited himself, I for one shall not only vote for the Amendment, but shall take every means in my power to resist this proposal.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury's defence of this Clause was that it is a normal Clause. I am glad to think that the proceedings taken by the Government this afternoon are not the normal proceedings which Governments have habitually taken in the history of this House. Anything more disgraceful—
    The CHAIRMAN: When the right hon. Gentleman was said to have used that word, and attention was called to it, I ruled that it was not a Parliamentary word, and I am sure the hon. Member will withdraw it.
    Mr. MOORE: If the hon. Member withdraws it, I will repeat it.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: I rise to a point of Order. I believe, Sir, you have ruled that the word "disgraceful" is out of order. May I draw your attention to the fact that during the last Session this very point came up before the Speaker, who ruled that it was not out of order. I made objection respectfully to the Speaker and the Speaker ruled upon that occasion that the circumstances controlled the decision of the Chair in each case.
    Mr. MOORE: On a point of Order—
    The CHAIRMAN: I will hear the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I wish to answer the point of Order.
    Mr. MOORE: I submit, Sir, that your ruling on should be submitted to thee Clerk at the Table.
    The CHAIRMAN: I always take the advice of those appointed to advise me when I think it necessary. The hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend is quite correct in what he says, that there have been cases in which rulings have been given on that word "disgraceful" in both directions, and it remains for the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, to use his discretion when the occasion, arises. There are in the books many precedents in either direction. This afternoon I stated that the word, if it were used by a Member of the Government, was one that I should not allow, and I think it would be well for the hon. Member for Down to withdraw it and obey my decision.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. May I submit to you, Sir, that the question submitted to the Speaker was as to the word "disgraceful," and it was decided that it depended on the circumstances in each individual case. But the fact that you ruled it out of Order when it was said the right hon. Gentleman opposite used it, in no way prevents an hon. Member on this side from describing as disgraceful, conduct which appears to him to be disgraceful. It is for you, Sir, to decide whether the use of the word "disgraceful" in not permissible under the circumstances in which my hon. Friend speaks.
    Mr. MOORE: I wish to ask you, Sir, on a point of Order, whether you have ruled the expression "disgraceful" with regard to this afternoon's proceedings as out of Order?
    The CHAIRMAN: I said that if the word had been used by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury it was out of order, and I have decided similarly as to the observation of the hon. Member, and I am sure he will withdraw it.
    Mr. MOORE: Mr. Whitley, I beg to say they are disgraceful proceedings.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Whatever may have been done by other hon. Gentleman or right hon. Gentlemen in this. House, I wish to obey your ruling, Sir, and, whatever may be my private opinion as to these proceedings, and however much I may think in my own mind that they are disgraceful, I will conform to the tradi-

    1691
    tions of the House, and I will say that they are too discreditable even for this Government.
    Mr. MOORE: I wish to take the opportunity of saying in public what I think in private. I beg to say in public, in the most sincere manner at my command, that the proceedings this afternoon are a disgrace to the House of Commons, and I go further and I say that the action of the Secretary to the Treasury this afternoon was a piece of disgraceful trickery.
    The CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the expression.
    Mr. MOORE: I understand, Sir, that you ask me to withdraw that expression. I absolutely refuse to do so.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that the temper of the House is agreeable to any Member of this Assembly, and I should like, if I can, to put an end to proceedings of which we do not approve. I am bound to state that I feel certain that if the Prime Minister had been present he would not have disagreed with me when I said that for what has happened the Government and the Government alone, in my judgment, are to blame. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] What I wish to point out is—[An HON. MEMBER: "Is it a point of Order?"] By the admission of the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I think it is for the advantage of the House that I should say this. [Interruption, and an HON. MEMBER: "There is nothing before the House."]
    The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I thought
    he was rising on a point of Order. The hon. Member for North Armagh has declined my request that he should make a withdrawal of that expression, and, therefore, I am bound, under the Rules of the House, to direct him to withdraw from this day's proceedings.
    Mr. MOOREmade some observations which were inaudible.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: When you put the Question just now, I rose in my place, and wished to continue the Debate. Earlier in to-day's proceedings, when an hon. Member opposite got up under very similar circumstances, you, having taken the advice of your advisers at the Table, allowed him to proceed, although you had already put the Question. Under those circumstances I claim to be allowed to address the House on this subject.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member rose when the Question was put a second time. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no, the first time," and other HON. MEMBERS: "He did not rise the first time," and "Go on with the Division."]
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Do not make the House of Commons into a pot-house.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: I rose to address the House when he put the Question for the first time. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did not."]
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 199.

    Division No. 8.]

    AYES.

    [5.2 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy.)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Alden, Percy

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Dawes, J. A.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Delany, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Dillon, John

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Doris, William

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Duffy, William J.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Clough, William

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Barton, William

    Clynes, John R.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Falconer, James

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Bentham, G. J.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Boland, John Pius

    Crean, Eugene

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Crooks, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Field, William

    Lynch, A. A.

    Reddy, M.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Maclean, Donald

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Gilhooly, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Goldstone, Frank

    M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lines, Spalding)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Manfield, Harry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rowlands, James

    Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hackett, John

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Meagher, Michael

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Middlebrook, William

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Molloy, Michael

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Sheehy, David

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mooney, John J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Hayward, Evan

    Morrell, Philip

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morison, Hector

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Snowden, Philip

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Muldoon, John

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Munro, R.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Sutton, John E.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hinds, John

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Hodge, John

    Neilson, Francis

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hogge, James Myles

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Thomas, James Henry

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Nuttall, Harry

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Waring, Walter

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Dowd, John

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Grady, James

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Malley, William

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Webb, H.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shee, James John

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Keating, Matthew

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kelly, Edward

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    King, J.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wing, Thomas

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Leach, Charles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Radford, G. H.

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    1694

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Campion, W. R.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Bird, Alfred

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Blair, Reginald

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Cassel, Felix

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Boyton, James

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Barnston, Harry

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Bull, Sir William James

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r., E.)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Butcher, John George

    Clyde, J. Avon

    1695

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peet

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Croft, H. P.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sandys, G. J.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Fell, Arthur

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Fleming, Valentine

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Forster, Henry William

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Swift, Rigby

    Gardner, Ernest

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Gilmour Captain John

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Goldman, C. S.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent. St. Augustine's)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Gordon, Hon. John Howard (Brighton)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Malcolm, Ian

    Valentia, Viscount

    Grant, J. A.

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mason, James F (Windsor)

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Younger, Sir George

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Gretton and Lord A. Thynne.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Sir F. BANBURY: I have another Amendment to move.
    Sir GODFREY BARING: I wish to direct your attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh, who a short time ago was directed by you to withdraw, is still present.
    Mr. MOORE: I did not go.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh is, I think, himself directing my attention to that fact. I have to remind him of the Rules of the House, under which I am bound to act, when an hon. Member declines to have regard to the authority of the Chair, and that is to order that he withdraw from the remainder of this day's Sitting. Do I understand that he declines to do so?
    Mr. MOORE: I will take the opinion of the House on it. I do not think it is a fair ruling.
    Captain CRAIG: Will you turn out Masterman at the same time?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Turn out the pot-house crowd.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must report the hon. Member to the House for having disregarded the authority of the Chair.
    Mr. MOORE: Was it the Clerk or the Chair?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have to name the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh for disregarding the authority of the Chair, and the Sitting will be suspended pending the arrival of Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. SPEAKERhaving taken the Chair,
    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to report to you that it has been my duty to name the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh for having disregarded the authority of the Chair.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, "That the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh be suspended from the service of this House."
    Question proposed, "That Mr. William Moore be suspended from the service of the House."
    Captain CRAIG: Are we permitted to discuss this question? It seems to me a gross scandal.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Standing Order 18 says—
    "and the Speaker shall on a Motion being made thereupon put the same Question without amendment, adjournment, or debate."
    The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 150.

    Division No. 9.]

    AYES.

    [5.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dawes, J. A.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Alden, Percy

    Delany, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hinds, John

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hodge, John

    Arnold, Sydney

    Dillon, John

    Hogge, James Myles

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Doris, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hudson, Walter

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Barton, William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Falconer, James

    John, Edward Thomas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Boland, John Pius

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Field, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jowett, F. W.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Brunner, John F. L.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Kelly, Edward

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Kilbride, Denis

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    King, J.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Leach, Charles

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hackett, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Clough, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Clynes, John R.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    McGhee, Richard

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Maclean, Donald

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hayden, John Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Crooks, William

    Hayward, Evan

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hazleton, Richard

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Captain CRAIG: Then I should not be in order in including two or three hon. Members opposite who have behaved in a most abominable manner?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know what has occurred in Committee.
    Captain CRAIG: It is just as well.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: You having informed the House that you know nothing of what has taken place, will it be open to Members of the House to inform you?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no opportunity. I will inform myself to-morrow.
    Question put, "That Mr. William Moore be suspended from the service of the House."
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is in the House, I must ask him to observe the Resolution of the House and to withdraw.
    Mr. MOORE: I have always obeyed your ruling with pleasure, and will do so on the present occasion.
    An HON. MEMBER: Do not make a speech.
    Captain CRAIG: That interrupter also is entitled to be suspended from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It was certainly a very improper observation.
    Captain CRAIG: A dirty cad!
    The hon. and learned Member for North Armagh then withdrew.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.
    Further considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. I should like to ask your ruling whether it is in order for an hon. Member below the Gangway, a new Baronet, the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham), to speak of Members on this side of the House as "a pot-house crowd"?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I used that expression when hon. Members opposite were disgracing the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."]
    The CHAIRMAN: I must call on the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division to withdraw the word "disgraceful."
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: A "pot-house crowd."
    The CHAIRMAN: I must call on the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division to withdraw the term he used. [Interruption.] May I say that, if the Committee will be good enough to support me, I do not intend to allow hon. Members on either side or in any quarter of the House to use such language, which is not for the good
    1702
    of the House of Commons. I call upon the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division to withdraw the term which he used.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I have never disobeyed an order of the Chair, but I regret very much, feeling as I do, the disgraceful scene, that I cannot withdraw the expression.
    The CHAIRMAN: Under the Standing Order, I must call upon the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this day's proceedings.
    The hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division then withdrew.
    The CHAIRMANcalled upon Sir F. Banbury.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: On a point of Order. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the afternoon, when you had collected the voices of the House, an hon. Member opposite rose to speak and claimed to be allowed to address the House.
    The CHAIRMAN: That point was raised and settled. Since then the House has resumed, and we have again gone into Committee, and I cannot go back upon the matter.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: On a point of Order. Mr. Whitley, may I ask your ruling upon this point for the necessary guidance of the House in the future? I understand from the two rulings which you have given this afternoon that it is open to the Chairman, or presumably Mr. Speaker, to call upon an hon. Member to address the House although the Question has been once put from the Chair, but that it is not open to the Chairman to call upon an hon. Member who may rise to speak when the Question is being put for the second time. That was the only distinction between the two cases this afternoon. I understood you to draw that distinction, and I only wished to know whether I am right in so understanding?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is perfectly right. After two minutes have

    1703
    elapsed and the Question is put for the second time there can be no doubt that the opportunity is past for the House to challenge the Question.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen," in order to insert instead thereof the words "thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen." The effect of my Amendment will be—
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. I handed in an Amendment to omit the words "the thirty-first day," and to insert instead thereof the words "the twenty-ninth." Does not my Amendment precede that of the hon. Baronet?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments deal with the same place in the Sub-section, but as the hon. Baronet had previously risen, I think I must give him precedence.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There are very excellent financial reasons why my Amendment should be carried. The intention and the effect of it will be to shorten the date to three months for which the Government can issue Treasury Bills. The Money Market, not only of London, but the Money Markets of the world at the present time are in a very tender state. The rate of interest is exceedingly high. There is a general feeling of apprehension as to what may or may not occur. There are questions in men's minds as to whether there may be peace or war, and in other matters as to what there may or may not be. Therefore it seems to me that a year is too long to give power to the Government to borrow. My experience is that it is advisable when money is dear not to borrow money for a long period. I have never heard it held that when money is dear it is a good thing to take advantage of the high rate, though the converse may be true that it is well to take advantage of the rate of money being low to borrow for a considerable period. It may be said that the Government do not intend to avail themselves to the full of the powers which are in this particular Clause, but if they ask for power to borrow money for one year they do not intend to borrow for the shorter period! The question arises, are the Government sufficiently capable of exercising a discretion in the matter? Has the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor,
    1704
    of the Exchequer any such particular qualifications as would give him power to be able to judge whether it is expedient to borrow money for a short or a long time? I do not think he has. The right hon. Gentleman is as innocent as a babe unborn in these matters. Therefore I am now proposing that in the interests of the taxpayers and of the country that we should limit the period for which the Treasury Bills can be issued. As the House knows, transactions in Treasury Bills are for three or six months usually, and occasionally for a year. Three months' Bills would give the right hon. Gentleman sufficient money to go on with for the service of the country, while at the same time it would not only give control to this House of Commons in regard to finance—which I think is very necessary—but it would prevent any chance of the right hon. Gentleman entering into an improvident bargain and borrowing money at a high rate of interest and for a longer period than is necessary. This really is a financial question, and is one of considerable importance.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to reply to what he has said. I can speak with some experience in this matter, having been Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Clause, as it appears in the Bill, is, so far as my experience goes, in the form invariably taken, and I think the hon. Baronet will agree with me. Successive Governments have adopted this form. I am not myself particularly wedded to it, but the fact that this Clause has always taken this shape, on the advice of the advisers of the Crown for the time being, is certainly prima facie evidence that it is for the convenience of the public. It must be obvious, and to no one more than the hon. Baronet himself, that if his Amendment is carried simply to confine the borrowing powers for the first three months of the financial year—that is the avowed intention and effect of it—it might most seriously cripple the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the conduct of his normal operations.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that money is very cheap at the end of June or the beginning of July, and it would be a very good opportunity to renew your Bills, if necessary, at that time. The right hon. Gentleman may say, "We have not got the power." That is quite true, but the right hon. Gentleman can come down to the House and ask for the power.
    THE PRIME MINISTER: That is to say the hon. Baronet invites us to introduce a fresh Bill. But this is the course which has always been taken by every Government, and let me point out to the hon. Baronet—though nobody knows it better than he—that the revenue of the Government comes in in very unequal proportions at different parts of the year. The leanest quarter is the quarter from June to September. I say leanest, because the arrears of Income Tax for the past year come in in the quarter between March and June. We get rid of them by the 30th June. The Income Tax for the current financial year does not begin to be effectively collected till the month of January. Therefore the Government is always in want of money in the two quarters, June to September and September to December. I do not believe that this borrowing power is really so valuable to the Government during the first quarter of the year as during the second and third quarters, for the reasons I have given. If the Amendment were carried it would deprive the Treasury of the power to borrow at all after 30th June, and we would have to come and get further Parliamentary sanction. That surely, is a very unreasonable proposal!
    Sir F. BANBURYdissented.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, it is, indeed. The hon. Baronet's proposal is most unusual, unreasonable, and unbusinesslike, and nobody knows it better than he. He made the suggestion as to borrowing improvidently or in excessive amounts—
    Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, no, no. I meant at an improvident rate.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible. When we issue Treasury Bills we take the advice of the Bank of England. We have always done that. [An HON. MEMBER: "The silver question."] I am speaking of Treasury Bills. The question of silver was one which I hoped was settled and disposed of some time ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then let us discuss it at the proper time. No one will be more glad than I to reopen it. In the issue of Treasury Bills it is our invariable practice to take the advice of the Bank of England. The Bills are advertised, and put up to tender, and the hon. Baronet knows very well they go to the highest bidder. There is absolutely no possibility of anything in the nature of
    1706
    abuse in regard to their issue, seeing they are issued in accordance with prescribed practice. What we are asking is absolutely necessary on account of the financial business of the country, and I hope, having given this explanation as courteously as I can, the hon. Baronet will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. PETO: When the Prime Minister rose I gladly gave way, because I desired to hear exactly what the right hon. Gentleman's reply was to be to the case put forward by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). I had intended to move an Amendment, which would almost meet every objection raised by the Prime Minister. Of course, following the hon. Baronet, who is such an expert in these matters, I am naturally at a disadvantage, but I am very glad to say that in making the more modest proposal—that is to say, limiting the payment of Treasury Bills to the 29th September, 1913, instead of the more drastic proposals of the hon. Baronet, I have gone nearer to agree with the views of the Prime Minister.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The 29th September would be a date when Parliament would not be sitting. The advantage of my date is that Parliament would be sitting, and would maintain the control of the House of Commons over Supply.
    Mr. PETO: I am quite prepared to take that view. The Prime Minister, when dealing with the question of borrowing, said that the two leanest quarters of the year were always the second and third. As to the convenience, from the point of view of the House sitting, it is undoubtedly a difficulty, but I strongly feel, considering the exceptional circumstances of the present year, that it is most undesirable that this power of issuing Treasury Bills, and payment over this long period of twelve months, should be given to the Government, and that some shorter period ought to be accepted. The Prime Minister said it was in accordance with the practice of successive Governments. I do not think it is very often in the history of Parliament that a Government has found itself in the precise position in which the Government finds itself to-day, and it is certainly very exceptional that we should have such extraordinary high rates for the money, and such an extraordinarily low standard of national credit, as prevails at the present time.

    1707
    Therefore, I hold that the circumstances are entirely exceptional, and that what was given in normal times, that is in times when the House had control of the finance, and had control over everything, when we had legislative powers in the hands of Members of the House of Parliament, what was good for those times is certainly not good for the present time. Now we have an autocratic Government which constitutes itself the Legislature as well as the Executive, and I say we cannot leave this question of great financial borrowing power by Treasury Bills for such a large sum as £41,000,000 in the hands of the Executive for a period of twelve months. That should be curtailed, and the Government's financial wings in that respect should undoubtedly be clipped. If the hon. Baronet does not see his way to accept the more modest proposals I put forward, in suggesting that the powers should be limited to six months—and I accept the reasons he has given for not accepting it—and if I have to offer an opinion between the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister and the arguments put forward by the hon. Baronet, I am in favour of those of the hon. Baronet. I understood the Prime Minister put forward the argument that the present Government should be treated in these financial matters in precisely the same way as previous Governments have been treated; that is the sole argument that the right hon. Gentleman brings forward to justify these great borrowing powers. I support the Amendment put forward by the hon. Baronet. I say that the Government should come forward and ask us for a renewal of those powers at a time when the House is sitting. It is a little inconvenient to have two Bills of this nature and the possibility of a repetition of the debate this afternoon, but that inconvenience would be trivial compared with the alternative of handing over to the present Government this control over finance for such a period.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I want to say a few words on this question for this reason: When debating the Amendment moved by the hon. Member (Sir F. Banbury) on the first Clause of the Bill, a considerable amount of the time of the House was occupied—I am not saying wrongly or wastefully—by an hon. Member from the opposite side. He told the House that, as he was a young Member, he was anxious,
    1708
    for his own information, to elucidate from the Government the methods of financial procedure embodied in this Bill. I am actuated by something of the same kind in supporting the Amendment now before the House. I listened with very great care to the answer given by the Prime Minister, and it struck me that the Prime Minister made his answer so short that I think he was thinking only of my hon. Friend, and treating him as a financial expert, and he was not perhaps giving as full an explanation as he would have done if he had known the ignorance of some Members upon these matters, and their eagerness for enlightenment. I am very anxious to get some enlightenment upon the more recondite parts of national finance than appears in this Bill, and I hope the Prime Minister will condescend to address the Committee at greater length later, or, if he is not able to do that, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain to ignorant people like myself what the meaning of the Clause we are now discussing is.
    I confess that I was very much impressed by the argument put forward by my hon. Friend. He is, of course, a financial expert, quite equal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and knows quite as much about these matters. I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably admit that his knowledge of finance is not superior to that of my hon. Friend. I was impressed by his argument that the present time of the year happens to be a very bad one for laying down the rate of interest for borrowing. That, at all events, is the view taken by my hon. Friend. He says money is likely to be much cheaper later on, and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister came to me, I confess, as a matter of surprise. The right hon. Gentleman said it was very inconvenient to have to take a three months' loan instead of twelve months, because the quarter from June to September was the most lean quarter of the year in the Treasury. Of course, I take the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, who himself has had experience in these matters, but I do not understand that the reason he gave for that was a very convincing one. The reason, apparently, why that quarter is a lean quarter, according to the right hon. Gentleman is because Income Tax does not become effective until January, whereas the arrears of the previous year have already been cleared off before June.

    1709
    But that must surely apply only to a comparatively small portion of the Income Tax. At all events it does not apply to any part of the Income Tax deducted at the source. It only applies to Schedules "D" and "A," and does not apply to the large portion of the Income Tax taken at the source; and after all, the Income Tax is not the whole of the revenue of the country. There are revenues derived from indirect taxation coming into the Treasury more or less equally throughout the year, and I should think that great injury which appears from the right hon. Gentleman's statement would occur.
    The right hon. Gentleman also said that with regard to these borrowing operations, the Government always consulted the Bank of England, and therefore, that this was the time to do it, and that these were the circumstances most favourable to the Government, and that there was no fear of that embarrassing rate of interest, which my hon. Friend seems to apprehend. One of my hon. Friends, when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, mentioned the question of silver, which was under debate in this House recently. The right hon. Gentleman brushed that aside, as having nothing to do with this matter, and said it was discussed and finished, and that even if that was not so, this was not the correct time to discuss it. So far as the merits of the silver question are concerned, of course, all are agreed with that, but I think my hon. Friend, who mentioned the word "silver" only did so by way of illustration of what might occur in other branches of the financial services of the country. I did not give very particular attention to the silver discussion in the House, but, so far as I followed it, I understand that, whereas, almost invariably in past years these operations connected with silver were conducted by the Government through the Bank of England, that for good or for bad reasons, I am not saying which, a departure was made from that practice in the past year, and that a firm of brokers were employed instead of the Bank of England. If that is so, surely it is a precedent we are entitled to keep in our minds and to guard against. The right hon. Gentleman says, so far as the borrowing of the Government is concerned, they resorted, as they always do, to the Bank of England. That may have been the invariable practice in the past, but what security have we that now a somewhat similar departure may not be made as was made in regard to the silver
    1710
    question? It is asking too much when a Government departs, in all the financial dealings of the country, not only public but private, from precedent, and also from the standard which has always been accepted, that when these matters come up again the whole of the House of Commons is to have the same complete trust and confidence in the procedure of the Government which they might be expected to have in other circumstances. Therefore, it does appear to me that upon this question the Prime Minister has not given by any means a convincing reply to the case of my hon. Friend, and, speaking for myself, unless some other Member of the Government can give us more convincing reason for supporting them, I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I want to say one or two words in regard to the reference made by the Prime Minister in reply to an interruption of mine. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) he said it was purely and simply a question of finance. If we carried this Amendment we keep the whip-hand over the Government for another three months, and the Government will not be able to pay off Treasury Bills borrowed before the 30th June until they get further permission, and they will have to carry them over for another quarter. Rightly or wrongly, we have the opportunity, if we carry this Amendment, of keeping the Government in order for another three months. I admit the difficulty of keeping the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order, but I think it is much better that the House of Commons should keep what control it has over the rights of the people and the rights of the House of Commons over finance. In the past it began with the control the House exercised over the tyranny of the Crown. That was done by our control over matters of finance, and now the Crown is no longer the tyrant but the Government and the Cabinet of the day, and by this Amendment we have an opportunity of keeping control over the Government until the end of June. The Prime Minister said it would be difficult to bring in a Bill of this kind at the end of the Session and I ejaculated, "There is lots of time," and the Prime Minister said, "No, the Session would end rather early." A certain number of Bills will be crowded through, and then for six months

    1711
    the Government of the country is to be entirely in the hands of the present Government without any control by the House of Commons. I would not mind the House of Commons sitting for a few weeks longer if we could get more control over the proceedings of the Government. This is not an ordinary question of finance or an ordinary Government in an ordinary time, because we are dealing with the case of a Government which has suspended the Constitution. The House of Lords has no power to deal with a finance Bill, and this is the only House which can deal with finance. If this Bill is passed we lose all control over the Government until this time next year, but if we pass this Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who is rather clever in suggesting Amendments to put the Government in a corner—if we pass this Amendment, it would put the Government in this corner, that we should have towards the end of June an opportunity of saying whether we approve of their conduct or not. The question of our opposition to this Bill is not one of detail. We are opposing this measure, not because we want to deprive the sailors or the soldiers of their pay, but because we have not confidence in the Government as a whole, or in the tyranny of the Government, or the government of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. If we could carry this Amendment we should force the Government to come back to us again towards the end of June, and then the representatives of the people in this House would have another opportunity of saying whether they approve of the conduct of the Government or not. I think it is very desirable that we should have that opportunity as often as possible, and I strongly support the Amendment.
    Sir J. D. REES: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. At the same time I cannot agree with what the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. Ronald M'Neill) said in regard to the purchase of silver, as to which I think the India Office made an arrangement quite satisfactory to India, although there may have been some indiscretion in the manner of carrying out that intention. In regard to the gold standard in India, I sincerely hope the Government are not going to be led away or take any other steps affecting the export of gold from this country, which already has too
    1712
    small a gold reserve, because, if that is done, I think our commercial activities would be seriously prejudiced by taking the steps suggested. My intention is to support the hon. Baronet, because, in point of fact, I am one of his constituents in the City. The hon. Baronet is an extremely good authority upon the commercial aspect of all these questions, and when he addresses himself to a financial subject he knows what he is talking about. That is why he is listened to with so much attention, not only in the House of Commons, but in the City of London, which he so well represents. This Amendment proposes to shorten the time by altering the date to three months, and I strongly support that proposal. I will give the reason which weighs most strongly with me in adopting that course. It is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is profoundly distrusted in the City as a financier. I am speaking of the method by which he deals with the finances of the country, and I have no intention whatever of saying anything offensive. Whereas the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the Prime Minister, was a most prudent guardian of the public purse and adhered strictly to precedent, and was most careful not to be the originator of sensational measures or the spender or waster of our national resources—
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a review of the conduct of the Government during a Committee stage of a Bill of this kind. This Debate has already gone to a length which on no other occasion has been permitted, and we can only deal now with the technical question raised in the Amendment.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether my personal references to the methods of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not strictly relevant to the Amendment, because I argue that that is one of the greatest factors and reasons for accepting the hon. Baronet's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman's methods, be they good or bad, are absolutely at variance with the methods of all his predecessors, and instead of being the custodian of the public purse, he is, in point of fact, the chief spender, and, therefore, he is in a different position—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be quite entitled to say that at the proper time which will arise on the Second or Third Reading, but it is not in order in Committee.
    Sir J. D. REES: I spoke with perfect respect to the right hon. Gentleman, and I may observe that although the proper occasion is as indicated by you, Mr. Chairman, it is by no means certain that any hon. Member on this side will be able to take the opportunity which you have indicated. Should I be in order in pointing out that it is a factor in considering the propriety of giving the Government a longer period over which to borrow, and deciding whether or not the House should part with its power of review, to point out that the charges upon the Consolidated Fund resulting immediately from the legislation of the custodian of finance are almost equal to those of the Army, and will shortly be as great a charge as that for one of the greatest branches of expenditure in this country. I presume that is not in order, but I wish to know if I shall be in order in pointing out that it is an entirely novel procedure, and it has never happened before, that the Government should endeavour to rush a Vote for £1,800,000 through the House of Commons—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is quite out of order, and the hon. Member must not pursue that matter at all. I have already told the hon. Member that only the question of the date is in order.
    Sir J. D. REES: When I have been advancing what I considered good and relevant arguments, I have immediately dropped them when you have ruled them out of order, and I am sure that that is conduct which will meet with your approval. I had no intention whatever of indulging in a carnival of irrelevancy. I will, however, advance this argument, that it is exceedingly desirable that the power of the House over the public purse under existing circumstances should be more rigidly guarded than ever it has been before in the history of this country. Never has there been so much extravagance before. I will take an illustration. When the East India Company governed India they were bound when they required a renewal of their Charter to come to this House and submit—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must now ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
    Mr. MILLS: I should like to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Baronet on two grounds: firstly, financial; and, secondly, constitutional grounds. I think the constitutional
    1714
    grounds have been ably set out by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who pointed out that it is desirable that this House should have as much control as possible over the financial operations of the Government, and it is very desirable that the Government should be compelled to come to this House in June to get fresh borrowing powders if they are necessary. Then the House would be able to supervise adequately the financial methods of the Government. If this restriction, altering the period from twelve months to a shorter period were carried, I think it would be the means of saving a considerable amount of the taxpayers' money. Last year there was almost a financial scandal owing to the height of the Exchequer balances. They were very much too high, and there was a great deal of unnecessary money on those balances not earning interest, and at the same time there was a very large amount of Treasury Bills being issued. It seems to me that there are times in the year when Treasury Bills are not wanted, when the Government have sufficient money to carry on, and therefore it is a sheer waste of public money that Treasury Bills should be running during that period when, at the same time, the Exchequer balances are lying idle. I can see no reason why this Amendment should be objected to except that given by the Prime Minister, that it would necessitate taking more Parliamentary time, because the Government would have to come down and get Parliament's assent to the issue of fresh Bills. It might waste some of the Government's time, but I do not think it would in any way endanger the financial management of this country, because, if the Government could show there were solid grounds why they wanted a fresh issue of Treasury Bills, I am sure this House would willingly accede to their request. It would, if this Amendment were accepted, strengthen the control that this House ought to have over finance, which to a great extent it is losing, and I seriously think it would be the means of saving considerable money to the already overburdened taxpayers of this country.
    Mr. WEDGWOODrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 176.

    Division No. 9.]

    AYES.

    [5.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Dawes, J. A.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Alden, Percy

    Delany, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hinds, John

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hodge, John

    Arnold, Sydney

    Dillon, John

    Hogge, James Myles

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Doris, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hudson, Walter

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Barton, William

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Falconer, James

    John, Edward Thomas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Boland, John Pius

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Field, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jowett, F. W.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Brunner, John F. L.

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Kelly, Edward

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Kilbride, Denis

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    King, J.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Leach, Charles

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hackett, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Clough, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Clynes, John R.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    McGhee, Richard

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Maclean, Donald

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hayden, John Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Crooks, William

    Hayward, Evan

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hazleton, Richard

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Snowden, Philip

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Manfield, Harry

    Parker, James, (Halifax)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Sutton, John E.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Phillips, J. (Longford, S.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Meagher, Michael

    Pointer, Joseph

    Tennant, Harold John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Middlebrook, William

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Molloy, Michael

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Radford, G. H.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Walsh, Stephen, (Lancs., Ince)

    Mooney, John J.

    Reddy, M.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Morgan, George Hay

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Morrell, Phillip

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Morison, Hector

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Waring, Walter

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Muldoon, John

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Munro, R.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Webb, H.

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Neilson, Francis

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Rowlands, James

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Nuttall, Harry

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Wing, Thomas

    O'Dowd, John

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    O'Malley, William

    Sheehy, David

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    O'Shee, James John

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    1700

    NOES.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fell, Arthur

    Joynson-Hicks. William

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Barnston, Harry

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Goldman, C. S.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Blair, Reginald

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Boyton, James

    Grant, J. A.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Greene, Waiter Raymond

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gretton, John

    Malcolm, Ian

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Campion, W. R.

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Newman, John R. P.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Croft, H. P.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    1701

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Stewart, Gershom

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Swift, Rigby

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Sandys, G. J.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Terrell, G. (Wilts., N.W.)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Thomson. W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Stanier, Beville

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Craig and Mr. C. Craig.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Division No. 10.]

    AYES.

    [6.16 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Morison, Hector

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Gulland, John William

    Muldoon, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, R.

    Alden, Percy

    Hackett, John

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Arnold, Sydney

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Neilson, Francis

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Barton, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Bentham, G. J.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Boland, John Pius

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Booth, Frederick Hander

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Grady, James

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hinds, John

    O'Malley, William

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hodge, John

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Shee, James John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hudson, Walter

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Phillips, John (Longord, S.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pointer, Joseph

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Johnson, W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Clough, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Radford, G. H.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, M.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kelly, Edward

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crean, Eugene

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Crooks, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, J.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Leach, Charles

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Delany, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Rowlands, James

    Doris, William

    McGhee, Richard

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Falconer, James

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Sheehy, David

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Field, William

    Manfield, Harry

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Snowden, Philip

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutherland, John E.

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutton, John E.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Middlebrook, William

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gilhooly, James

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Molloy, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Tennant, Harold John

    Glanville, H. J.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Thomas, James Henry

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Mooney, John J.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morrell, Philip

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    1716

    1717

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Wadsworth, J.

    Webb, H.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Wing, Thomas

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Waring, Walter

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mount, William Arthur

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Baker, Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goldman, C. S.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Barnston, Harry

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Grant, J. A.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gretton, John

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bird, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Blair, Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Boyton, James

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Campion, W. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Cassel, Felix

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Swift, Rigby

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Houston, Robert Paterson.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Tryon, Captain G. C.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kinloch-Cookc, Sir Clement

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Crott, H. P.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Falle, Bertram Godlray

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fell, Arthur

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St, Augustine's)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Malcolm, Ian

    Fleming, Valentine

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Sandys and Mr. G. Locker-Lampson.

    Forster, Henry William

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 178.

    Division No. 11.]

    AYES.

    [6.28 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Alden, Percy

    Arnold, Sydney

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    1718

    1719

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Barton, William

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Dowd, John

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Grady, James

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Boland, John Pius

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Malley, William

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shaughnessy, p. J.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hinds, John

    O'Shee, James John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hodge, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Bryce, John Annan

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hudson, Walter

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Price, Sir Robert, J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Johnson, William

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Clough, William

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Radford, G. H.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Reddy, M.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Crawshay-Wllliams, Eliot

    Kelly, Edward

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Crean, Eugene

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Crooks, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, J.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molten)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Leach, Charles

    Koch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Delany, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rowlands, James

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Dillon, John

    Lynch, A. A.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Doris, W.

    McGhee, Richard

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Duffy, William J.

    Maclean, Donald

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sheehy, David

    Falconer, J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Manfield, Harry

    Snowden, Philip

    Field, William

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Sutton, John E.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    France, G. A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Middlebrook, William

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Millar, James Duncan

    Tennant, Harold John

    Gilhooly, James

    Molloy, Michael

    Thomas, James Henry

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Glanville, Harold James

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mooney, J. J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morgan, George Hay

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morrell, Philip

    Wadsworth, John

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morison, Hector

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Muldoon, John

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Munro, Robert

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Gulland, John William

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Wardle, G. J.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Waring, Walter

    Hackett, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Hancock, John George

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Harcourt, Rt, Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Neilson, Francis

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Webb, H.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    1720

    1721

    White, J. Dundas (Tradeston

    Whyte, Alexander F.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Wing, Thomas

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gilmour, captain J.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Newman, John R. P.

    Barnston, Harry

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Grant, James Augustus

    Paget, Almerlc Hugh

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Bird, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Blair, Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Boyton, James

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Campbell, Captain Duncan (Ayr, N.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Campion, W. R.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hope, Major J. A. (Mildothian)

    Swift, Rigby

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Clyde, James Avon

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fell, Arthur

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    M'Nell, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Malcolm, Ian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    S. Roberts and Mr. Stanier.

    Forster, Henry William

    The PRIME MINISTERclaimed "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 171.

    Division No. 12.]

    AYES.

    [6.38 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Alnsworth, John Stirling

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Alden, Percy

    Arnold, Sydney

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    1723

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Nuttall, Harry

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Barton, William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Grady, James

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Malley, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shee, James John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., South)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Higham, John Sharp

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hinds, John

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hodge, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pointer, Joseph

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Radford, G. H.

    Clough, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reddy, Michael

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cotton, William Francis

    Keating, Matthew

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kelly, Edward

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crean, Eugene

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Crooks, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Crumley, Patrick

    King, J.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Leach, Charles

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rowlands, James

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Delany, William

    Lundon, Thomas

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Dillon, John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    McGhee, Richard

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Doris, William

    Maclean, Donald

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Duffy, William J.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sheehy, David

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Falconer, James

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Snowden, Philip

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Manfield, Harry

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sutton, John E.

    Field, William

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    France, G. A.

    Middlebrook, William

    Thomas, James Henry

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Molloy, Michael

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gilhooly, James

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Ginnell, L.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Glanville, Harold James

    Mooney, J. J.

    Wadsworth, John

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morgan, George Hay

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morrell, Philip

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morison, Hector

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Muldoon, John

    Wardle, G. J.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Munro, Robert

    Waring, Walter

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Gulland, John W.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hackett, J.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Webb, H.

    Hancock, John George

    Neilson, Francis

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    1724

    1725

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Wing, Thomas

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Baird, J. L.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Mount, William Arthur

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Barnston, Harry

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Norton-Griffiths, J.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Grant, J. A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Greene, W. R.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gretton, John

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bird, A.

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S Edmunds)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Blair, Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Hamersley, Alfred St George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

    Campion, W. R.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Stanier, Beville

    Chaloner, colonel R. G. W.

    Hoare, S. J. G,

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Swift, Rigby

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hunt, Rowland

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Welgall, Captain A. G.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Croft, H. P.

    Law, Rt. Hon. Bonar (Bootle)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Willoughby, Major Hon Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fell, Arthur

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert-

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Younger, Sir George

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Forster, Henry William

    Malcolm, Ian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl

    Gardner, Ernest

    Middlemore, John (Throgmorton)

    of Kerry and Mr. Kerr-Smiley.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Short Title.)
    This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1913.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, after the word "Fund," to insert the words "and borrowing."
    I desire to add these words in order to better describe the purposes of the Bill. Attention should be drawn to the fact that
    1726
    this Bill gives very large borrowing powers to the Government.
    Mr. PETO: On a point of Order. Does this Amendment precede mine?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment precedes the one the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) has handed in.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The fact that the Act confers large borrowing powers on

    1727
    the Government does not appear from the title. Anybody reading the title without taking the trouble to read the Clauses would not realise that the Bill gives borrowing powers to the extent of over £41,000,000 to the Government. I think the title with my Amendment better explains the purposes of the Bill.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must congratulate the hon. Member on having discovered what I believe no one has hitherto discovered, namely, a relevant Amendment and one which is in order to the third or descriptive Clause of the Consolidated Fund Bill. That fact reflects the greatest credit on the Parliamentary ingenuity of the hon. Member. I say that quite unaffectedly as an old hand in these matters, and I congratulate him that he should have hit upon this happy discovery. But to look at it for a moment seriously, the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will agree with me that it is an unnecessary Amendment. Every Consolidated Fund Bill ever passed, certainly within my memory, has contained borrowing powers. It contains a borrowing Clause which is absolutely essential if the Grant which is made in the first Clause and the power to issue Treasury Bills is not to be a nugatory power. The Treasury must have power to anticipate the Grant by issuing Treasury Bills for a short period. That is not a new feature in this Bill, but a common feature of all Consolidated Fund Bills, for which this title has always been held to be sufficient and appropriate. The hon. Gentleman's only point was the magnitude of the amount. If that is really the objection, it is not an objection to the borrowing powers; it is an objection to the first Clause and to the Grant on so large a scale. Your borrowing powers must be commensurate with your issuing powers. If you raise an objection to the magnitude of the amount, and not in any way to the borrowing power, it is really illogical, because the borrowing Clause only follows the issuing Clause and one is the necessary consequence and concomitant of the other. Both on the ground of precedent and of the special circumstances of the case, I suggest to the hon. Member that he should not proceed further with the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating my hon. Friend on the ingenuity which he has shown, not for the first time, in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has based his
    1728
    objection upon the fact that it is contrary to all precedent, and that hitherto the title of all Consolidated Fund Bills has been the same. I should like to say that what he has said is quite correct. I am a stickler for precedent; the right hon. Gentleman is not, for there is hardly any precedent he has not broken in the last seven years, from the Constitution down to the guillotine.
    The PRIME MINISTER: All the more reason why I should not break another.
    Sir F. BANBURY: There is joy over one sinner that repenteth. The right hon. Gentleman has almost moved me to sit down and say nothing more, for he stands in a white sheet of repentance in face of the Committee, and I hope of the country, but this is more serious than the right hon. Gentleman has said. The precedent he has cited does not clearly indicate to the ordinary observer what is in the Bill. The title of the Bill under the old precedent does not compare with the Bill as it is. I remember Sir Charles Dilke once saying in this House, when a question of precedent was raised as an argument against not accepting an Amendment, that he did not know there had been so many bad precedents. That argument might have been advanced by my hon. Friend. What the Amendment proposes to do is to indicate clearly what is the effect of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Unless the words are put in, people might think that the effect of the Consolidated Fund Bill is to apply the sum authorised out of the Consolidated Fund for the 31st March. It is not only that, it authorises borrowing in order to get money into the Consolidated Fund. The ordinary interpretation of the Bill would be that the money was in the Consolidated Fund as the produce of taxes, but it really gives a special power providing that the money should be obtained by borrowing. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if in matters of finance we find bad precedents, it is best to do away with them. It will be better for all who are to succeed us in this House that they should see that on this day the House of Commons decided to put in words clearly indicating what is in the Bill. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
    Mr. SANDYS: After your observations, Sir, a little earlier in the afternoon as to the exceptional course which this Debate has taken, I confess to a certain amount of diffidence in addressing the Committee

    1729
    with regard to the Amendment so ably brought forward by my hon. Friend.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend need not be alarmed, for on 28th March, 1905, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had eleven Divisions on this stage of the Bill. We have not done as much as that.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. SANDYS: I am glad to learn from my hon. Friend that hon. Members who now sit on the other side of the House took a keener interest in these financial questions than they do now, when their Friends are sitting on the Treasury Bench. As I was observing when I was interrupted, I am not going to detain the Committee because I know that the House and the country generally are awaiting eagerly the statement which the First Lord of the Admiralty is to make at a considerably later hour this evening. I understand that the importance which might have attached to that speech has been somewhat minimised by the intelligent anticipations which we believe are already in the hands of the proper authorities. The congratulations which the Prime Minister addressed to the Mover of the Amendment were very well deserved. The speech of the Prime Minister on this Amendment was even more unsatisfactory than the speech he made earlier in the afternoon in reply to an Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). He seemed in the first part of his speech to throw some doubt upon the seriousness with which my hon. Friend advanced this Amendment. It was more in the tone of what he said than the actual words he used. Personally, I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend brought forward this Amendment in order to improve the Bill. I do not attach very great value to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill has a similar title to that which has always been given to these Bills in order that ancient forms and precedents might be followed. As has been pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman has really no just cause for following a precedent of this kind, for there is no one in the Committee who has more consistently ignored precedents or any of the forms of our institutions. Therefore I am somewhat surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman, on the second occasion this afternoon, saying that ancient forms and customs must always be followed. The object of the Amendment was to give that clearness and distinctness to the title of the Bill which
    1730
    we have a right to demand in every Bill framed by the Government. Any person casually reading the Bill would see that the title was to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending 31st March, 1914, and he might suppose that there were no borrowing powers conferred upon the Government in the Bill itself; but, of course, when we come to examine it more closely we find that this £41,027,000, which is to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, is dealt with in the first Clause, whereas the second Clause gives power to the Treasury to borrow.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot now deal with Clauses 1 and 2. We are now on Clause 3.
    Mr. SANDYS: My only object was to show that the title as it stands does not adequately describe these two Clauses, and that it would be clearer if the Amendment was adopted. We have often urged that proper attention is not given to these financial matters. I think we are also entitled to urge that these Finance Bills, dealing with these enormous sums, which eventually come out of the pockets of the unfortunate taxpayer, should be worded in such a manner that an ordinarily intelligent elector when he examines the Acts of Parliament and glances through the titles of the measures which a beneficent Government has passed, should be able by the mere examination of the titles to see what the object is.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I am afraid, is putting before the Committee the identical argument which was put before it by the hon. Member (Mr. Hope), and if he refers to Standing Order 19 he will see that he is not entitled to repeat the arguments of those who preceded him.
    Mr. SANDYS: The object of everyone is to bring this Debate to a conclusion when the subject has been adequately discussed, though I see no reason why these important questions should be hurried through and passed without proper examination. I am very sorry if, in my anxiety lest any of these points should not be adequately dealt with, I have trespassed on the grounds which has been so well covered by my hon. Friend, who has preceded me. I will therefore address myself to other points in connection with the matter. It would be not only for the general convenience of the electorate, who take a far

    1731
    greater interest in these matters than hon. Members opposite appear to imagine, and I think the way in which the Closure has been applied to these financial discussions—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not criticise the action of the Chair in accepting the Motion or the decision of the House.
    Mr. SANDYS: I certainly had not the slightest intention of criticising the action of the Chair. What I desired to criticise was the action of the Minister in bringing to a conclusion a very proper debate.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is the same thing. It is the action of the House. The Government can only move it.
    Mr. SANDYS: I do not wish to deal with the point any further. I accept not only your ruling, but the ruling of the House, though I think it is regrettable that the decision of the House should have been taken on this particular occasion. I think the Amendment requires very careful consideration. Until far more weighty arguments are brought forward against the Amendment than those which were advanced by the Prime Minister, I shall certainly feel it my duty to follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: When I first heard this Amendment I felt some doubt whether I should not be reluctantly compelled to support the Government. Of course I am a loyal party man, and I endeavoured to find grounds which would enable me to vote for the Amendment. We are all anxious to hear the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it will be very unfortunate indeed if such an important announcement as we are likely to hear should be known to the Reichstag before it is known to the House of Commons. For that reason I am sure the House feel that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a proper course if, as we understand, he has taken steps to prevent publicity being given to it prematurely. I did not think it was a very serious matter at first whether we had the words "and borrowing" or not, but I have been entirely converted by the speeches I have heard. The Prime Minister, in asking the House to reject this Amendment, said it had been proposed upon the ground that the borrowing powers were excessive, and he brought forward in reply to that the argument that that was an objection, not
    1732
    to Clause 3, but to the first Clause, and that the borrowing powers in the Bill must necessarily correspond with the issue. That sounds perfectly reasonable, but we unsuccessfully objected to the amount of money which the Government are taking in this Bill, and as we cannot limit that amount, surely it is reasonable to bring the title of the Bill into conformity with the action of the Government in taking an excessive sum, and surely it is reasonable that when a much larger sum than necessary is being taken due notice should be taken of that. If the Government really think there is no serious objection to these words being added it would be perfectly simple for them to say that, notwithstanding any precedent there may be, they are willing to accept it. Surely the strenuous manner in which the Government are resisting the Amendment is sufficient proof that they do at all events regard it quite as seriously as we do, though they appear to take an opposite view as regards its propriety. I agree with the Prime Minister that precedent is in favour of the Clause standing as it is at present. I have taken steps to find out how far that precedent goes back, and I believe it goes back as far as William Pitt. But the whole method of national finance, and the control of this House, was quite different in those days. If you go back some generations you come to a system of finance which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably call a feudal method.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a great deal too wide for a Clause only containing the title of the Bill.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I was only attempting to deal with the argument of the Prime Minister that the form of this Clause is supported by long precedent, and while admitting that that is so I think the reply to it is that the whole system of Government in these days rests upon a very much more democratic basis than in the time when these precedents were made, and it is much more important that in these days we should keep a correct correspondence between what these Finance Acts are doing and the titles of those Acts. It is very important that the people who ought to have control of the finance of the country and who have very much less than they used to have through the House of Commons should have every facility given them in looking through the Statute Book and finding out with as little trouble and

    1733
    research as possible exactly what it is that is done by the Government when they are asking for money from the taxpayers. For that reason, although I do not think it really is a matter of supreme importance I think it is of sufficient importance to justify us in bringing it before the House, and I also think the Prime Minister might go further and satisfy us in this respect, and save the time of the House, and not put us to the trouble of a Division, by accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I believe it is a mark of a cold and suspicious nature to be unmoved by flattery. I was so much
    moved by the kind and generous words of the Prime Minister that, if the Question had been put then, I would not have pressed the Amendment to a Division, but on reflection, I feel that I must steel myself in order that the title of this Bill may be some real index of its contents, and therefore, against my own better judgment, I feel it is necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 268.

    Division No. 13.]

    AYES.

    [7.15 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Mount, William Arthur

    Barnston, Harry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley

    Grant, J. A.

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Bird, Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Blair, Reginald

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Peto, Basli Edward

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Campion, W. R.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Cassel, Felix

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Terrell, G. (Wilts., N. W.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Weston, Colonel J, W.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Croft, H. P.

    Kerry, Earl of

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fell, Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Younger, Sir George

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Forster, Henry William

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Sandys and Mr. Ronald M'Neill.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Arnold, Sydney

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Alden, Percy

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Barton, William

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Dowd, John

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Grady, James

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Malley, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hinds, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Brace, William

    Hodge, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hogge, James Myles

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Burt, Rt Hon. Thomas

    Hudson, Walter

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Chancellor, Henry George

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Radford, G. H.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Reddy, M.

    Clough, William

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clynes, John R.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Keating, Matthew

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Kelly, Edward

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Crean, Eugene

    King, J.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Crooks, William

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Law, Hugh A, (Donegal, W.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Leach, Charles

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Rowlands, James

    Dawes, J A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Delany, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Lynch, A. A.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dillon, John

    McGhee, Richard

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Doris, William

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

    Duffy, William J.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otiey)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Falconer, James

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Snowden, Philip

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Manfield, Harry

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sutton, John E.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Field, William

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Middlebrook, William

    Tennant, Harold John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Millar, James Duncan

    Thomas, James Henry

    France, Gerald Ash burner

    Molloy, Michael

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Gilhooly, James

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gladstone, W. G C.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Glanville, H. J.

    Mooney, John J.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morgan, George Hay

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Morrell, Philip

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Morison, Hector

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wardle, George J.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Muldoon, John

    Waring, Walter

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Munro, R.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Gulland, John William

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Webb, H.

    Hackett, John

    Needham, Christopher T.

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Neilson, Francis

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    1736

    1737

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Wing, Thomas

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment handed in by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), to leave out "(No. 1)" is not one I can accept. It seems to me to be trifling with the Committee to propose to leave out "No. 1," because it would be of no effect. It will make no difference whether these words are in or not.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I also handed in this Amendment, and I submit that it is relevant, because, by having "No. 1" in the Bill there is an implication that there is going to be a No. 2 Bill. No one can say that there will be a No. 2 Bill, and if we say in this case No. 1, people in future will be misled, because there may not be a No. 2 Bill at all. I submit that, in order to get rid of this difficulty, the Amendment is really a serious one.
    Mr. PETO: If it is in accordance with precedent to call this Bill No. 1, I would point out that it is not in accordance with what takes place in respect of other Bills passed through the House. Take the case
    of the Railway Bill last Session. In that case the Government would have been perfectly wrong in calling the first Railway Bill No. 1, because neither they nor anybody else had any idea that they would have to withdraw that Bill and introduce No. 2 Bill. I submit that this is not only a serious Amendment, but that it will make a great deal of difference, because, by putting No. 1 in the title of this Bill, people will be led to suppose that, as a matter of course, whether they like it or not, we are to have a succession of such Bills before arriving at the Appropriation Bill. I submit that this is a serious Amendment, and one that ought to be accepted by the Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member has not convinced me.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 152.

    Division No. 14.]

    AYES.

    [7.28 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Adamson, William

    Cotton, William Francis

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Crean, Eugene

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Alden, Percy

    Crooks, William

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gulland, John William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Hackett, J.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Delany, William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Barton, William

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Dillon, John

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Doris, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Bentham, G. J.

    Duffy, William J.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Boland, John Pius

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Brace, William

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Falconer, James

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Hinds, John

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hodge, John

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Hogge, James Myles

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Ffrench, Peter

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Field, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Chancellor, H. G.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gilhooly, James

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Clough, William

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    John, Edward Thomas

    Clynes, John R.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Neilson, Francis

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Keating, Matthew

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Kelly, Edward

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Nuttall, Harry

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sheehy, David

    King, J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Leach, Charles

    O'Dowd, John

    Snowden, Philip

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Grady, James

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Malley, William

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Lynch, A. A.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    O'Shee, James John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    McGhee, Richard

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Tennant, Harold John

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Thomas, James Henry

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Wadsworth, J.

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Manfield, Harry

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wardle, George J.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Waring, Walter

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Radford, G. H.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Meagher, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Reddy, M.

    Webb, H.

    Middlebrook, William

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Molloy, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Money, L. G. Chlozza

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Mooney, John J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Morgan, George Hay

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Morrell, Philip

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Morison, Hector

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wing, Thomas

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Muldoon, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Munro, R.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Rowlands, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Barnston, Harry

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Croft, H. P.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Bigland, Alfred

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Bird, Alfred

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Blair, Reginald

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Fell, Arthur

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Campion, W. R.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Cassel, Felix

    Goldman, C. S.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Grant, J. A.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Gretton, John

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Coilings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Law, Rt. Hon. Bonar (Bootle)

    1740

    1741

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Valentia, Viscount

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

    Stanier, Beville

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Younger, Sir George

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Craik and Major White.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    The CHAIRMAN: In reference to a proposed new Clause which has been handed in by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, I am not quite sure if I understand its purport, and perhaps he will allow me to say what I think it is. I understand that it is to prevent the Public Accounts and Charges Act applying in respect of the Supply which is contained in this Bill. That is to say, that none of the money provided by this Bill will be applicable, for instance, to the Navy Votes, which presumably will be carried on Friday and in the House on Monday?
    Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I wish to guard myself, not having had time to refer to the precedents in this matter; but, having a doubt in my mind, I will allow the hon. Baronet to propose this Clause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to propose that the following New Clause be read a second time:—
    "Limitation of Application of Act.
    No sums issued under this Act shall be applied towards making good any Supply granted to His Majesty after the passing of this Act."
    As you have said, the effect of that is that any Supply which is granted after the passing of this Act cannot be used for the purpose of defraying any expense which may arise from services which have been entered into by the Government. This point was raised with very great warmth and some show of reason by the then Opposition in 1905. Then it was the Army; now it is the Navy. They pointed out that to take money which we have voted for the Army and apply it to the Navy is really practically to evade the rule which has always
    1742
    guided this House. It may be said that the Report stage of the Navy Vote will be taken on Monday, and that, therefore, all that my Amendment would do would be to prevent this Bill passing or being acted upon until the Report stage—that is to say, the Royal Assent could not be given until the Report stage of the Navy Bill—
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the effect of the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: If that is the case I would—
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is not the effect of my Amendment. I say it might be held that that is the effect, but that is not so. I was anticipating the argument which would be brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Never in this world.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear that. I will now proceed to the only other argument which can be brought forward against the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman—that is, that if it is carried ft will necessitate another Consolidated Fund Bill in a very short time. It has already been said in this House to-day that the Committee ought to keep control of the finance of the country in its own hands. I do not want to go into the reasons which have actuated this procedure, but if for any reason it has been necessary to push matters forward in the hurried way in which they have been pushed forward, then it is the duty of the Government of the day to see that the rules of procedure which have governed the finances of the country for centuries shall be observed and to bring in another Consolidated Fund Bill. In those circumstances, I beg to move the Clause.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I had the pleasure of congratulating the hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Hope), whom I do not see any longer in his place, on the skill which characterised the last Amendment. But I cannot congratulate the hon. Baronet on the Clause which he now proposes—indeed, it is with sorrow that I find him making himself responsible for such a Clause as this. What is the effect of this Clause, apart from the hypothetically expected conjectures to which he referred which might be advanced by some person — I thought it was himself — and which would be the construction of some not very skilful person? The effect of this Clause is simply this, that not a penny of this £41,000,000 can be expended upon the Navy. Although the House to-night, to-morrow, and on Monday will sanction the granting of certain Votes for payment of the Navy, those Votes cannot be got out of the Exchequer until we have gone through all the formalities of First Reading, Resolution in Ways and Means, Report of Resolution, Second Reading, Committee, and Third Reading of another Consolidated Fund Bill. That is what the hon. Baronet proposes. His argument is that he is keeping control by the House of Commons over the finance of the country. He is doing nothing of the kind. Not a penny of this money which is authorised by the Bill now before the House can be expended upon the Navy until the House has voted it in Committee in the first place, and sanctioned the expenditure, and until the Resolution is voted in Committee and reported to the House and approved upon Report. Therefore the House retains the most absolute control as to whether or not, and to what extent, any of the money, the issue of which is authorised by this Bill, shall be expended. No one knows better than the hon. Baronet that it would be a farce going again through the whole of these proceedings for several days on a new Consolidated Fund Bill, and that it would leave the Navy for a week, at any rate, without any lawful means of having one single penny spent upon it. That is the utmost expedition with which the Bill could be got through, and for a week it would be impossible to legally spend one halfpenny on the service of the Navy. That is the effect of the Amendmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is the effect, and you cannot get out of it. The legality of this practice was very much called in question in 1905. The Government of that day, for reasons which were then
    1744
    stated, and which at any rate satisfied the public, contended that it was legal. But that is not the question. We are following strictly the precedents, and the hon. Baronet is now trying, by an affirmative provision in the Bill, to make it illegal to spend the money.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am trying to make it illegal to spend the money on the Navy without you pass another Consolidated Fund Bill.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Baronet is trying to make it illegal to spend one penny of the money granted under this Bill on the Navy. We are following now the practice which has been followed since 1891, and it has not been attended by any inconvenience or abuse. This proposal would deprive an important service of the nation for an appreciable time of the necessary expenditure, and would do this for the first time by a private Amendment introduced into the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The only effect would be to necessitate another Consolidated Fund Bill, which might take a week, though I do not know that it would. But that is not our fault; it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman in trying to bring forward too many Bills in one Session, and prolonging the Session to such an extent that he could not call the House together at the proper time.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That, again, is only the point which was taken in 1905 in regard to the Army; in this case it is the Navy. But no proposal was made at that time to introduce a Clause of this kind. Doubts were expressed as to the legality of the proceeding and as to whether we could, in these circumstances, lawfully issue on the part of the Crown money for such a purpose. No attempt was made to introduce any such Clause as this, and if there was, I am quite prepared to say that it was a mistake, and a mistake which ought not to be repeated. Let me point out that the hon. Baronet, on account of what he thinks our misdealing, is punishing the Navy by necessitating another Consolidated Fund Bill; in other words, this is the first time it is proposed to introduce a Clause of this kind into the Bill. We are following the normal operation of what has been the practice since 1891, and it is not possible for us to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, has made a very convincing statement of the case, but he must have overlooked a similar proposal made on a former occasion by the First Lord of the Admiralty. On that occasion it is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to bring it to a discussion in this House for the simple reason that the Chairman held it was not in order, and he was not allowed to move it.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may say that I have some faint recollection of that, but I have not been able to find the record of it, and therefore I guarded myself on this occasion by saying that this was not to be taken as a precedent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The Committee will understand that his proposal was in a different form, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the effect of his proposal was the same, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman, who afterwards became responsible for the Navy, was himself guilty of all these crimes of which the right hon. Gentleman now speaks. The right hon. Gentleman now thinks it is quite a sufficient case when he points out that there is not time to get a second Consolidated Bill through. That is the attitude now. But what was his attitude in 1905? He turned to the Government of that day saying, "you make the excuse that the service will be starved, but whose fault is it? It is yours," and the right hon. Gentleman was then supported by the then Opposition in the very course which he deprecates to-day.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is not my recollection, nor is it that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman can disprove, if he can, that it is so, but I think I am right in what I am saying. There seems to be a fate in these
    1746
    things, and ill-doing, which is no very grave fault in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman when sanctioned by his own side, is apt to have its revenge. What happened previously was this: A right hon. Gentleman was inconvenienced, as the First Lord of the Admiralty is to-day, by what happened.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Well, the House was inconvenienced by not having had the advantage of hearing the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have had the privilege of listening to a very interesting and amusing Debate.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, found it rather disquieting to listen to these discussions when very much more important matters were in his mind. The point I wish to remind him of is that he was the ringleader in 1905 of the very great obstruction which took place on that occasion. I do not deny that there has been obstruction on this occasion, but what has been the cause of it? It was not only begun by the other side, but a very undesirable precedent was set which was continued by the right hon. Gentleman a member of the Privy Council, who occupies an important position on that Bench. I say that the right hon. Gentleman on the occasion in 1905 was the ringleader, and eleven Divisions were taken on the same stage on which these discussions have taken place to-day.
    Question, "that the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.
    Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 131.

    Division No. 15.]

    AYES.

    [7.56 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bentham, G. J.

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Adamson, William

    Boland, John Pius

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Addison, Dr. C.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Alden, Percy

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Clough, William

    Arnold, Sydney

    Brace, William

    Clynes, John R.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Cotton, William Francis

    Barnes, G. N.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Barton, William

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Crean, Eugene

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Crooks, William

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Crumley, Patrick

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    1747

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, W. (Carnarvon)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Delany, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Kelly, Edward

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Radford, G. H.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dillon, John

    King, J.

    Reddy, Michael

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Doris, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Leach, Charles

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Falconer, James

    Lynch, A. A.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macdonald J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    McGhee, Richard

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Field, William

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rowlands, James

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Fitzgibbon, John

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Gilhooly, James

    Manfield, Harry

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Sheehy, David

    Glanville, H. J.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meagher, Michael

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Middlebrook, William

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Millar, James Duncan

    Snowden, Philip

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Gulland, John William

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Sutton, John E.

    Gwynn, Stephen (Galway)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hackett, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morrell, Philip

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hardle, J. Keir

    Morison, Hector

    Thomas, James Henry

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Muldoon, John

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Munro, R.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Hayward, Evan

    Neilson, Francis

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Wardle, George J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Waring, Walter

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Webb, H.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Hinds, John

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Hodge, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Grady, James

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Malley, William

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Shee, James John

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wing, Thomas

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parry, Thomas H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bigland, Alfred

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Bird, Alfred

    Campion, W. R.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Blair, Reginald

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Barnston, Harry

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Cassel, Felix

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    1748

    1749

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Croft, H. P.

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Fell, Arthur

    Hunt, Rowland

    Stewart, Gershom

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Valentia, Viscount

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Grant, J. A.

    M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Gretton, John

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Younger, Sir George

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Remnant and Mr. Stanier.

    Mr. RUPERT GUINNESS: May I say I passed through the Lobby when there was no Teller at the door.
    Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Thursday).

  SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES.

    MR. CHURCHILL'S STATEMENT.
    Mr. MORRELL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether I shall have the opportunity now to submit my Resolution later this evening?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say whether there will be an opportunity before eleven o'clock. I will do my best to provide the hon. Member with that opportunity, but it does not rest with me.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I do not at all complain of any delay which may have occurred this afternoon, because what has happened illustrates a very important naval and strategic truth which I have several times endeavoured to impress upon the House—I mean the difficulty under which the
    1750
    strongest naval Power always lies of being ready to meet at its average moment the attack of the next strongest naval Power at its selected moment. If our proceedings this afternoon have inculcated that valuable principle to the minds of the Members on both sides of the House, the Admiralty, at any rate, will have no reason to complain of any inconvenience. I imagine that the House will wish me to enter fully on this occasion into the general Admiralty policy of the year, and it will perhaps be convenient if I summarise the course which my statement will take this evening. First, I shall explain by tracing the general causes which are at work why the Naval Estimates have increased this year and will increase again next year, and I will deal with some of the financial questions involved. Then I shall examine the standards of relative naval strength which we recommend should be maintained, and the bases and limitations of any possible naval agreement with Germany. In this connection I will speak of the general development of the Dominion navies and will indicate so far as it is proper to do so what is, in the opinion of the Admiralty, the best course for such development to follow.
    Next I shall deal with the development in the type of the British capital ship so far as it is proper to touch upon such matters, and with the development of the

    1751
    minor programmes. In this connection I will refer to certain special questions like oil, air, armed merchantmen, and wireless telegraphy. Leaving materiel, I shall then come to various questions affecting the welfare of officers and men. I will then explain the scale of the fleets which we should maintain in this and future years in the various standards of commission, and show how the scheme of organisation which was last year submitted to the House of Commons is being and will be completed, and how that process relates to the large augmentations which are in progress elsewhere. From this I shall pass to the manning of the Navy; discuss the provision necessary for the future, and will finally state the present position in the event of mobilisation. Thus the Committee will be placed in possession of the Government view upon all, or almost all, the principal naval questions which are of current importance.
    Let me begin with the causes of the increases in naval expenditure. Those causes are not to be found in the numbers of new ships of various classes begun last year or projected for this year. The programmes of 1912–13 and 1913–14 follow conventional lines. More great ships have been built in previous years when the Estimates were lower. The minor programmes, except so far as light cruisers are concerned, do not exceed normal limits. If we go back over the last five years, and compute the amount of "Dreadnought" construction which accrued for payment in the currency of each, we shall see that the volume of "Dreadnought" construction falling due in the present year is less than that which fell due in any year since 1910–11. Let me illustrate this by a brief calculation. Every capital ship sanctioned by Parliament affects the finance of three years. There are, therefore, in each year, ships which are begun, ships which are finished, and ships which are under construction throughout the whole twelve months. To compute the aggregate "Dreadnought" construction in any one year, it is necessary to multiply the number of ships building by the number of months when work was being done on them. The comparable figures for the five years will be found to work out as follows, in months multiplied by "Dreadnoughts":—

    1909–10

    …

    91

    "Dreadnought"

    months.

    1910–11

    …

    130

    "Dreadnought"

    months.

    1911–12

    …

    146

    "Dreadnought"

    months.

    1912–13

    …

    146

    "Dreadnought"

    months.

    1752
    and the Estimate for the present year, 1913–14, is 134. Taking a "Dreadnought" month as costing, on all Votes, roughly £100,000, there ought apparently to be a relief of £1,200,000 from that cause. How, then, it will be asked, are the Estimates of the present year so much above those of the year 1911–12, when the minor programmes are constant and the capital ship construction is actually less? The increases in the Estimates, past, present, and prospective, arise from five main causes: first from the decisions of policy to increase the number of ships maintained in full commission in consequence of the new German Navy Law, and to increase the numbers and the pay of the personnel. Secondly, from the increase in the size, speed, armaments, equipment, and cost of warships of all kinds necessary to keep pace with the similar vessels building all over the world. Thirdly, from the introduction and development of new services, principally oil fuel, the air service, and wireless telegraphy. Fourthly, from the general increase in prices and wages, and particuarly in the cost of coal, oil, steel, and all materials used in connection with shipbuilding. Fifthly, from arrears of shipbuilding in the last two years, arising from the failure of contractors to earn their proper instalments, as manifested by the delay in executing the current programmes. Speaking in general terms, one may say that the increase in the numbers and pay of the personnel costs, in this year, £730,000; that the new services, oil, air, and wireless, are responsible for an addition of £1,500,000 above the similar charges of 1912–13; that there is a million and a half on account of the increase of prices; and another million on account of arrears of shpibuilding; and that these factors, together with the increased size and power of each vessel under construction, sweep away the reductions which might have been expected in consequence of a smaller "Dreadnought" programme, and constitute the great increase which has raised the Estimates for the year to £46,300,000.
    The Estimates of this year would, indeed, have been substantially higher but for the extreme congestion in the shipyards arising from the extraordinary demands upon our shipbuilding plant, and especially upon our skilled labour supply, which are the characteristics of the present moment. It would be no use my asking Parliament for large sums of money which would not, so far as can now be foreseen, be earned

    1753
    by the contractors, but which would only inflate the Naval Estimates purposelessly, and have in the end to be devoted to the payment of the National Debt. I have therefore, upon past experience and upon the best advice that I can secure, thought it proper to make, so far as the Contract section of Vote 8 and Votes 9 and 10 are concerned, an estimate not of the total nominal cost of executing the programmes, if nothing went wrong and if nothing were delayed, but of the maximum which the contractors will, in all probability, be able to earn. If my expectations should be exceeded, and if, as I hope, better progress is made in executing the programmes which Parliament has sanctioned—there is no question of new charges; it is a question of executing decisions which the House has already come to—it will be necessary for me to come to Parliament later in the year for a Supplementary Estimate. Every effort has been and will be made to carry out with all possible punctuality the work which Parliament has sanctioned. It is my duty to inform the House at this stage that, large as these Estimates are, it is possible that they will have to be supplemented, not because of new liabilities being incurred, but because of existing liabilities accruing for payment at an earlier date than it is now reasonable to expect. Lest delay in the execution of the programmes should occasion undue apprehension, I must observe that, so large is the scale of Admiralty business, a delay of six or seven weeks in the execution of current programmes makes a difference of nearly £2,000,000 in Estimates of the year. This powerfully affects naval finance, but does not appreciably alter the margin of naval strength.
    The whole of the Estimates this year have been examined, Vote by Vote, with the utmost care by the newly constituted Finance Committee set up by the Board of Admiralty under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and every effort will continue to be made to scrutinise and control in detail the growth of naval expenditure. There is, however, no reason to doubt that the main causes of the increase in past years, which I have mentioned, will continue to operate in the immediate future. The Navy is passing through a period, not merely of expansion, but of swift and ceaseless development. It is, in fact, a vast scientific business of ever-growing range and complexity, stimulated and governed by inventions and improvements in almost every sphere of
    1754
    applied mechanics, forced without cessation to enter upon new paths of research and of the application of the results of research, and fanned to the highest point of activity by the rapid advance in every direction of rival Powers.
    As I stated last year, the latest German Navy law has increased the number of vessels we require to construct each year, and that law and Mediterranean requirements have still more increased the numbers and proportion of ships which must be maintained in the highest condition of readiness. To man and maintain the resulting war fleets a continual large increase in the number of officers and men of all ranks and ratings is required. To keep pace with labour conditions outside and other circumstances, increases have had to be made in the pay of officers and men and in the wages of dockyard employés. The growing complexity of the Service—because the House must realise that from month to month the complication and refinements of the machinery on board ship are making advances—steadily increases the proportion of the higher-paid ratings required; the maturing of schemes of good conduct and other non-substantive rates of pay, together with the automatic growth of the non-effective Votes, insurance charges, and the like, must augment the Estimates of each successive year, and we are confronted with a steady and resistless movement in the general cost of the scientific establishment of the Navy.
    The increase in the size, cost, and speed of capital ships, compelled by the general developments of naval science and the types of ships building abroad, is marked and unceasing. The increase in speed affects, not only capital ships, but destroyers, light cruisers, and submarines. Increase of speed involves immense increase of horse-power—since we have been in office the horse-power of the Navy has nearly doubled—and the increase in horsepower is almost directly productive of increase in the consumption of fuel. The increased cost of fuel—particularly of oil fuel—is very serious, and shows no likelihood of immediate abatement. On the other hand, it is not possible to reduce the number of days steaming at sea without falling behind the necessary standard of sea-going training.
    The adoption by Germany, America, and Italy of larger guns for their primary armaments, and of larger and more numerous guns for their secondary armaments, has necessitated a further advance

    1755
    by us, thus very greatly increasing the outlay on these weapons, and, still more, on the ammunition they require both for practice and for war. No abatement in the annual consumption of practice ammunition can be looked for, but, on the contrary, increases are certain. The increased power and size of the new and more expensive torpedoes have led to an increase in the number of torpedo tubes, and the increased facilities for firing them makes it necessary to increase the supply of these more expensive torpedoes which have to be provided for use in each particular tube. There is a greater complexity and finish required for all apparatus on board ship, especially fire control apparatus, upon which we have had to make very large expenditure this year—gyro-compasses, range-finders, and other delicate machines of that class.
    Larger ships and guns involve larger docks, and an increase in the scale of all appliances and yard machinery used in the construction and repair of the ships. Not only the size, but the complexity and finish of yard machinery is steadily increasing. I will speak of the important new services which are developing later. Their cost is heavy. On the top of all this comes the influence of large increases in prices, of which every Member has personal experience, and sooner or later on top of that will come the weight of delayed liabilities from arrears of shipbuilding, which I have already mentioned. The moment there is the slightest slackening in trade in the shipyards all the arrears of shipbuilding will be worked off, and at the very moment perhaps when the trade of the country is not at its best the Navy Estimates will automatically take an upward lift. That, however, will not have a bad effect upon the stability of employment in the great shipbuilding yards.
    I think the Committee will see from what I have said that there is no prospect in the future of avoiding increases of the Navy Estimates unless the period of acute naval rivalries and rapid scientific expansion through which we are passing comes to an end. Of all nations we are perhaps the best able to bear the strain, if it should be continued. There are greater accumulations of capital in this country than anywhere else. We are freed from the necessity of maintaining an Army on the Continental scale. Our fiscal and financial system enables us to make large expansions of taxation without directly, at any rate, raising the cost of the living of the
    1756
    masses of the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] But although we are not likely to be in any difficulty in regard to men or money, and although the upkeep of our Navy will always be regarded as the first charge on the resources of the British Empire, the folly, the pitiful folly, of what is taking place here and all over the world is so patent to the meanest intelligence that a concerted effort to arrest or to modify it should surely rank amongst the first of international objects! There is, happily, a way which is open which would give almost instantaneous mitigation to the nations of the world from the absurd thraldom in which they are involving themselves at the present time. We are all in very much the same case. A good deal of what I am going to say could, I think, be repeated by the Minister of every other Great Power, or almost every other Great Power, without the slightest prejudice to his own national interests. In the sphere of naval competition everything is relative. The strength of one navy is its strength compared to another. The value of a ship depends almost entirely upon the contemporary ship which it may have to meet. The usefulness of a naval invention ceases when it is enjoyed by everybody else. A 30-knot ship has no greater advantage over a 27-knot ship than has a 20-knot ship over a 17-knot ship. The results are the same. The conditions of their competing are exactly the same. The cost alone is perhaps double. The same may be said of guns and armour. Their value is purely relative. There is no practical naval advantage to be gained by improvements in matériel, except where one nation possesses over others the monopoly for the time being of a secret, or where it has been able to make some advance which the others have not been able to share.
    As the science of the great nations advances, broadly speaking, together, it is probable that special conditions on the one hand or the other are soon averaged out, and that the general advance is uniform and equal for all. I believe that to be true in the main, though there are no doubt exceptions of a partial character. Yet we see the ship types of every naval Power superseding those of the previous year with remorseless persistency, scores of millions being absolutely squandered without any result, and the pace and scale continually increasing without any real gain in the relative position of any of the competing Powers. Every year the great nations of Christendom not only make obsolete the

    1757
    fleets of their rivals, but they make obsolete their own fleets. They do that without adding in the least either to their actual security or relative strength. We are in the position of half a dozen competing manufacturers who are each year perpetually scrapping and renewing their plant without adding either to the volume or the profits of their business. Could anything be more stupid? Could anything be more wasteful? There is no practical result so long as all are advancing equally. On the other hand, no one Power can stand still whilst the others are advancing without in a very short time being hopelessly outclassed. This is a question which I would ask, if I may presume to do so, and which ought to be asked, not only of the Great Powers, but of the great peoples. It is a practical question; I am not putting any sentiment into my examination of this subject. This is the question: If, for the space of a year, for twelve calendar months, no new ships were built by any nation, in what conceivable manner would the interests of any nation be affected or prejudiced? You have good ships to-day. They are the best in the world—till better ones are built. Can they not have at least one year's reign before they are dethroned? Why should we not take a naval holiday for one year, so far, at any rate, as new construction of capital ships is concerned?
    That is the question that I foreshadowed last year. That is the proposal I repeat this year. It is a proposal, I should like to point out, which involves no alteration in the relative strength of the navies. It implies no abandonment of any scheme of naval organisation or of naval increase. It is contrary to the system of no Navy Law. It imposes no check upon the development of true naval efficiency. It is so simple that it could lead to no misunderstanding. The finances of every country would obtain relief. No navy would sustain the slightest injury. We in Great Britain can speak with simplicity and directness upon such a subject. Our naval science is not inferior to that of any other country. Our resources are greater. Our experience is far greater. Our designs at every stage in the world's competition have maintained their old primacy, and, judged by the custom which we receive from other countries, our prices and the quality of our workmanship lie under no reproach. Each year, so long as new ships are built, we shall build the best that science can project or money
    1758
    can buy. We shall do the utmost to preserve that leadership in design which is no less necessary to naval supremacy than is preponderance in numbers. Sir, it is no appeal of weakness, panting or lagging behind, that we make, but rather an appeal of strength striding on in front. It is an appeal which we address to all nations, and to no nation with more profound sincerity than to our great neighbour over the North Sea. Let me say at once how much we welcome the calm and friendly tone and temper which has characterised recent German naval discussions. After a period of active naval preparation and direct comparison of naval strength, it is very satisfactory to observe that the relations between the two countries have sensibly improved, and that from the perils and anxieties under which Europe has dwelt these many months Great Britain and Germany have known how to draw the conviction that both of them are earnest to preserve the peace unbroken. Sentiments of goodwill, the growth of mutual confidence and respect, do much to rob the naval rivalries of their alarms and dangers, and permit us to approach the iron facts of the situation with composure and with a certain sense of detachment. Consciousness of our strength and the resolution of all parties in the House to do what is necessary to maintain it, ought to banish from our discussions anything in the nature of scaremongering or bluster which when applied in distortion of military facts are a certain means of producing errors in one's own policy and illwill in the policy of others. There is another mistake which we ought to be able to avoid. We must not try to read into recent German naval declarations a meaning which we should like, but which they do not possess; nor ought we to seek to tie German naval policy down to our wishes by too precise interpretations of friendly language used in the German Reichstag with a good and reassuring purpose. If, for instance, I were to say that Admiral Von Tirpitz had recognised that a British preponderance of sixteen to ten in "Dreadnoughts" was satisfactory to Germany, that such a preponderance exists almost exactly in the present period, and that in consequence Germany ought not to begin any more capital ships until we did, that might be a logical argument, but it would, I am sure, do a great deal of harm, and if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

    1759
    Foreign Affairs were to press this point upon the German Government and to urge them through diplomatic channels to build no new ships this year, it would only lead to a direct refusal and subsequent recrimination, which would be very injurious. As a matter of fact the increased German programme of three vessels for the year 1913 has already passed the Reichstag, and there is good reason to believe that they will be begun without delay, and no remonstrance or appeal on our part would have any effect that would not be regrettable.
    The naval policy towards Germany which I have been permitted to lay before the House and which has so far received very general acceptance in the country and produced no evil consequences in any quarter, is based on strength, candour, and simplicity. It excludes all idea of entangling bargains which would only break down in disputes and irritations. Both nations must be perfectly free to take whatever course in naval armaments may seem to them at any time wise and right, and to modify and extend their programmes and elevate or vary their standards as they may see fit. It has long been the policy of Germany to announce beforehand for a series of years what their naval programme will be. It has lately been our policy to forecast, as far as we can, and subject to all necessary reservations against what cannot be foreseen, what consequences these German programmes will produce in our own construction over more or less the same series of years; and to state, as I now state, that if in any particular year, not as a matter of bargain, but as a matter of fact, the programme of causation is reduced or cancelled, the programme of consequence will, subject to all necessary reservations against what cannot now be foreseen, be reduced or cancelled, too. Thus a framework and structure for events is established by which dangerous ambitions and apprehensions alike are effectively excluded and under the shelter of which good will and all the forces of good will may work without misconception or interference.
    All our forecasts in this swiftly changing human scene are liable to revision by unexpected events, but I am glad to say that nothing which has happened in the year that has passed has led us to alter the numerical programmes I submitted to the House in March and July of 1912 or
    1760
    the guiding standards on which they were based. Had new construction under the German Naval Law remained at the augmented rate of two capital ships a year for six years, British programmes of four ships and three ships alternately would, in the Admiralty view, have sufficed to maintain the 60 per cent. "Dreadnought" standard. As the German new construction has been increased by two capital ships in the six years' period under review, the British programmes will be increased by four capital ships, two of which require to be laid down in the present year, making, as I stated last July, our total construction in capital ships for the year five, as against three of the next strongest naval Power. The British programmes as revised of the six years under review will thus, as I explained to the House in July last, aggregate a total of twenty-five ships against fourteen. Two ships will be added to this total for every extra vessel laid down by Germany. Additional to this total will be any ships which we may have to build in consequence of new naval developments in the Mediterranean. I am glad to say that no such developments are to be observed at the present time. Thirdly, the ship presented by the Federated Malay Straits and the three ships now under discussion in Canada will also be additional to the total I have mentioned, that being the specific condition on which they were given and accepted.
    These are the bases of a naval policy which, coolly and inflexibly pursued during the next few years, will, we believe, place our country and the British Empire beyond the reach of purely naval pressure, and which need not at any stage of its execution be fomented into a cause of quarrel with our German neighbours. I will now examine three subsidiary objections which may, with some show of plausibility, be urged from different parts of the House. First, there is the obvious dilemma about the Colonial ships. Either, it is said, our standard of 60 per cent. is sufficient for the time being, or it is not. If it is not, prove to us that more is required, and if we are convinced we will increase it. If it is sufficient, then the Colonial ships and other vessels are ipso facto redundant, and from that very cause an unjustifiable extravagance. That is in my opinion a false dilemma; indeed, if I might emulate or borrow from the spacious vocabulary of the Prime Minister, I would call it a fuliginous dilemma. The people of these islands cannot be expected to go on

    1761
    indefinitely bearing the whole burden of Imperial naval defence. We have done, and are doing, our duty, and more than our duty, to the Empire as a whole. We are confronted with a great preoccupation in European waters in consequence of which we are making naval preparations hitherto unequalled in peace time. The maintenance of the strongest Navy in the decisive theatre is in itself the main safeguard for the peace and security of the whole British Empire. We have also now, and in the immediate future we shall have, the power by making special arrangements to send powerful squadrons to any part of the British Empire, which may be locally threatened. It is evident, however, that were the pressure in the decisive theatre to grow continuously, our power to detach local reinforcements would gradually become diminished. It therefore behoves the Overseas Dominions to make exertions for their own and for the common security, whether by what are called local navies, or by what, in the Admiralty view, is more effectual, by additions to the Imperial Navy. It behoves them to make exertions by the one method or the other to preserve, restore, or increase the world-wide mobility of the Imperial Fleet. It could never be supposed that the naval development of the Dominions, and of the great possessions of the Crown overseas, could be restricted or discouraged on account of any European standard which we, in this island, found it convenient for the time being to follow. They too, like us, must remain absolutely free; it is for them to choose the method of their naval development, and it is for them to choose also whether any naval forces, which they may call into being, shall be additional to the British standards, or whether they shall be contributions in aid of the heavy burden now borne by the British taxpayer. If, therefore, we are confronted with this, as I call it, false dilemma of the Colonial or Dominion ships, we may answer it directly. They are additional to the requirements of the 60 per cent. standard; they are not additional to the whole-world requirements of the British Empire.
    May I, with the indulgence of the House, make at this point a digression from the main argument I am pursuing, in order to outline the scheme which we have in mind for employment by the Admiralty of any capital ships which may be provided by Canada for general Imperial service. Of course, it is understood
    1762
    that Canada will always retain a right to recall these ships on giving reasonable notice; but while they are under the direct control of the Admiralty it is not proposed to merge them in the regular squadrons of the British Fleet. We propose to form them with the "Malaya," and if agreeable to the Dominions concerned with the "New Zealand," into a new squadron of five ships of high uniform speed, to be called the Imperial squadron, which would be based on Gibraltar, and from that station could easily reach any portion of the British Empire in a shorter time than any European force of equal power could move. From that station it would be possible for such a squadron to reach Halifax in five days, Quebec in six, Jamaica in nine, the South American coast in twelve, Cape Town in thirteen, Alexandria in three, Sydney in twenty-eight, New Zealand in thirty-two, Hong Kong in twenty-two, and Vancouver in twenty-three days, and the Channel in a very much shorter time. Our intention is that this squadron should, as opportunity offers, cruise freely about the British Empire, visiting the various Dominions, and showing itself ready to operate at any threatened point at home or abroad. The Dominions will be consulted by the Admiralty on all movements of this squadron not dominated by military considerations, and special facilities will be given to Canadians, Australians, South Africans, and New Zealanders to serve as men and officers in the squadron. In this way, a true idea will be given of a mobile Imperial squadron of the greatest strength and speed patrolling the Empire, snowing the flag, and bringing really effective aid wherever it may be needed. The squadron could, of course, be strengthened from time to time by further capital ships, or by fast cruisers, if any of the Dominions thought fit.
    Side by side with this the Dominions will be encouraged by the Admiralty to develop the necessary naval bases, dockyards, cruisers, local flotillas, or other ancillary craft, which would enable the Imperial squadron to operate for a prolonged period in any particular threatened theatre to which it might be sent. There is no more valuable principle of Imperial federation than this principle, which I am bringing forward to-night, of inter-Dominion action. The homely old tale of the bundle of sticks, each of which could be snapped separately, but which bound together were unbreakable, is the last word

    1763
    in the naval strategy of the British Empire. We cannot, of course, direct or control these developments. Each one of the Dominions is absolutely free to take its own course, and the Admiralty will do its best to work loyally in naval matters with the responsible Ministers of any Government that may come into power in any part of the British Empire. That is our duty; but it is also our duty, with our knowledge and experience in naval matters, which is necessarily greater, to state clearly what we believe to be the right and sound plan for these important developments to follow in the future, and endeavour to combine, so far as possible, what is best for each with what is best for all. I return to the main argument I am submitting to the House. It will be said with great relevance at this point: if you are contemplating these external developments of the Dominion fleet; if all this is so; does not the possibilty of an indefinite development or extension of the naval power of the Dominions make it practically impossible for Germany, even if she were so minded, to accept the sort of proposal you have been making for a naval holiday? That is a fair question, but the answer is clearly "No." Any such proposal would have to be limited, in the first instance, to one particular year, and would naturally take into consideration all the circumstances of that year all over the world. This time last year I offered, on behalf of the British Government, publicly and openly, not to build any British capital ships this year, if Germany built none, and I pointed out how advantageous such an arrangement would be to the relative strength of the German Navy.
    That proposal has not so far borne fruit. Since then we have had the new German Navy Law, and since then the German ships of 1913 have been sanctioned. Every event in this world brings its consequences with it. Since then, all over the British Empire, men's minds have been turned to this subject. Canada has come forward, the Federated Malay States have come forward, Australia and New Zealand are already acting, and South Africa is already on the move. A sustained impetus has been given to the opinions of millions of men spread all over the surface of the world. Great communities under their different conditions of sky and climate have shown themselves actuated by a common impulse. The results, so far as can be foreseen, are that nine capital
    1764
    ships will be constructed on behalf of the British Empire in the year 1913. That year is settled, and there is no going back on that. Take the year 1914. I have no reason to believe it is the desire of the German Government to postpone or cancel their programme of construction for that year; but, if it be their desire, they have only to make it known. No one builds "Dreadnoughts" for fun, and we can see no practical difficulty, in the absence of any dangerous or unforeseen development elsewhere in arriving at a good and complete arrangement for that year, not only on behalf of the British Government, but on behalf of the British Empire as a whole. As the year 1914 is one of those years when we shall be building four ships to two, a mutual cessation could clearly be no disadvantage to the relative position of the next strongest naval Power.
    9.0 P.M.
    It is clear, however, that such an arrangement would probably involve other Powers besides Great Britain and Germany. The programmes of France and Russia on the one hand, and of Austria and Italy on the other, would have to be taken into consideration. I am sanguine enough not to see any insuperable difficulty in that. The influence of the British and German Governments, acting together for the peace and welfare of the world, is priceless and measureless, and, if an arrangement between them, be it only for one particular year, for the prevention of what can plainly be shown to be a wasteful, purposeless, and futile folly, were to acquire a wider international scope and significance, that would be all the more cause for general rejoicing and all the more honour to those who had taken part in bringing it about. Here, again, we are in a very good position to ventilate such ideas and to advance them to the best of our ability, because we have proved in recent years, and are increasingly proving, our capacity and resolve as a people and as an Empire to maintain and, as I shall presently show, to improve our naval position whatever action may be taken elsewhere. No one can accuse us of wishing to gain by negotiation or by supplication an advantage which we cannot win by sacrifice and effort. At any rate, there is the suggestion renewed again for 1914 or, if 1914 is too near, for 1915. Meanwhile, let me make it clear that while such a suggestion docs not bear fruit events will continue to move forward along the path upon which they have now been set, with

    1765
    the result that at every stage the naval superiority of the British Empire will be found to be established upon a more unassailable foundation. I make no apology for dealing thus bluntly and plainly with the whole situation as I see it, and I am absolutely convinced that this treatment of the subject at the present period is not only the best but the only way in which the present dreary and wasteful epoch will be terminated and a close brought to one of the most melancholy and stupid chapters in the whole history of European civilisation. I now turn to the third of these subsidiary objections. I am examining an objection of a very different kind which will be urged from quite another quarter. It will be said, it has been said, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lee) I have no doubt is waiting to say, that the present total battleship strength of the British Navy, taking the "Dreadnoughts" and the pre-"Dreadnoughts" together, is about two to one compared with Germany. You, it will be said, proposed to replenish that strength during six years by programmes which maintain, and indeed, as these critics would argue, barely maintain, a ratio of sixteen to ten in "Dreadnoughts." In proportion, then, as the British ship superiority in pre-"Dreadnoughts" passes away, you will have exchanged the present general superiority of about two to one for a bare "Dreadnought" ratio of sixteen to ten. I think I have stated that objection fairly. It is one I have seen put forward in many quarters, and now I will endeavour to answer it.
    The series of programmes which have been declared to the House, and which we see at present no reason to alter, take into full consideration the obsolescence of the British pre-"Dreadnoughts" in relation to the existing augmented German new construction, and they also take into consideration all other circumstances known to us at the present time. These programmes aggregate twenty-five ships to fourteen. Twenty-five ships to fourteen is not a ratio of sixteen to ten; it is a ratio of eighteen to ten. The difference between these programmes, which I declared last year, and a standard in new construction of two keels to one, uniform over the whole era, amounts during the whole six-year period to only three ships. But that is not all. The position cannot be completely appreciated by a simple statement of numbers. Hitherto, during recent years, we have been accustomed to speak of "Dreadnoughts" and of pre-"Dreadnoughts."
    1766
    There is another class which has now assumed great importance, though it has hardly ever been mentioned. I mean the super-"Dreadnought." British battleship types, which for a long period had remained practically constant, began in 1902, with the first of the "King Edwards," a marked and unceasing development, and the vessels of every year have been more powerful than those of the preceding year. In this ascending scale there are two main upward steps, the first, which separates the original "Dreadnought" from the last of the "King Edwards" (I omit the two "Lord Nelsons." which are exceptional ships, to avoid confusion); and, secondly, that which divides the last of the "Dreadnoughts," the "Colossus," from the first of the super-"Dreadnoughts," the "Orion." Here let me say a word about my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, (Mr. McKenna). I do not believe there has been in recent times any more daring, and certainly there has been no more successful step, in naval policy taken than that which was taken by him on the advice of the then First Sea Lord (Lord Fisher) in making that great advance with the eight ships of the 1910–11 programme, and increasing the size and increasing the gun power of those vessels. That was a most bold and decisive step; it was a big step forward; and it has had the result that we have sixteen ships built and building, armed with 13.5 inch guns which will be afloat before any ship armed with a weapon of similar power is on the water or in the possession of any other naval Power.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: Does that include the ships of the "Colossus" and "Hercules" type?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I mean super-"Dreadnoughts." I mean the great step by which he moved forward from the "Hercules" type to the "Orion" type. Those who wish to arrive at a true appreciation of the relative battleship strength of this country will make their comparisons on a three-fold basis of pre-"Dreadnoughts," "Dreadnoughts," and super-"Dreadnoughts." The differences between the super-"Dreadnoughts" and the "Dreadnoughts" are no less great than those between the "Dreadnoughts" and the pre-"Dreadnoughts." Surveying then these three classes, we find that our tail of pre-"Dreadnoughts" is enormously preponderant, but growing old; our middle piece comprises fourteen "Dreadnoughts,"

    1767
    sixteen if the "Australia" and "New Zealand" are counted, eighteen if the "Lord Nelson" and "Agamemnon" are counted, against eleven comparable German ships. Our head which consists of twenty super-"Dreadnoughts," built and building, or twenty-one including the "Malaya," or twenty-four if the Canadian battleships are added, would be measured against a comparable German construction at present in view of twelve super-"Dreadnoughts." If to these totals were added on both sides the remaining five forecasted programmes which I indicated last year, namely, twenty-one to the British total and twelve to the German total, we arrive at the position in 1920 of forty-one British super-"Dreadnoughts" built and building, or forty-five if the Canadian and Malayan ships are included, against twenty-four German super-"Dreadnoughts," or a preponderance, in by far the most powerful class of vessel, which approaches two keels to one. Even at that date our superiority in pre-"Dreadnoughts" will not have wholly ceased to count, but the House will see that as it gradually passes away provision has been made in the Admiralty programmes, which I announced to Parliament last year, for counterbalancing what I may describe as the growing obsolescence of our once powerful tail by the increasing preponderance of our still more powerful head.
    Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the corresponding figure for Austria and Italy in super-"Dreadnoughts" at the same time?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I am dealing with one particular aspect only, namely, a comparison between our standard and that of the next strongest naval Power. I am well aware of what he refers to—the Mediterranean Fleets.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: When he said eleven ships of the pre-"Dreadnought" type in Germany and twelve super-"Dreadnoughts," did he include the "Kaiser" type?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have taken this line—I am not giving the class or quality of particular vessels. I have taken the vessels contemporary with the vessels which we are counting as super-"Dreadnoughts." I do not think it would be advisable to go into a strict comparison with particular foreign ships, and I am only,
    1768
    for the purpose of my calculation, assuming that the ships which are contemporary with the British super-"Dreadnoughts" should be counted as super-"Dreadnoughts." Whether that be so or not, the hon. Gentleman is in a good position to know. It may well be, as I said last year, that as the decline of the pre-"Dreadnoughts" continues beyond the limits of the periods we are reviewing, or if that decline is accelerated by a more rapid construction of new ships elsewhere, we would have to consider the raising of the rate of construction beyond the limits at present defined, and of establishing a uniform ratio of two to one as against the next strongest naval Power. But that time has not been reached yet, and much may happen to delay or to prevent it, and I urge the Committee to rest content with the six programmes of new construction forecasted by me to the Committee a year ago, not to increase them except in consequence of new facts, which were not then and are not now before us, and not to reduce them except in consequence of some specific diminution in the existing German programmes as fixed by the latest Navy Law.
    I must apologise for occupying the Committee for so long, but I hope I shall not be called upon to trouble hon. Members much during the Session. I pass now for the time to more technical matters. I see some of my most persistent questioners in their places, and I would like to say that I try to give to the House in my annual statement as much information as I possibly can without detriment to Admiralty interests, and I hope this will be borne in mind when I am somewhat chary at Question Time in renewing or reviving the discussion of these very complicated questions.
    It may now be stated, without disadvantage, that last year we effected a far-reaching change of principle in the design of what are called battle cruisers. These vessels had gradually increased in speed and power until they had become the most costly ships in the service. They were more expensive than the strongest battleship, yet they were not upon an equality with their contemporary battleships in action. We laid it down as a principle that the most expensive ships in the world ought also to be for all purposes the strongest. We have therefore designed a ship, not indeed so fast as our latest battle cruisers, but possessing speed sufficient to overtake

    1769
    and manœuvre against any battle fleet which can be afloat in the next few years, and which, in addition to this speed, possesses heavier armament and better protection than any battleship yet designed. The cost of this vessel, after making allowance for the rise in prices, is slightly less than the cost of the last battle cruiser, the "Tiger," though more, of course, than any of the previous ships. Instead of laying down last year one battle cruiser and three battleships, we have decided that all the four ships of that year and the "Malaya" shall be of this new type, and it is not unlikely that it may be repeated in the vessels now under discussion in Canada. If that were so, we should have eight vessels capable, if desired—I do not say it would be desired—of being formed into a homogeneous squadron, against which no other squadron built, building or projected in the world, could be matched in guns, armour, or speed.
    I make this observation on the ships of last year because a great many statements have been made in the newspapers about their design, and we think it advisable that the general aspect of our policy should be understood.
    The time has not yet come to talk about the five ships projected for this year, but there is this one general observation I would make in regard to those ships and in regard to this subject generally. We must be very careful not to allow our development of naval power to be stereotyped or dominated by what I may, without disrespect, term a popular or uninstructed opinion. The public at large, in this and in other countries, is accustomed to reckon in "Dreadnoughts," and in "Dreadnoughts" alone, and these are the units which form the basis for all those intricate statistical calculations by which the newspapers of every complexion reach the conclusions which their editors desire. But the strength of navies cannot be reckoned only in "Dreadnoughts," and the day may come when it may not be reckoned in "Dreadnoughts" at all. When, therefore, I am attempting to forecast, not for this year only, but for a series of years ahead what our construction in capital ships will be, I hope it will be understood that numbers ought to be taken as units of war power and of money power which the Admiralty will, if they think fit, when the time comes, express in a different form. I think that is a very important observation to make at this stage. I will give an instance of what I mean. Supposing
    1770
    we were confronted with a new development of two foreign ships in the Mediterranean against which we have to make provision, it would not at all follow that we should build two other ships of equal or superior size and quality. We might spend the £5,000,000 to better advantage on a totally different form of naval construction, and I should certainly claim for the Admiralty full liberty, subject to Parliament being informed as soon as possible without public disadvantage, to give to the naval standards we are setting up whatever equivalent interpretation is held in the judgment of naval experts to produce the maximum development of war power for the money spent.
    I turn to the minor programme of the year. Last year we laid down eight light cruisers of great speed, of good gun power and protection. These vessels were designed for the function of attendance on the battle fleets, for clearing the seas of hostile torpedo craft, and for the general services of observation. These vessels, which are in one respect destroyer destroyers, are much demanded by the admirals afloat, and are an important and essential feature in the policy of the present Board of Admiralty. The eight vessels of last year's programme were very well placed so far as prices are concerned, and for speed, size, and war power will prove the cheapest ever constructed for the British service. We propose to repeat this programme of eight this year.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: what about armour?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They have vertical armour, which is heavy considering the small size of the vessel. These two programmes of light cruisers are of course somewhat exceptional, and they must be taken into account in considering the destroyer programme for the year. All this fleet of light cruisers is, of course, of a smaller type than the cruisers Germany is building each year. But the House will understand that the British cruiser fleet is to be considered as a whole, and that we have, besides these light criusers which we are building, to consider the great preponderance we possess and shall possess in future years in fast and strong armoured cruisers, by which the light cruisers will be supported. These two programmes of light cruisers are somewhat exceptional, and they must be taken into account in considering the destroyer programme for

    1771
    the year. We propose this year a programme of sixteen destroyers instead of twenty, but these sixteen, I am sorry to say, cost as much as the twenty of last year, as they are of a superior type. There is a circumstance connected with the building of destroyers which I ought to bring to the notice of the House. The British torpedo-boat destroyer has been constructed with a double purpose. Its primary purpose is to cut down and drive from the sea by gun power the torpedo craft of the enemy. Its secondary, but not less important purpose, is to attack the great ships of the enemy's fleet by the torpedo. Both of these capacities of the destroyer are being intruded upon by other types. The small very fast cruiser, on the one hand, and the large submarine on the other, are making inroads upon both functions of the destroyer, and it is possible that future years may witness further reductions in the destroyer programme, to the advantage both of the light cruiser and of the submarine. It is with a view to preventing waste and loss to private firms, and giving ample notice, which will enable a gradual change to be made, we are calling the attention of the destroyer builders throughout the country to these possibilities.
    I do not want to say very much about submarine construction. We have a very great superiority in numbers over every other country—excepting, perhaps, France—and we are providing over £1,000,000 this year for the further development of these very important vessels. The various types and sizes are being constructed in sufficient numbers, and the highly trained and experienced personnel, on which the utility of these formidable weapons depend, is being regularly and rapidly augmented. So much for the minor programme.
    I now come to the four special subjects connected with matériel—oil, air, wireless telegraphy, and armed merchantmen. The labours of the Royal Commission on Liquid Fuel have been continuous throughout the year, and a succession of valuable Reports have been received by the Admiralty. The difficulties of this problem do not diminish with study. There is no disputing the immense advantages which the use of oil confers on ship design, in ability to maintain great speeds, not only to obtain them but to maintain them in a far wider radius of action, in the diminution of the numbers of personnel and the
    1772
    strain on the personnel, and, above all, in the capacity for refuelling at sea which oil vessels may be expected to develop. This last confers an advantage on the stronger navy which is not shared by the weaker, for it may be assumed that the weaker will bide its opportunity in port, while the stronger navy must keep the seas continuously. Recoaling, therefore, imposes a continued drain upon the stronger fleet, without any corresponding deduction from the weaker. Oil, which can be fed so easily from one vessel to another, would therefore add an appreciaable percentage to the relative fighting strength of the British Navy without any corresponding discounts in other directions.
    But those great advantages, and others which are too technical for me to embark upon to-night, are almost matched by dangers and difficulties of the most serious character. First among these is the of any fresh supply of liquid fuel indigenous to these islands, and the scarcity of any such supplies in view throughout the British Empire. I need scarcely enlarge upon that difficulty, which I see is present in the minds of the House. We are also confronted with price movements of a far-reaching character which are, I apprehend, part of an attempt on a gigantic scale to corner the market and to control the output. We are confronted with a temporary shortage of tank vessels to bring oil from the oil fields here. The Admiralty have not only to buy oil at high prices and at high freights for current consumption, but we have also to accumulate and to store a very large reserve. Great numbers of oil tanks have to be built throughout the naval establishments and in other places. Vessels for the supply of oil to the fleets must be obtained and measures must be taken, both by land and water, to provide for effectual distribution. I do not propose to go into details on this matter, many of which are necessarily confidential, but more than £1,000,000 is included in the Estimates of the year for the purchase, transport, and storage of the oil fuel reserve, and that sum will be largely exceeded in the immediate future. It may also be necessary to make long forward contracts in various directions in order to secure an effective lien upon a proportion of the supplies available from several sources, and these contracts must necessarily open up a number of difficult commercial and administrative questions. I must, however, assert my confidence in liquid fuel for war

    1773
    purposes, and that the difficulties which now confront us will ultimately be overcome. We are not very far away—we cannot tell how far—from some form of internal combustion engines for warships of all kinds, and the indirect and wasteful use of oil to generate steam will, in the future, give place to the direct employment of its own explosive force. That position is not, however, reached at present, and pending such development, although oil is required in large quantities for the flotillas and small vessels, coal must remain the main motive power of the British line of battle. Meanwhile, every effort will be made to develop the very considerable potential resources in liquid fuel of this island and to accumulate the increased volume of our imported reserves.
    I pass from oil to air—that other great new topic to which my statement ought to refer. My right hon. Friend (Colonel Seely) entered very fully last week into the progress and present position of Army aviation. The aeroplane service plays a much smaller part in the naval organisation than it does in military affairs, and, of course, in the Navy as well as in the Army it is in its infancy. This time last year the Navy had five machines and four trained pilots. To-day it has forty machines and sixty pilots. The anomaly of our having more pilots than machines is due to the unexpected non-delivery of machines which were ordered in good time, but, owing to one difficulty and another, have been delayed. Twenty more machines are expected to be received in the next few weeks. By the manœuvres in July we shall have seventy-five naval machines and seventy-five pilots. By the end of the new financial year for which we are now providing, we shall have a hundred pilots and considerably over a hundred machines in the naval wing. That will make, as I imagine, not far short of 300 aeroplanes, between the Navy and the Army put together, at the end of the year which the House is now asked to provide for. My right hon. Friend and I have presided over our respective Departments during the whole of this very remarkable development, and I think the scale on which progress has been, and is being made, and the rapidity with which the advance from nothing is being effected is really not a subject for levity and derision, with which I regretted to see one or two speakers in the recent debate were inclined to treat it. We have no reason to complain of the skill of the naval aviators.
    1774
    We have carefully studied the Report of the Glazebrook Committee, but the naval flying wing still use monoplanes. There are nine monoplanes in use. We consider it necessary to use them for the purpose of reconnaisance, training and scouting, and also in connection with the attack of submarines, an interesting by-product of this new form of warfare. It is also not so dangerous to alight on the water from a monoplane as to land on the unyielding surface of the earth, and no serious accidents have occurred with any naval machine to any naval aviator. We believe that the various types of hydroaeroplanes which we have evolved and which are being delivered, some of which carry guns and are fitted with wireless with a range of sixty miles, and which can rise and descend in comparatively rough waters, are, to put it, very modestly, certainly as good as anything which exists abroad, and as the result of prolonged exercises during the past year at the various naval stations between hydroaeroplanes and submarines, and in conjunction with the patrol flotillas, we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary that there should be a chain of hydroaeroplane stations at various points on the British coast-line for naval scouting purposes and for working with the patrol flotillas. Stations are being rapidly established and a number will be completed in the course of the present year. The problem of carrying aeroplanes in ships is also receiving attention, and a cruiser has been detached for work with the naval air service. Altogether, compared with other navies, the British aeroplane service has started very well. The preliminary difficulties have been surmounted, and we shall be able now to move steadily forward in several promising directions.
    I have a less satisfactory account to give of airships. Naval airship developments were retarded by various causes. The mishap which destroyed the "May-fly." or the "Won't Fly," as it would be more accurate to call it, at Barrow, was a very serious set-back to the development of Admiralty policy in airships. It happened to coincide with a moment of depression about airships in Germany. It is only within the last twelve months that our enterprising neighbours have begun to reap the fruit of so many years of experiment and expense, and up to a very late period it was doubtful whether any valuable military results would be achieved. It is evident

    1775
    that the time has arrived when we must develop long-range airships of the largest type. That cannot be achieved by an impatient gesture nor by scattering money wildly, and the following measures are all which we consider it useful to propose at the present time. First, a naval airship section has been established, and five officers and fifty men have, by the courtesy of the War Office, been trained at Farnborough with the military airships. Secondly, two medium-sized, non-rigid airships have been purchased for training and experimental purposes. One of these, the "Astra Torres," is almost completed, and will shortly be undergoing trials. Another, the "Parseval," has its envelope completed, and the car is nearing completion. Provision is made in the Estimates for a double airship-shed in the Medway Valley; two others are already available for use, and steps are being taken to establish other large sheds in suitable districts. As the development of the naval personnel and accommodation for airships proceeds—these are antecedent conditions—we shall order other airships. We also propose to enlist the services of some great British manufacturing firm in the construction of rigid airships, and negotiations are on foot which will lead to that result.
    The money taken in the new financial year for the naval air service is about £321,000, which, added to that taken by the Army for their aeroplane service, makes a total for the year of about £850,000. I do not think it would be practicable to spend a larger sum of money without wasting it at the present time.
    No reproaches are deserved by the Admiralty for any time that has been lost in the development of dirigible airships. I do not suppose that there is any Admiralty in the world which runs more risks and spends more money on new ideas and new experiments than we do. Before these vessels emerge from the experimental stage, before they become within the restricted limits of their military action really potent factors, we shall be provided both with the means of using the advantages which they offer and of combating the dangers which they threaten. Meanwhile, I do trust that we are not going to have any silly panic language used about the dangers we are supposed to run. If war breaks out to-morrow foreign airships, no doubt, might do a certain amount of mischief and damage before they got
    1776
    smashed up, which would not be very long, but it is foolish to suppose that in their present stage of development they could produce results which would decisively influence the course of events. The hon. Gentleman opposite made our flesh creep the other night by suggesting the dropping of bombs from airships on the House of Commons. If that event should happen, I am confident that the Members of this House would gladly embrace the opportunity of sharing the perils which the soldiers and the sailors have to meet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who, like all his predecessors, comes in for a great deal of criticism when the Army Estimates come round, has, however, made arrangements which will shortly be completed to distribute thirty or forty guns with improvised mountings, capable of vertical fire, at places of military significance, and a better and more powerful gun is being manufactured in sufficient numbers for the Army and the Navy as quickly as possible, and these will be ready towards the end of autumn. The results of the trials of these improved guns have greatly encouraged those who disbelieved in airships as effective machines in war, apart from scouting. A number of vertical search-lights of a satisfactory pattern for night firing are nearly completed. In these circumstances I trust that the public, without losing interest or failing to give us support, will await future developments with composure and sobriety.
    I turn to one aspect of trade protection which requires special reference. It was made clear at the second Hague Conference and the London Conference, that certain of the Great Powers have reserved to themselves the right to convert merchant steamers into cruisers, not merely in national harbours, but if necessary on the high seas. There is now good reason to believe that a considerable number of foreign merchant steamers may be rapidly converted into armed ships by the mounting of guns. The sea-borne trade of the world follows well-marked routes upon nearly all of which the tonnage of the British mercantile marine largely predominates. Our food-carrying liners and vessels carrying raw material following these trade routes would in certain contingencies meet foreign vessels armed and equipped in the manner described. If the British ships had no armament, they would be at the mercy of any foreign liner carrying one effective gun and a few rounds of

    1777
    ammunition. It would be obviously absurd to meet the contingency of considerable numbers of foreign armed merchant cruisers on the high seas by building an equal number of cruisers. That would expose this country to an expenditure of money to meet a particular danger, altogether disproportionate to the expense caused to any foreign Power in creating that danger. Hostile cruisers, wherever they are found, will be covered and met by British ships of war, but the proper reply to an armed merchantman is another merchantman armed in her own defence.
    This is the position to which the Admiralty have felt it necessary to draw the attention of leading shipowners. We have felt justified in pointing out to them the danger to life and property which would be incurred if their vessels were totally incapable of offering any defence to an attack. The shipowners have responded to the Admiralty invitation with cordiality, and substantial progress has been made in the direction of meeting it by preparing as a defensive measure to equip a number of first-class British liners to repel the attack of armed foreign merchant cruisers. Although these vessels have, of course, a wholly different status from that of the regularly commissioned merchant cruisers, such as those we obtain under the Cunard agreement, the Admiralty have felt that the greater part of the cost of the necessary equipment should not fall upon the owners, and we have decided, therefore, to lend the necessary guns, to supply ammunition, and to provide for the training of members of the ship's company to form the gun's crews. The owners on their part are paying the cost of the necessary structural conversion, which is not great. The British mercantile marine will, of course, have the protection of the Royal Navy under all possible circumstances, but it is obviously impossible to guarantee individual vessels from attack when they are scattered on their voyages all over the world. No one can pretend to view these measures without regret, or without hoping that the period of retrogression all over the world which has rendered them necessary, may be succeeded by days of broader international confidence and agreement, than those through which we are now passing.
    The development of wireless telegraphy in the sea-going ships and in the shore stations has during the year been very satisfactory. All the details are strictly
    1778
    confidential and it is sufficient for me to say that good progress has been made, and that the immense utility of wireless fully justifies the considerable sums spent last year and the still more considerable sums which are included in the Estimates for this year. In one respect, however, Admiralty interests have suffered a grave and to some extent irreparable loss to which I am bound to draw the attention of the House. The delay in ratifying the Marconi Agreement and the consequent prevention of all progress in the Imperial chain of wireless stations has deprived us of the advantages in regard to wave-length and priority which we hoped to gain through being first in the field, and now that the company has refused to carry out the contract—and it is manifestly impossible to compel it to do so—new arrangements of a different character will have to be devised, and it is possible that additional charges will be incurred by the public. No step, however, which will now be taken can put us back into the position which has been lost.
    I am now leaving matériel. I have dealt with matériel of every kind. I am now coming to personnel. The past year has been marked by several important measures affecting the pay and conditions of service in the Royal Navy. First among these is of course the increase of pay which I announced in November, and which is now included in the Votes presented to the House. From the inquiries I have made and the information which has been received from many quarters, I am satisfied that these increases of pay—although perhaps they were not in many cases all that I should have liked to see given—and the methods in which the funds available have been distributed, have produced a very good impression throughout the naval service and have been gratefully received by that loyal body of men. Of course, the First Lord of the Admiralty always gets the credit for any such increase of pay, but I am bound to remind the House that it is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has the burden of finding the money and upon whom all the labour and stress falls. This advance of pay need not be taken as finally exhausting the good will of the State. The fact that nothing in the nature of trade unionism or organised agitation for redress of grievances or petitions for advances in pay can be permitted by naval discipline imposes upon Parliament and the Board of Admiralty the special duty

    1779
    of exercising a just and attentive guardianship over the interests of those who serve the Crown so well.
    The changes which have been made in disciplinary methods also repay the close attention given to the subject. As a result of Admiral Brock's Committee several objectionable and unsuitable punishments have been abolished. Care has been taken to reduce to a minimum punishments which would produce a lasting effect on a man's chances of pension. The petty officers in the Navy have been accorded the right to claim a court-martial before being disrated, thus being placed on an equality in this respect with the noncommissioned officers of the Army. One point which attracts attention in the House is the rum ration. The present practice is to issue the rum ration to all men who do not specifically apply for the money compensation of a halfpenny in lieu, and the men who apply for compensation in lieu of the ration are marked "T." They are stigmatised with "T," meaning "Temperance." We propose to reverse the process and presume that all men will draw the halfpenny in lieu of the rum ration and mark with the letter "G," "Grog," any man who decides to take the rum. We believe that this will produce a considerable reduction in the consumption of liquor on His Majesty's ships without at the same time depriving the men of any right which they have hitherto enjoyed.
    There is another matter which is causing me a great deal of concern and anxiety at the present time, and that is the drain upon the men's earnings caused by railway fares. The habit of week-end leave has become very general, but in the naval service the short week-end leave produces a great many rather serious consequences and leads in many cases to a waste of the sailor's hard-earned money. I discovered upon one of my visits to the Fleet this case on one of the great battle cruisers at Portland: 350 men obtained leave from Friday afternoon to Monday morning. They travelled from Portland to Devonport, where their homes were, in a special train at a cost of 12s. 6d. per head for a return ticket. When we consider what the wages of the stoker or the bluejacket are, we see that a very large proportion of the fruit of a month's severe and constant duty was simply swallowed up in this way. The men arrived at their homes with very little money left, and had to hurry back
    1780
    to their ship almost as soon as they arrived, the money which they needed for their wives and families and their own use having been largely squandered in the mere process of getting to a place which they had every right and reason to live in. Various remedies for this evil suggest themselves, and I propose to appoint a Committee to examine the whole subject of leave with the least possible delay. It must be remembered that our sailors are not taken compulsorily, like those of European nations, for a brief period of service, after which they return to the landsman's life, but that more than half of them serve as boy and man from twelve to fifteen years at sea, while a large proportion go on for upwards of twenty-five years in a professional career which practically occupies their whole life. We are bound, therefore, to study the social and domestic aspects of the naval service. The ultimate strategy of the British Navy consists in basing contented men upon prosperous and healthy homes from which the children, generation after generation, can return to the ships which their fathers have taught them to honour.
    I now turn to the group of questions connected with the education and supply of officers. The Report of the Custance Committee is now in the Vote Office, and the Report upon Osborne and Dartmouth by the inspectors of the Board of Education will, too, very shortly be issued. I propose to state the policy which the Board of Admiralty are adopting in regard to this matter. We adhere to the system of common entry for all branches of the Service. We regard service in the engine-room as in no respect less honourable than service on the bridge. We consider it vital that a sound and practical knowledge of engineering and mechanics should play an important part in the education, and professional advancement of every naval officer. We have adopted specialisation for navigation, gunnery, torpedo, and engineering to a greater extent than exists in many foreign navies, and the great advantages of this system would be lost and would be converted into positive disadvantages if any one specialist branch were considered a closed book to the officers of the others, or if any part of a ship or its machinery, or any functions connected with it were a mystery to those who command her. The Report of Admiral Custance's Committee accepts and confirms these conclusions, and it is the duty

    1781
    of all who serve in the Navy and of all who have ceased to serve actively, but still cherish its welfare, to do their utmost by precept and example to make the new scheme, which has now received the deliberate support of so many Boards of Admiralty, a complete and permanent success. The immediate question before us is, however, of a more specific character. We have swiftly and effectively to increase the numbers of lieutenants in order to officer properly our growing fleets. As I told the House last year, ships can be built in two years; but men take four, and lieutenants, under our existing system, take nine years. In addition to ordinary administrative improvements you have, therefore, to take measures of emergency. We propose to increase the lieutenants' list from three separate sources, all additional to the regular entry through Osborne and Dartmouth. We propose first to take 100 to 120 lieutenants from the Royal Naval Reserve, following the precedent employed in 1895 and 1898, but we propose to select them with very great care, not in one batch but gradually, over a period of two years; secondly, we propose to continue the system of promotion from the lower deck which I announced last year. Twenty commissions as acting mates have already been given. Another batch of twenty will be selected almost immediately, and we expect that in the next three years more than 100 seamen, marines, and other naval ratings, will, by their merit have won the epaulette. I have noticed a tendency in some foreign newspapers to speak slightingly of this development, as if it were a desperate expedient to which our shortage of officers compels us. I therefore wish to make it clear that we regard promotion from the lower deck, with possibilities of advancement for merit to the highest ranks, as a permanent and essential feature in our naval system. The third method by which we shall increase the lieutenants' list is by offering from thirty to forty cadetships a year to competition, after selection, by young men of between seventeen and a half and eighteen and a half years of age, taken probably mainly, though by no means exclusively, from the public schools. There has been a very large number of applications already and we believe that this offer of 100 or 120 commissions obtainable by direct entry will yield us a thoroughly good and competent class of young officer. Although we are strong advocates of our existing system of exclusively naval train-
    1782
    ing from the age of about thirteen onwards as a preparation for a naval commission, yet the practice of Germany, France, and the United States is wholly different, and it will be a great advantage to us to expand and refresh our lieutenants' list by means of an experiment which will enable new classes and new methods to be brought into close comparison with the old. So far as the direct entry to Osborne and Dartmouth is concerned, we propose to make two important modifications, both of which are intended to increase, broaden, and vary the sources from which these very young cadets are drawn. Although it is not the recommendation of the Custance Committee, I am satisfied, and the Board concur, that the age limit of thirteen which is at present the maximum at which entry is allowed, does not fit in harmoniously with the practical needs and requirements of the preparatory schools. We propose therefore that the age limit should be raised to thirteen years and eight months. We shall also offer further incentives to preparatory schoolmasters to encourage their very best boys to enter the Navy. Although we regret the loss of several months in beginning the training of these cadets, there is no doubt that the increase in the age will enable them better to appreciate the excellent instruction they receive at the colleges, and possibly lead to a diminution in the puerile diseases which have hitherto embarrassed us at Osborne. The other measure is to reduce the cost of the Osborne and Dartmouth course, in order that a larger class than is at present possible—among whom we hope to see the sons of naval officers increasingly represented—may be able to afford to enter the Navy. Whether this will be done by extending the system of bursaries as recomended by the Custance Committee, or by a general lowering of the fees is not yet decided. Let me in concluding on this point make it clear that we do not anticipate any difficulty in providing by all these methods for a full supply without any deterioration in quality of good officers for our expanding Navy.
    10.0 P.M.
    I now come to the strength of the Fleet. Last July I explained to the House in great detail the scale of the fleet organisation prescribed by the new German Navy Law. The Committee will remember that it is an organisation comprising one fleet flagship and five battle squadrons of eight battleships each, and a complete supply of flotillas and all ancillary craft

    1783
    besides battle cruisers. I endeavoured to bring home to the House and to the country the formidable nature of this great and splendid Navy, nearly four-fifths of which will be maintained in the highest readiness for war, and the whole concentrated in close proximity to our shores. If we survey this remarkable organisation as it will be in the year 1920, note its progress to-day and contrast it with the German Navy at the beginning of the century, we shall be able to appreciate with feeling of unstinted admiration the wonderful achievement which the prolonged administration of Admiral Von Tirpitz has produced. On the political aspect of these developments, whether they have brought good to the world as a whole, there may no doubt be room for two opinions. But standing by itself, apart from the political reactions which are inseparable from all great new developments of military and naval power, it stands and must always be regarded as one of the most impressive monuments and manifestations which German foresight, resolution, and efficiency have ever presentde to the world. I proceeded last year to explain the consequential measures which in the judgment of the Admiralty were required for our own security. I proposed an organisation of eight battle squadrons, complete with flotillas and all auxiliaries, and independent of battle cruisers—an organisation which would be developed step by step as the progress of the German naval expansion required it—the whole of these eight squadrons being, of course, additional, like the five German squadrons, to all vessels serving abroad. I was very glad to read in the newspaper accounts of the recent discussion in the Committee of the Reichstag that the Grand Admiral, speaking on this subject, used the following language:—
    "I said yesterday flatly that I consider the sixteen to ten ratio acceptable—a ratio which already exists—for we have eight British squadrons against five German, that is, sixteen to ten. Mr. Churchill gave the number of ships, and I count in squadrons of eight ships each. That is simpler and clearer."
    I agree that it may be clearer to count in squadrons when speaking of establishment, and to use numbers only when dealing with the programmes of new construction. I must also, however, read the rest of what I said last year, for it would be a great pity if misconception arose on such a point. I said:—
    "This proportion would not be sufficient if numbers were the only test and measure of naval superiority,
    1784
    but it must be remembered that our superiority, ship for ship and squadron for squadron, can be traced all down the line, and that it is very great where the older classes of vessels are concerned. In proportion as our superiority in the earlier ships gradually passes away, and as what, if the House will allow me to coin an odious expression, I may call the 'Dreadnoughtization' of other navies progresses, it may be necessary to raise not merely the quality but the scale of our Fleet. But the new organisation which I have unfolded to the House would lend itself readily to any further requirement, and it would be quite simple, if need be, to increase the squadrons from eight ships apiece at first to nine and afterwards to ten vessels. This, however, is looking to a period beyond the four or five years which bound the utmost horizon of naval policy."
    That is what I said last year, and we see no reason at all at present to advance from this position. It would therefore appear that the two Governments are in practical agreement, not in a bargain, but in what I may call an independent coincidence of opinion, as to the relative proportions of their respective navies during the next three or four years. That, at any rate, is something. It may be that the day will come when we shall be able to advance from such a concurrence of opinion about relative proportions to a consideration of actual numbers. The views of the two Governments may agree most excellently in regard to a proportion, but they may carry it out upon an altogether unnecessary scale. It is clear, for instance, that the relative proportion between the two countries would be quite unaltered if squadrons consisted, instead of eight ships, of seven, or even of six vessels. If, at any time, we received information that such a change was impending in German fleet organisation, contingent on a similar change on our part, we would make a frank and loyal response. Pending any such development our organisation must, of course, proceed with all dispatch.
    The increase in the number of ships maintained in full or in active commission is the direct and sole cause alike of the present manning stringency and of the large and cumulative increases which we propose.
    I have already compared the scale and progress of our new organisation with those of the next strongest naval Power. Similar comparisons can be instituted in personnel. The German increase last year was 6,000, and this year 6,400. The average German increase during the next five years is estimated to be 5,000, and the total personnel of the German Navy will in 1920, according to the latest Navy Law, attain a total of 107,000 men apart from Reserves. By that year, in order to man the fleets we shall then require to

    1785
    maintain in commission, it will be necessary for us to have more than 170,000 men on a full active service basis, and about 62,000 Reserves. That will give us on mobilisation, by the time the present German Navy Law has reached its completion, over 230,000 officers and men, 90 per cent. of whom will have been trained for more than five years at sea in ships of war. We do not anticipate any difficulty in reaching, by the measures we are taking, the necessary result. The increase of 5,000 which Parliament sanctioned last year, in the total strength of the Navy, has been fully achieved, and the shortage of 2,000, which existed at the beginning of the year, and which was due almost entirely to the fact that we checked our recruiting operations until a new German Navy Bill was certain, has been more than half made up. This is very satisfactory in view of the facts, first, that our improved recruiting machinery is only just beginning to operate; secondly, that we have had to compete against an exceptionally good trade; and, thirdly, that the increases of pay, which Parliament has given to the Fleet, and which are expected not only to stimulate recruiting, but still more to prevent wastage, only came into operation at the end of the year. This year we ask Parliament to assent to a further increase in numbers, which will raise the total from 139,000 to 146,000–that is to say, for a total addition to the maximum strength of 7,000 men, which will be sufficient, if attained, not only to provide the necessary increase for the year, but to obliterate the remainder of the deficit which I have mentioned.
    I may here explain that I Have thought it better to put the maximum estimate in the Estimates, rather than the average figure, which has been usual in recent years. Parliament has a right to fix the topmost limit to which the Admiralty may recruit, just as in the case of the Army, and the average figure, although needed for the purpose of computing how much pay will be needed through the year, is a fertile source of confusion and leads to all sorts of misconceptions. During the year, I have directed the attention of my naval colleagues continually to the question of increasing the number of active service ratings constantly available to man the immediately ready Fleet, with the object of having the largest possible number of ships ready to put to sea instantly without calling out the Reserves. Every effort has been made and will be made to cut
    1786
    down all employment of personnel in vessels or on duties which are not effective for the purposes of war. The number of hulks or receiving ships or vessels of no military value at the various naval ports which had gradually grown up was very considerable, and absorbed a great quantity of men, both in peace and in war. Careful and searching inquiry in each individual case has enabled the "Hood" at Queenstown, the "Orontes" at Malta, the "Imperieuse" at Portland, the "Renown" at Portsmouth, and several other vessels to be abolished, and the necessary functions which they have discharged have been otherwise provided for, with large economy both in men and money. The "Tamar," in China, will soon share their fate. The complements of all yachts, including the Royal yachts, are made instantly available on mobilisation. It has hitherto been the practice to use four very old vessels of weak fighting power as seagoing gunnery ships. A gunnery ship is always ready for service and constantly under steam with its stores, fuel, and ammunition on board. The four gunnery ships together absorb 1,650 active service personnel. It was a great pity that these complements, whose collective efficiency has, by regular association, reached a high standard, should be scattered on mobilisation and transferred as individuals to other ships of the Fleet. Yet that was necessary, so long as the gunnery ships were of an obsolete character. We are substituting for these four old ships, "Revenge," "Grafton," "Jupiter," and "Magnificent," four good battleships which will be constantly available and are a direct addition to our immediately-ready Fleet.
    Close investigation of the duties discharged by naval ratings employed on shore, after mobilisation, has resulted in a decision to close the training schools immediately on the outbreak of war and to employ a number of pensioners and Reservists in place of active service ratings, and, as a consequence, upwards of 1,750 men, who would otherwise have been employed on shore about the naval ports in time of war, become available for the instantly-ready Fleet. The three Fleet repair ships and eight surveying ships in home waters are on the point of being manned in part by civilians and Reservists, and the former put under the blue ensign, thus setting free active service ratings for the First Line. A larger proportion of the

    1787
    Royal Marines have been detailed for service afloat concurrently with the granting of the extra afloat allowance. To this must be added the Immediate Class of the Royal Fleet Reserve which was instituted last year. This force has already reached a total of 2,200, and it is expected that its numbers will rise appreciably during the year. It is available within twenty-four hours. The whole force served for a month afloat during the manœuvres, and we have received the highest reports of their efficiency from the officers under whom they served. They can certainly be counted at their full value in the numbers available for the instantly-ready Fleet.
    From all these causes, and other minor causes too numerous to be specified, some of which affect the peace and others the war establishment, I compute an addition to the personnel available for ordinary peace purposes of 2,000, and an addition to the personnel available to man the instantly-ready war fleet of upwards of 6,000 men. All this has been effected during the year, besides the addition to numbers sanctioned by Parliament. The process is by no means at an end. As a result of these measures and of the increases in personnel which are now maturing, we have been able during the year, in pursuance of the new scheme of fleet organisation, to increase the number of vessels in full commission. Comparing our position with what it was a year ago, we have five more great ships, including "Centurion," two battleships and three battle cruisers, in full commission in the First Fleet. Our Mediterranean dispositions, which have been slightly delayed by the war in the East, will, when completed, give us twenty-nine battleships in full commission available in home waters, as against twenty-two this time last year. The Second Fleet last year consisted of one squadron of eight ships. In consequence of the administrative arrangements connected with manning which I have indicated to the House, we shall be able to form the sixth battle squadron of the Second Fleet more than a year earlier than I had hoped when the new organisation of the Fleet was announced. We shall also be able to provide reserve complements for the partially formed eighth battle squadron, which it had been proposed to keep only in material reserve without crews. The battleship strength of the First and Second Fleets in Home
    1788
    waters at the end of the new financial year will be forty-five battleships, all manned entirely by active service personnel, and none of them requiring the addition of a single Reservist, as against thirty battleships similarly available at the beginning of 1912. In the same time the battle cruisers will have been increased from four to eight, not counting the "Australia," which will be maintained by the Commonwealth. Of these battle cruisers four will be detached in the Mediterranean. During the three-year period, which will close in March, 1914, the heavy guns in the battleships of the First and Second Fleets in Home waters will have almost doubled in numbers, and in weight of broadside they will have almost tripled. So much for the capital ships.
    Even greater expansion has been, and is being, effected in torpedo-boat destroyers. The number of destroyers maintained in full commission in home waters in January, 1912, was forty-five; to-day it is seventy-four; and by the end of the new financial year it will be ninety-six. The five great ships which have been added during the year and the increase in the destroyer flotillas have between them absorbed more than 5,000 men. Another important development is in progress in regard to the light cruisers. The eight scouts which were built in 1905 were armoured with nothing but twelve-pounder guns, and, with this feeble armament, were little better than encumbrances to the flotillas they were supposed to support. At a cost of about a quarter of a million we are rearming the whole of the scouts with 9.4 guns, thus, in the words of the "Navy League Annual," "practically adding eight effective light cruisers to our strength." With these light cruisers we propose to relieve from the flotillas and the battle squadrons eight cruisers of the "Active" and Town classes, and these, together with the new ships completed in the interval, will enable us to form during the autumn two new light cruiser squadrons of five vessels each. The arrival of the eight light-armoured cruisers of last year's programme in 1914 and of the eight of this year's programme in 1915 will equip the battle fleets in the North Sea with four squadrons, comprising twenty-six light cruisers, the whole additional to those now attached specifically to the battle squadrons and to everything that exists at the present time.
    Surveying, then, the development of our naval organisation from the beginning of

    1789
    the old financial year to the end of the new one, it will be seen that in that period of two years we shall have added fifteen battleships to the First and Second Fleets in Home waters, raising our numbers from thirty to forty-five; we shall have added a new battle cruiser squadron in place of that sent to the Mediterranean; we shall have added two squadrons of five light cruisers each; we shall have added a new armoured cruiser squadron formed out of the training squadron; we shall have more than doubled the number of torpedo-boat destroyers maintained in full commission, and, if our expectations be realised, we shall have added to the total numbers 12,000 men by recruiting, and by administrative measures have made not fewer than 6,000 men available for the war fleets, making an ultimate total gain of 18,000 men. There are no developments elsewhere which these provisions do not fully meet.
    I have now finished, and I thank the House for the indulgence they have extended to me. Our expanding organisation, no doubt, taxes our manning resources to the full, particularly in regard to the specialist lieutenants and the highly-skilled ratings which are so necessary. But no one should go away with the impression that we could not to-morrow, upon a general mobilisation, man fully, with trained men, every ship in the Navy fit to put to sea. In the whole of the First and Second Fleets, comprising 90 per cent. of our naval strength, there would not be employed one single reservist, and even after the Third Fleet had been fully manned, there would be a substantial reserve on shore, numbering several thousand, for whom no room could be found in any vessel of the war fleets. It is not for us to boast the quality of our race, but we are justified in putting our confidence in that thorough sea training and disciplined initiative which can be the product only of long years of service on the sea. In the 700 war vessels, which apart from auxiliaries, we could mobilise to-morrow, the service and training of every man would average at least twice, and probably three times, as great as that of the personnel of any other Navy in the world. That is a factor which cannot be measured, and it is a factor which ought not to be overlooked.
    I must, before I sit down, explicitly repudiate the suggestion that Great Britain can ever afford to allow another Naval Power to approach her so nearly
    1790
    as to deflect or to restrict her political action by purely naval pressure. Such a situation would unquestionably lead to war. Small margins of safety would mean in the present state of the world a vigilance at the naval ports little removed from a state of war. It would involve a strain on officers and men intolerable if it were prolonged. It would mean a continued atmosphere of suspicion and alarm, with all the national antagonisms consequent upon such a state of affairs. It would mean that instead of intervening, as we now do in European affairs, free and independent to do the best we can for all, we should be forced into a series of questionable entanglements and committed to action of the gravest character, not because we thought it right, but as a result of bargains necessitated by our naval weakness. Margins of naval strength which are sufficient when the time comes to compel a victory, are insufficient to maintain a peace. We believe that the margins to which we are working are sufficient in the full sense of the word. If at any time we should revise our judgment, we should not hesitate to come at once to Parliament for further authority. His Majesty's Government in making these extensive preparations have to ask the House of Commons, and to ask our fellow countrymen all over the Empire not represented here, to trust them not to abuse the great powers placed in their hands.
    For more than 300 years we alone amongst the nations have wielded that mysterious and decisive force which is called sea-power. What have we done with it? We have suppressed the slaver. We have charted the seas. We have made them a safe highway for all. Was there any State which during the last hundred years could, more easily than Great Britain, have closed her unequalled foreign possessions to the trade of other countries? Is there any other State in the world which leaves them open freely as we do? Is there any part of the world where the White Ensign does not revive associations of good feeling and fair play? Is there any part of your national life more healthy and more admirable than this great service of sacrifice and daring? Is there any small nation in Europe, any young people struggling to acquire or maintain its independence, which would not hear with rejoicing of a reinforcement of the British Fleet? Is there any Great Power which during these months of tension and anxiety has not

    1791
    been thankful that the influence of Britain in the European concert is a reality and not a shadow, and that she has been free and strong to work for that general peace, precious to all, and precious most of all to us? Sir, it is because these things are true that we may justly claim that that naval supremacy which is vital to Britain is also a part of the common treasure of mankind, and that in maintaining it effectually against any challenge we pursue no selfish or unworthy end.
    Mr. MORRELL: I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" at the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words, "this House, whilst cordially welcoming and appreciating the generous desire expressed by His Majesty's Dominions beyond the Seas to co-operate with the Mother Country in providing for the naval defence of the Empire, is of opinion that no steps ought to be taken by His Majesty's Ministers to recommend or accept any scheme for carrying out such co-operation until the matter has been definitely submitted to this House for consideration and approval."
    After listening to the most interesting, eloquent, and comprehensive speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered, I cannot help feeling the great difficulty that confronts me in asking the House to turn aside from the general subject that the First Lord has been discussing, in order to raise the more limited subject of which I have given notice—the subject of the contribution of the Dominions towards our naval defences. I hope, all the same, it is unnecessary for me to apologise for having ventured to raise a subject which has attracted the greatest possible attention for the last few years, and which is now attracting great and perhaps painful attention in Canada. While this is primarily a matter that concerns the Dominions it is also a matter that concerns very closely the people of this country. I hope also it is unnecessary for me to say that in raising this question I do not do so in any spirit of indifference to the magnificent patriotism and public spirit that has been shown by our Dominions in this matter. Whatever may be our views as to the wisdom or the unwisdom of any particular scheme, I am certain all of us, in whatever quarter of the House we sit, appreciate and welcome the desire of the Dominions to co-operate with
    1792
    us in the naval defences of the Empire. We are proud and we are glad to know that in these new countries there are thousands of men and women who are deeply concerned for the safety and welfare of the old country and of the Empire at large. We know quite well that when our hour of trial comes the Dominions will not be wanting. But when it is a question of the precise methods in which that co-operation may best be given, and of the advice which has been given, or will be given, by Ministers in this country to Ministers in the Dominions, I think we in this House are entitled to be consulted in the matter; and to be consulted in time, before we are finally committed to a policy of which ultimately this country may not be able to approve.
    There are two main directions in which the Dominions can co-operate in naval defence. They can co-operate either by providing local naval services of their own under the control of their own Governments, paid for and maintained out of their own taxes, or they can co-operate by means of cash contributions towards construction or in the shape of an annual contribution towards Imperial needs. Both these methods have frequently been discussed at Imperial Conferences and other times; both have actually been put on trial by the Dominions with varying success, and subject to varying conditions. I think I am right in saying that until about a year ago the tide of opinion all through the Empire had gone very strongly in favour of local naval services as being more agreeable to the spirit of the British race and the local autonomy of the Empire, and more in keeping with the genius and traditions of the British Empire and the principles on which the British Empire has been built up. In Australia in 1902 they voted a cash contribution of £200,000 a year towards the Imperial Navy, but in 1907 they decided to withdraw that contribution because they had found it was not satisfactory to them, and they substituted a local naval service of their own. New Zealand still makes a cash contribution of £100,000 a year to the Imperial Navy. We have the battle cruiser "New Zealand," which represents the efforts made by the Dominion of New Zealand towards the Imperial Navy. I am informed that in New Zealand this is regarded as a temporary expedient, and already we have had a demand from them that the battle cruiser should be retained in their home waters, and it is not at all certain that

    1793
    their cash contribution will go on. South Africa last year passed a resolution in favour of a local naval service, and in Canada until a year ago or less opinion had been most decidedly in favour of the principle of a local naval service. In Canada there was a well-known resolution, which was passed in 1909, to the effect—
    "that the House is of opinion that the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the Imperial Treasury for naval and military purposes would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence. The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organisation of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the Imperial Navy."
    Mr. Borden himself spoke most strongly in favour of that resolution. He said:—
    "I am entirely of opinion that the proper line upon which we should proceed is the line of having a Canadian Force of our own."
    Mr. Foster said:—
    "We must and will have in this country a naval force of our own for our coast and home defence."
    That resolution was passed unanimously by the Dominion Parliament. That is very different from what is now going on in Canada. Not only have we the opinion of the Dominions themselves, showing that the tide of opinion is in favour of a local naval service, but we have also the opinion of the First Lord of the Admiralty himself given less than a year ago on a public occasion in a speech he made at a dinner connected with the shipwrights on the 15th May, 1912. My right hon. Friend referred first of all to the fact that owing to the development of continental navies, the general mobility of our fleet is reduced, and the world-wide mobility of the British Fleet becomes restricted. He then said:—
    "Here is the great opportunity, the great chance of the self-governing Dominions. … If the main development of the past ten years has been the concentration of the British Fleet in decisive theatres, it seems to me and I dare say to you, not unlikely that the main naval development of the next ten years will be the growth of the effective naval forces in the great dominions Overseas. Then we shall be able to make what I think will be found to be the true division of labour between the Mother country and her daughter States—that we should maintain a sea supremacy against all comers at the decisive point, and that they should guard and patrol all the rest of the British Empire."
    He added:—
    "That is the principle which I have come here to-night to expound."
    And he hoped the observations he had ventured to make would contribute in some way to its furtherance. That was less than a year ago. I can hardly suppose my right hon. Friend has entirely altered his views since that time.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have endeavoured to indicate to-night that I have not changed my view.
    Mr. MORRELL: The Admiralty have always said that it would be more convenient and effective and lead to more economy to have a cash contribution.
    Mr. CHURCHILLmade an observation which was inaudible.
    Mr. MORRELL: I am glad to hear the question is much more open than I thought. Certainly from the Memorandum issued and from some of the correspondence I was of the opinion that the Admiralty had pressed the idea of a contribution rather strongly. I am glad to know that the question of a local naval service is a matter which is regarded favourably by the Admiralty and by my right hon. Friend. If that is so, what happened soon afterwards when the visit of Mr. Borden took place and when we had the announcement, based, I believe, on the advice which Mr. Borden got from the Admiralty and from my right hon. Friend, that Canada was going to give up the local naval service, and was going to give instead a most generous contribution of £7,000,000 for the building of three ships, is the more remarkable. Supposing that had been a free gift unaccompanied by any conditions, it would have been very ungracious on our part to have made any reference to it except simply to say how grateful we felt. But I am sure the House will recognise that, although we do appreciate the spirit in which it is given, the fact that it is not a free gift but a loan accompanied by conditions, and very important conditions, does make it proper for us to consider the position in which this country will be placed if we are committed before hand to the acceptance of this gift. What are the conditions which will attach to this proposal to pay a sum of £7,000,000 towards the British Navy? In the first place, whatever contribution is to be made is to be considered an extra margin over and above what has hitherto been considered as necessary for our safety and above the margin of 60 per cent. which my right hon. Friend has said again to-night he considers a sufficient margin over the next naval Power. It is, in fact, to be in the nature of a luxury to make security doubly sure. The second condition is that these ships which by the nature of the case are more than we require, are to be manned and maintained

    1795
    by the British taxpayer. The third condition is that they are not to be considered as an absolute gift, but they may be withdrawn at any time on due notice being given by the Canadian Government. The fourth condition is that they are to carry with them a voice and influence in the councils of the Empire. At present Canada is to be represented by a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence, but even that I gather is not to be a final solution. "I am assured by His Majesty's Government," said Mr. Borden, "that pending a final solution of the question they would welcome the presence in London of a Canadian Minister to be a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence." These are the conditions. I do not for a moment complain of conditions being made. I say the offer made by the Dominion Government is a very generous one, and they are right to attach what conditions they please, but we have a right to consider it from the point of view of this country and this Empire. We must recognise that this is a very important departure in the policy of the Empire. These are very important conditions, which will affect the people of this country and the people of the Empire, and it is for that reason, more than from any desire to discuss it to-night, that I ask in my Resolution that we should have an opportunity before we are committed to this policy to consider it in all its bearings and to consider the advice upon which this policy has been based.
    It is obvious that it is not going to be in any sense a relief to the British taxpayer. People have spoken, and have written in the Press as if this was a generous offer to relieve the British taxpayer and the British nation of some of the burdens which we have been bearing for naval defence. It is nothing of the sort. I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill). I listened to what he called the "false dilemma." It seems to me that the dilemma is a genuine one. I must say I do not quite follow my right hon. Friend. I do not believe this proposal is going to lead to economy. It is to be an extra margin above what we immediately need for our defence, an extra luxury which will have to be maintained at the expense of the British taxpayer What if these vessels are withdrawn? We know exactly what the story will be. We shall be told at once that the strength of the British Navy must not be allowed to be reduced from what it has gone up to.
    1796
    We should have to replace these vessels ourselves, and that it would mean an added expense to the British taxpayer. Beyond that, there is this particularly grave consideration as to our foreign policy—the share which the Canadians and the Dominions are going to have in our foreign policy if this scheme is carried out. I do not say that that is a problem which cannot be solved. I believe it can be. But, at any rate, there will be danger of great friction between the various parts of the Empire if it is not solved in a satisfactory way. Altogether I do venture to suggest that we are in danger of being committed to a scheme which has not been thoroughly thought out, a scheme which has written all over it the word "emergency," a scheme which was born at a time, I will not say of panic, but, at any rate, alarm. It bears upon it the shadow of the new German Navy Law. It is dangerous to make a departure of such importance, which is going to be, as I read it, a permanent departure in policy, without thoroughly thinking out the scheme upon which you are engaged, and without submitting it to the judgment of this House.
    There is only one other point, the question of the influence exerted by my right hon. Friend in regard to this scheme. Very grave charges have been brought against the First Lord in this matter. He has been accused of endeavouring to hustle Canadian public opinion, of taking part in party politics over there, of making use of official dispatches in order to forward a particular side, and of exercising generally an undue influence. I do not for one moment support those charges. I am certain that my right hon. Friend would do nothing in the way of interfering in any way in party politics in Canada. It would be extremely improper of him to do so. I am glad to know from him to-night that he would support as cheerfully and readily another scheme of co-operation if it were acceptable to the Dominion themselves, a scheme of what I call local naval service and local fleet units, although on expert grounds he does not advise that, but advises a scheme of contribution. Whatever we may say as to the influence of my right hon. Friend, I am certain he has not consciously exerted undue influence, yet I do think the responsibility for this scheme does in the main, or in a large degree, rest with the First Lord. He is, if not the only begetter, the joint author of this scheme.

    1797
    With regard to the question of influence, I think that some of the charges made by people in Canada are made by those who do not understand my right hon. Friend as well as some of us. No doubt they expected that he would issue some sort of colourless official document that would carry no particular weight, but give the facts in a cold and dry manner. Those who know the First Lord know that he is incapable of issuing colourless documents of that sort. I do not believe there has been any attempt on his part to interfere in party politics, yet we must recognise the fact that he, and through him this House and this country is largely responsible for the direction which has been given to this particular movement.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It really is not so. I never asked for any particular scheme. When Mr. Borden left this country I had no knowledge of what he intended to propose to the Canadian Parliament, none whatever.
    Mr. MORRELL: I am very glad to get the assurance from my right hon. Friend that there has been no request of any sort on the part of this country for any particular scheme. But I must say, reading the correspondence and the Memoranda, I am bound to adhere to my opinion that unconsciously and innocently my right hon. Friend has exercised a very strong influence upon the Canadian Parliament.
    The First Lord has said on many occasions that, great as may be the material assistance given by the Dominions to this country, it is nothing to be compared with the moral assistance, the moral effect, which is given by the consciousness that they are prepared to co-operate with us in the naval defence of the Empire. That, I believe, to be profoundly true. Everyone must see that if that moral effect is to be really valuable we ought to be assured that it is not merely spontaneous, but comes from a people more or less united. It is a very deplorable thing, whatever may be the cause of it, that this matter should have become a matter of party politics over there. Even if the present Government in Canada win a party triumph, it will be a triumph which is dearly paid for if there is any sense of bitterness left behind on the part of a large party on the other side with reference to the help that they are giving to this country. I do not want to apportion the blame—but I cannot help
    1798
    thinking that this ought not to be a controversy incapable of settlement. If we could only get the unanimous vote of the Dominion Parliament it would incalculably increase the value of any co-operation they might give to us. I would ask my right hon. Friend, as he has unconsciously, as I believe, exercised a profound influence in this matter, whether he cannot now use his influence to promote some friendly settlement so that the offer whenever it comes to us in its final shape may come as the offer of a united people.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I am glad my hon. Friend has raised this most important question, and I only hope there will be a further opportunity of raising what is a most important point in the naval programme of this country. Nothing is settled at present, and we are not interfering with the internal affairs of Canada in discussing a question which so closely affects this country and the Empire at large. I consider we ought not to sacrifice a far-sighted wise policy for the eventual welfare of the Empire to the immediate demands of the strategy of the moment. But there is a point which my hon. Friend has not touched upon and which I should like to bring before the notice of the First Lord. What service is the Mother Country doing to Canada in inviting her—because it is an invitation—to make her contribution to our naval defences in this particular way? We are drawing her into the European system. We are making her part of the intricate European system of diplomacy. We are making her defences depend upon all difficulties in the old world, from which hitherto she has had the inestimable benefit of being kept aloof. Canada will now find that the passive autonomous development which she has enjoyed all these years, with her unguarded frontier and with the contentment and progress within her boundaries is going to be endangered not by anything that happens upon her own continent, but by complications in Europe in which the Powers of Europe alone are concerned. I think it is doing a very bad service to Canada to draw her into the tangled skein of European diplomacy which is ever becoming more knotty and difficult. Mr. Borden in bringing forward this matter in the Dominion Parliament, clearly stated that he desires Canada to have a voice in the control of foreign affairs. His words were that no

    1799
    important step in foreign policy will be undertaken without consultation with a representative of Canada.
    Mr. CROFT: May I ask the hon. Member whether these are not also the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier?
    Mr. PONSONBY: No; at any rate, not at present. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has not expressed himself in that way, but Mr. Borden says that he considers that Canada should have a controlling voice in foreign affairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "An effective voice."] Yes, an effective voice in the control of foreign affairs. I certainly think if the Canadian contribution is to be in the form that Mr. Borden proposes, it is a perfectly legitimate demand on his part.
    It is because I think that any country which is not already in the European system and cannot understand the intricate diplomacy of the old world should be kept away from it that I think Canada should neither have a voice in the control of foreign affairs nor make a contribution to a centralised naval force. I believe that as the autonomous development of Canada progresses it is far better for her to adopt the naval policy about which she was unanimous until quite recently. May I appeal to the First Lord, whose speech impressed me very much, to take into consideration this point, namely, that the note of alarm should not be sounded quite so loud? The citizens of the British Empire are ever ready in a real time of danger to sacrifice their lives and to come forward for the interests and the defence of the Empire, but that patriotism is a sacred sentiment which should not be exploited lightly, and those continual scares and those continual emergencies that are brought forward weaken
    1800
    very much the appeal which the Admiralty might have to make when a real emergency occurs, and I would beg of him, if he can in any way give his opinion, that he should use it in such a manner as to secure from the Dominion of Canada a unanimous and whole-hearted suggestion which would have the approval of both parties in the Dominion Parliament. It is not the size of the Empire of which we need boast, but the responsibility of Empire must impress us, and we do not want to suggest any new policy at this time which would endanger the unity of the Empire and bring disruptive forces into what has hitherto been one consolidated whole.
    Mr. MORRELL: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    It being Eleven of the clock Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 17th March, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY.—Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1913–14.—VOTE A (MEN).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 146,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, including 18,350 Royal Marines."
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).
    The Orders for the remaining business was read, and postponed.
    Adjourned at Three minutes after Eleven o'clock.