§ (1) The Minister may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine.
§ (2) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the Minister an annual salary not exceeding five thousand pounds, and to each of the Parliamentary Secretaries of the Ministry an annual salary not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds, and to the other secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine.
§ (3) The expenses of the Ministry, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
§ (4) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry such of the persons employed under any other Government Department in or about the execution of the powers and duties transferred by or under this Act to the Minister, as the Minister and the other Government Department, with the sanction of the Treasury, may determine.
§ (5) The Minister may from time to time distribute the business of the Ministry amongst the several persons transferred or attached thereto in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this Section in such manner as he may think right, and those officers shall perform such duties in relation to that business as may be directed by the Minister:
§ Provided that such persons shall be in no worse position as respects the tenure of office, salary or superannuation allowances than they would have been if this Act had not been passed.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the wordsprovided that there shall not be more than one paid Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry.The object of the Amendment is to restrict the number of paid Parliamentary Secretaries to one instead of two, as the Bill provides. I do not know whether the Government will accept the Amendment, but they must feel, as the House does, that economy at the present time is an exceedingly important matter. We in this House can hardly do better than set an example of economy. In a case such as this, the new Ministry should be able to do with one paid Secretary and one unpaid Secretary. There is not the slightest doubt that at the present time there is a 1648 great feeling on the importance of keeping the House of Commons strong in the eyes of the country. The question of the independence of the House of Commons probably has never been more important in any period in the history of the country than it is now. Last Session there was a feeling that if we have a large number of members of the Government who are in receipt of pay from the Government, that tends to sap the independence of the House. They naturally are bound, by the etiquette of the House, to vote for the Government on any particular question and do not take an independent line. I may over-rate the tremendous importance of the House of Commons, but I do hold it very dearly. Anything which tends to weaken the influence of the House outside ought to be looked at very carefully, and anything which tends to increase the number of paid officials should be carefully regarded. On the grounds of economy and respect for this House, I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
§ Colonel GRETTON
I beg to second the Amendment.
The argument of economy is a very strong one but, in my view, the argument which the hon. and learned Member last made is even more convincing, and, in fact, irresistible. Of late years there have been constant additions to the number of Members of the House of Commons attached to the Government of the day, either by holding office, by performing functions as Secretaries, or by being attached to various Commissions which the Government has set up. The independence of the House of Commons is absolutely invaluable; it is vital to the existence of Parliament and to the government of the country. If the House of Commons ceases to be independent, Parliament ceases to be an institution of any value. I submit that the House should not consent in this Bill to the appointment of two paid Secretaries. It has been asked for again and again in Bills presented by the Government. Why they wanted two paid Secretaries was never made very clear, but the inference is that they wished to have a paid Secretary both in this House and in another place. But even at the present time there are Ministries in which that has not been found necessary; they have been able to obtain sufficient representation without salary in another place to carry on the business of the Government in connection 1649 with those Departments in which such arrangements have been made. The House ought to be most jealous in adding to the entourage of the Government of the day, who already in this House number about 100. It is difficult to keep count of the number; it varies from day to day. Before the end of the last Parliament it reached over ninety, and has since been considerably added to. There is a strong case why the Government should not succeed in their present proposal. I should like to remind the House that objection was taken and there was a Division on this very question, hurriedly, late one evening, in connection with another Bill. That was not successful, but on the same point being taken in another place the Government gave way and accepted it. It will be agreed that this House should take action in a matter of this kind, and press it on the Government that they should not appoint two paid Secretaries, both on the ground of economy and in order to avoid further encroachment upon the independence of the House of Commons.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock)
I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment, but I do not in the least quarrel with or dispute the arguments which the Mover and Seconder have used in support of the view they presented to the House. I agree with every one of those arguments. But the reason why I do not accept the Amendment is that, as I shall hope to convince the House, the grounds which have been alleged particularly as to economy, will not be served. It is a perfectly fair argument to say that this House ought to set the example in economy. But it also ought to set the example in efficiency. Each of these appointments is to carry with it a sum not exceeding £1,500 a year, and my hon. and learned Friend would be the very last person to attach any great importance to such a sum as compared with getting adequate efficiency in the work that has to be done. He would never suggest, as might be speciously suggested outside, that the House of Commons voted £1,500 a year to someone who was merely going to sit in it, and had thereby added seriously to the financial burdens of the country. What one has to do is to look closely into the duties that have to be carried out under this Bill, and see on which side the truest economy lies. I should like to remind the House that there is really no analogy between this case and what happened in the case of the 1650 Ministry of Health Bill. In that Bill it was not originally proposed that there should be two paid secretaries. That was an afterthought proposed in Committee and accepted there; and, if I am correctly informed, the Amendment was agreed to without a Division, and indeed a discussion in the Committee. I think, too, that the hon. and gallant Member for Burton is not correct in saying that there was an actual Division upon it on the Report stage, but I am not quite sure, and he may be quite right.
§ Sir E. POLLOCK
Then he is right and I am wrong, and I apologise for my error, but when the matter got to another place, and a Motion was made to eliminate the second Parliamentary Secretary, this House decided to disagree with that Amendment and again put in a second secretary. The elimination of the second secretary was, however, adhered to by the Lords, and ultimately the Leader of the House advised this House to accept the Lords' Amendment and the matter passed. But this House had twice over adhered to their view that two Parliamentary Secretaries ought to be appointed, so that there is really no analogy in that, and I am quite sure that hon. Members of this House would not like to say that they had received advice from another place which prevented them from scrutinising the true merits of the present proposal, and seeing whether or not it was a wise one to adopt. As to the merits of the appointment of two Parliamentary secretaries for the purposes of this Bill, I would remind the House that the Minister who is entrusted with the very important duty of carrying out the Bill will necessarily be engaged in his work against time. He has, in accordance with the Clause which gives him his powers, in the course of the next two years to consider and formulate the policy to be pursued as to the future position of the undertakings which are entrusted to him. That is a limited time, and he has got to do the work. If he discharges his functions properly it will, I am quite sure, be agreed in all quarters of the House that he will be wise to consult in various localities the various authorities, traders, chambers of commerce, and persons in charge of undertakings in different parts of the country, in order to ascertain the precise circumstances that prevail in those different districts and parts of the 1651 provinces, and to keep in close touch with a number of bodies and persons whose interests are deeply affected by this Bill. I cannot myself recollect any Bill which places upon a Minister functions of such an itinerant character. It is obvious that he must spend a great deal of time in going about the country, and I think that probably, if he is to act efficiently, he would be wise to have one of his Parliamentary Secretaries with him in order to deal with such questions as may arise. During the course of the passage of this ill we have time and again accepted Amendments which have insisted upon the giving of greater Parliamentary control over the various acts and procedure which should be adopted or carried out by the Minister. I will give one or two illustrations of that. Under this Bill, any new scheme involving an expenditure beyond £500,000 must be submitted to this House, all grants or loans exceeding £1,000,000 must be submitted to this House, and all schemes entailing the acquisition of land must be submitted to this House; while the work of the Department will obviously necessitate close and frequent relations with other Departments, of which I may mention the Treasury, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Health, the Board of Agriculture, the Scottish and Irish Offices, the Ministry of Shipping, and so on. Anybody who is at all familiar with the working of our Constitution knows that a very grave amount of work will be thrown upon one of the secretaries, to whom will be entrusted what I might call the actual working side of the Department. On the other hand, a great many financial matters have to be dealt with. The powers under this Bill directly affect—I do not think it is too much to say "directly"—almost every trader, traveller, producer, and consumer, all persons who are holders of railway or canal stock, and almost every other person who is interested, either as a captain of industry or in a humbler position, in the industries and trade of this country. The number of questions that have been asked and had to be answered during the course of this Session by the Board of Trade on matters which will be taken over by this Department was 210. That involves a close scrutiny of the affairs and working of the Department, and I cannot suppose for a moment that, once this Bill is brought into being and the Ministry is set up, the anxiety—I do not 1652 at all suggest the curiosity—of Members will be reduced, or that they will not be desirous of having information constantly placed before them, and will not ask, very properly, questions upon a large number of matters which will be brought to their attention by their constituents in all parts of the country.
That is a very short summary, of the work which is going to be placed upon this Department. I am assuming now that, at the stage we have reached in the Bill, hon. Members in all quarters of the House will desire to make it a good working scheme. It may have its faults. Some hon. Members may be vitally opposed to the Bill. But I put this proposal before the House on the basis that the scheme which is embodied in the Bill must be carried out efficiently and to the best purposes to which the Minister can adapt it. Under these circumstances, what is the right model for us to take? A Bill that travels over so large a part of the whole country, including Scotland and Ireland, raises matters, if not of controversy, yet of importance, with all sorts and kinds of industries and persons. What is the standard that we ought to adopt? What is the parallel that we ought to study! I think I am right in saying that the system which prevails in the Admiralty and in the War Office forms a much closer parallel than any other to the circumstances of this Bill.
In these Departments there are two Under-Secretaries—one the Financial Under-Secretary and the other the Undersecretary who answers questions on what I might call the main purpose of the Ministry—and upon a close examination of the duties which will be entrusted to these Departments it appears to those who are best qualified to judge, and who know something like the measure of work which will fall upon the Ministry, that it really will be physically impossible, in view of the limit of time in which the schemes have to be suggested, considered, and adopted, to work with only one Under-Secretary.
The best interests of economy—not in the mere sense that the £l,500 a year more, or whatever it may be, will not be paid, but the true interests of economy in the larger sense—demand that the Department's work should be separated into two Departments—one the financial Department, and the other the ordinary work of the Department—and that those two De- 1653 partments should be represented by two separate secretaries. I will, however, make one suggestion which may meet my hon. Friend's point. It will be possible to limit the appointment of the second Secretary for a period of time, for the observations I have made indicate rather a pressure of business in the early history of the Department, and in order to make that point good and not press my argument, too far, I am quite prepared to accept an Amendment that the power to appoint two Secretaries should be for three years only, so that Parliament may reconsider the question whether there should be a second Secretary at the end of three years. The reason I say three years is that the schemes have to be adopted by the Minister within a two years' limit, but that does not put a term to the powers and duties which are imposed upon him, and I think, therefore, the main pressure of business will be for a period of three years. I hope I have shown that the true interests of economy are not served by merely cutting down the staff of the Ministry to one Secretary, but I am perfectly prepared to meet the view, and, as a pledge of good faith, to indicate that it is during the earlier part that we think the greatest pressure will arise, and to suggest that an Amendment should be put in that the power to appoint the second Under-Secretary should be limited to three years, when Parliament can reconsider the matter in the light of certain events and of the history of what has taken place. I hope that view may be accepted, and that my hon. and learned Friend will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
I have a rather painful recollection that on the Debate to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred as to the appointment of a second Under-Secretary to the new Ministry of Health, I not only spoke but voted for that proposal. I desire to do penance for that act. I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong, and that the other House was right. I have thought it over very carefully, and long before this occasion I arrived at that conclusion. I think that leaves me free to express my opinion upon this Amendment. The proposal has been defended with all the skill which we are acustomed to see displayed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The seductive suggestion at the end was perhaps the most dangerous of all. What really are the arguments which he has put before us? He has read out portions of the Bill, and a 1654 terrifying list, undoubtedly, it is, of the duties which are to be performed. He compares the future of the new Ministry with the Army and the Navy. If that is going to be the scope of the new Ministry, Heaven help us! No mistake, we are in for it. Let me take one or two of the other Ministries of which the same thing could be said. What about the Home Office? If I were to call to mind the vast scope of the operations of that great Department it would exceed by a very great deal even the list which has terrified us to-day. What about the multifarious duties of the Foreign Office and of the Board of Trade? The list of duties, and the scope of operations of the Board of Trade is alarming in its magnitude. No one suggests at all in any of these Debates that either the Foreign Office, the Home Office, or the Board of Trade requires an additional Parliamentary Secretary.
§ Sir E. POLLOCK
The Board of Trade, certainly, in its present condition is, I think, something like eighty years old, and has been developed successively by gradual increases of work, and the Home Office is still older, and has been developed over a succession of years. If we were to start per saltum, the Home Office and the Board of Trade to-day, does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that one man, or one man and one Secretary, would be sufficient?
§ Sir F. FLANNERY
Yes, the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and the Under-Secretary who answers questions here.
§ Sir D. MACLEAN
I have heard the interruptions, and given such weight as I can to them, but to say that they began seventy or eighty years ago is no answer to my argument. The whole experience of public Departments shows that you can manage with one Minister, admirably efficient, and in his way an equally admirable and efficient Under-Secretary whoever he may be, but there has been no real answer given to one of the most important points, and I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman does not try to answer it, as to the danger, as far as this House is concerned, of increasing the number of official members of it. There 1655 cannot be any doubt about it. Some time or other it may be the lot of hon. Members on this side of the House to be sitting on the Front Bench on the other side. We never know when it may come, but whenever that might be I say now, with such knowledge of the House as I have—and I have been in it about thirteen years, and have spent much more time in it than the average Member has—that the constant development of the official and semi-official Member is a real deterrent to that independence of the House on which so much depends for effective criticism of administration and effective criticism in shaping legislation. One of the real matters to which the country looks is the maintenance of its independence. I agree that during the War it was quite inevitable that there should be a large number of officials and semi-official Members, but the sooner we get back to something resembling the old state of affairs with regard to that the better for us. No case of substance has been made out for the proposal—and we require an overwhelming case. The bait which was so skilfully thrown out by the hon. and learned Gentleman at the end of his speech was, "Let us try it for three years." We all know what will happen at the end of the three years. I can imagine the extraordinary difficulty of getting rid of that office once it has been created. The pressure of friends of this meritorious individual who fills the office would be overwhelming. Let the House face this fact once and for all. If you appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries now you will always have two Parliamentary Secretaries. That is the case you have to meet. I hope my hon. Friend who is responsible for the Amendment will press it, and I shall certainly vote for it in the interests of that economy which we can and ought to exercise, and in the interests of the independence of the House of Commons. I think on the facts of the case given us no sufficient reasons can be shown.
§ Mr. INSKIP
I hope the House is not going to be overborne by the arguments which have been used by the Solicitor-General. There was one in particular which, so far as my short experience goes, is always produced on these occasions, and that is that it is necessary to have another Parliamentary Secretary to answer questions. I enjoyed the advantage during the War of being a humble 1656 servant of a Department, and I drafted a great number of answers to questions to satisfy the insatiable thirst of Members of the House, but I never discovered really that the hard work in connection with them rested upon the Parliamentary Secretary. It rested upon the unfortunate humble official who had to collect the information and put it into grammatical and intelligible form. The Parliamentary Secretary no doubt recited the answers with great skill and ability, but that is no argument against the Amendment. One statement which the Solicitor-General made I listened to with surprise. He cited the case of the Admiralty as requiring the assistance of two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. I have been trying to recollect who the Parliamentary Secretary for the Admiralty is in addition to the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara). I find in Vacher that there is a Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, and he combines those two offices in his eminently distinguished person with great ability and adroitness. I have never heard it suggested that someone is required to assist him in the discharge of his duties in this House.
§ Sir E. POLLOCK
The Civil Lord acts as an Under-Secretary at present. One Under-Secretary sits in the other place, and we have the right hon. Gentleman. (Dr. Macnamara) in this House.
§ Mr. INSKIP
The root objection is not to providing £l,500 a year out of money provided by Parliament, but to adding one more to the already large number of persons who are in receipt of Government pay, I confess that it did not occur to me that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty fulfilled the duties of a Parliamentary Secretary. He no doubt discharges some duties in another place, but the Solicitor-General cited the Admiralty as an illustration of the necessity for having two Parliamentary Secretaries in this House—one to answer questions and one to carry out other duties. The Admiralty is not an illustration at all in favour of the Government's position, but an illustration which supports those of us who think that in this House it is quite sufficient that the Minister of Ways and Communications shall have one Parliamentary Secretary to assist him. We are told that the right hon. Gentleman will need to perambulate the country in order to ascertain the views of the public authorities, and that it is desirable that he should take a Parliamen- 1657 tary Secretary with him. I thought duties of that sort were generally fulfilled by Private Secretaries.
We have had a eulogy from the Prime Minister upon the ability with which Civil servants performed their duties. So far as these duties are concerned, I think that a Civil servant can fully perform them without using up one of the remaining independent Members in this House, and, so far as the perambulatory duties are concerned, they will be adequately fulfilled by one of the Private Secretaries who will, no doubt, be at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman. On these grounds I suggest that this Amendment, either in its present or in a modified form, should be accepted. The Solicitor-General suggested that it should be provided that there should be two Parliamentary Secretaries, at any rate for three years. May I suggest the converse of that, and that this Amendment should be so drafted as to provide that for three years there shall not be more than one paid Parliamentary Secretary. If a compromise is desirable, let that be the compromise. For the next three years let there be one Parliamentary Secretary, and when the right hon. Gentleman, with his haggard Parliamentary Secretary, comes here to appeal for a second Parliamentary Secretary the House will be in a position to say, after experience, whether or not the duties require the appointment of another gentleman to perform them. I hope the House will support this Amendment, and that the right hon. Gentleman will bow, I will not say to the storm, but to the prevalent breeze.
§ Sir COURTENAY WARNER
I hope the Government will give way on this point. It is a serious point for this House. We have too many people on the Front Bench. We generally see it overcrowded, and many Ministers cannot find room on it. The peace time system was not this system of having so many people paid by the Government. Almost the whole of the speech of the Solicitor-General was devoted to pointing out the hard work which these Parliamentary Secretaries would have to perform. Almost everything that he pointed out has been done in other Ministries in the past by private secretaries or Civil servants. If one analyses the speech it really came to this, that it was so necessary to have Members of Parliament to do this Civil Service work that practically every Civil servant ought to be a Member of Parliament. That is 1658 an impossible position. The representatives of the Ministry in this House are not supposed to be men who do permanent Civil Service work. They are not supposed to be men who go round the country to find out what the local authorities want. The Local Government Board has more to do with finding out the feelings of local authorities than almost any other Ministry, but they do not send the Parliamentary Secretary round to find out what is wanted. They send a Civil servant appointed for the purpose. If the Minister is to go it would not be necessary to send one of the Parliamentary Secretaries, because they are Members of Parliament, and if he does not go himself a permanent Civil servant would do just as well as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
It is quite true that this case is not on a par with the Ministry of Health in the way that the Solicitor-General put it. In the Ministry of Health there was a reason for having two Parliamentary Secretaries, because there were two totally different subjects to deal with, the old Local Government Board administration and the new Ministry of Health administration. These were to be undertaken by the same Ministry, and they were not homogeneous in any way. I will not trust my memory, but I think that was the argument put forward in Committee on which the Committee gave way. The work under the present Bill is homogeneous; it is one sort of work, and therefore one man is just as good as two, so far as the Parliamentary work is concerned. I do not want to sec this Bill in any way hindered or the Minister's important work crippled, but I do not think that his powers will be added to by having a second Parliamentary Secretary who is a Member of Parliament, instead of having a Secretary who is a Civil servant. I am inclined to think that for that sort of work a Civil servant is much better than a Member of Parliament. If it comes to a Division, I should propose to vote for the Amendment that there shall be only one Parliamentary Secretary.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I do not rely much on the question of economy in regard to this matter, because if you do not appoint this second Under-Secretary I am sure the Minister-designate will find a friend in the North-Eastern Railway who will do the work for the same or perhaps double the salary. From the Parliamentary point of view, it is rather serious that we should increase the number of what 1659 our forefathers used to call placemen. That is a very useful word. We object to increasing the placemen in the House of Commons. The word arose in the time of the Georgian Kings, when placemen were the men the King paid, or who were supported by him, and they were given honours and position in this House in order to vote down independent Members. The rise of placemen has grown during this War to an abnormal extent, and it is the duty of the House of Commons whenever they get the opportunity to cut off the head of a placeman. There must be a, Minister and there must be an Undersecretary, but the work of an additional Under-Secretary can perfectly well be done by an additional outside secretary. There is no difficulty in getting them. My right hon. Friend has access, as we have seen in the Press, to men who have been appointed as additional secretaries of this new Minister. Any one of them could do the work instead of a Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, I shall vote against the addition of another placeman in the House of Commons.
An equally important question was raised by the Solicitor-General when he spoke of the peripatetic work of the Minister. There, again, we have to guard the rights of the House of Commons. We find that the Ministers when they have an Under-Secretary, and still more when they have two Under-Secretaries, neglect the House of Commons and do a certain amount of work outside. The duty of Minister of the Crown when the House is in Session is to be on the Front Bench. There has been a growing dislike of Ministers to sit in the House of Commons either to listen to criticism of their own Department or to take their part when their own Department is not concerned in guiding and helping the House of Commons in its ordinary work. We see the Front Bench often empty. How can the country expect the private Member to sit here and do his work, while the Ministers who are paid, not too large salaries, but adequate salaries, are all over the country doing, perhaps, important work, but work which might be done by an Under-Secretary or a permanent official? As regards the work of Ministers outside this House, they do not seem to realise that their primary duty during the sitting of Parliament is to the House of Commons. I hope a good many of my colleagues who are independent 1660 Members of the House will see that now we have secured peace and got over the difficulties of the War we insist upon Ministers doing their duty in the House of Commons more than we could reasonably expect of them in war-time. If we give the right hon. Gentleman two Undersecretaries he will leave the Under-Secretaries to answer questions. When a man is a Cabinet Minister he ought to answer questions. We had a good example today in the Secretary of State for War, who is one of the busiest Ministers, and, although there were nearly forty questions, he answered them himself, and was able from his position as a Cabinet Minister and Secretary of State to give much more effective answers to supplementary questions than a mere Under-Secretary could do. How often we hear an Under-Secretary saying, "I must have notice of that question," on some supplementary subject which the Minister would have answered offhand? From the point of view of the House of Commons, I hope the Government will withdraw the proposition for a second Under-Secretary, and that they will appoint a permanent Civil servant to do the work, and so keep us free of one more placeman and keep the Minister free for the House of Commons.
§ Sir E. POLLOCK
It is quite clear that there is a division of opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, I put myself on one side, and that makes a difference of opinion. I am quite confident that there should be two Under-Secretaries. If there is no division of opinion, then we need not go to a Division. It is a clear issue, and if we have to have a Division—well, let it be so. The speeches which have been made by my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) have been made by Members who have changed their opinions. The right hon. Gentleman, with all the energy and conviction of a pervert, has changed his views, and he now becomes an admirer of the system of one Secretary and one only. The hon. Member for Twickenham has altered his views even more rapidly. Last night there was an Amendment on the Paper in which he desired that we should have a particular form of panel, and on that panel there was to be a chairman. The panel was to advise the Minister, and in the Clause setting up the panel it was provided in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member that a chairman of the panel, who shall be a 1661 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Ministry and Secretary of the Roads Committee, shall be appointed by the Minister. He was asking the House to appoint as chairman of the panel a person who was to be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he has altered his views.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
The Solicitor-General knows that that Amendment was made when the Bill had passed through the Committee with two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in it.
§ Sir E. POLLOCK
But that does not prevent the point being made. It is perfectly clear that the hon. Member at one time held the view that there should be this extra Parliamentary Secretary. However, he is entitled to change his view. So is the light hon. Gentleman. But he must not be surprised if those who hold strongly to a view disagreeing with his, and endeavour to present it in the way in which he was good enough to say I had endeavoured to present it, still hold to their belief. I invite the House to come to a decision on this question now in order that we may get on with some other Amendments. The different views have been presented in a very clear-cut way, and I trust that we may not spend too much time on this.
§ Major Earl WINTERTON
The speech which has just fallen from the Solicitor-General is most unsatisfying. I am one of those who have supported the Government on every Amendment on this Bill, but I certainly do not intend to do so on this Amendment. I venture with all respect to say to my hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have the most profound admiration, that he is utterly ignorant of the feeling both in the House and in the country on this point. As I see the Patronage Secretary on the Front Bench I make this remark: If this Government are to continue, the sooner they realise the strength of that feeling in the House and in the country the better for them. Hitherto there has been no serious attempt to keep within anything approaching reasonable limits the number of offices held by hon. Members in this House. Several of us on different occasions have pressed this upon the Government from time to time during the present Session, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition has taken up a very proper attitude on this question. He also has protested on several occasions 1662 against the failure of the Government to carry out their election pledges to do something to remedy the growing abuse of places being given to Members in this House. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) very properly called attention to the fact that we are rapidly approaching a state of affairs similar to that which existed 100 or 150 years ago. He also called attention to the fact that existing Ministers treat the House of Commons, I will not say with contempt, but with a lack of consideration which seems to me to grow progressively from Session to Session. I have been in this House fifteen years, and my right hon. Friend who sits below me, who has been here even longer, has remarked in private conversation that when we came first to the House it was most unusual for a Debate of any importance to take place without the Minister and the Under-Secretary concerned with the subject under discussion being present. Now it is the exception for both to be present at the same time, and the Front Bench is generally occupied by Whips who might be much better employed doing their work outside in the Lobby.
Not only is that so, but many Ministers and Under-Secretaries show a really lamentable lack of knowledge of the procedure of this House. I understand that it is common knowledge that one of the Under-Secretaries-designate is an hon. and gallant Gentleman who got into the House last January. I hope that, if this Amendment be not carried, and the Clause be passed as it stands, that hon. and gallant Gentleman will make himself more acquainted with the procedure of the House than the Minister-designate, because old Members of the House have serious complaints to make of the lack of knowledge of procedure of the House by Ministers who have come in during the War. And that is a most strong argument against the creation of fresh posts, the truth being that if Ministers knew the procedure of the House better, as they did in the old days, there would be no necessity for the enormous number of assistants which they wish to have. The Foreign Office, the Home Office, and the Board of Trade are just as important offices as the office which it is proposed now to create, and each of them has got only one Under-Secretary. There is another point on which it is possible also to appeal to the House to come to an independent decision, because, fortunately, 1663 there is a number of independent people in it. The creation of each fresh Under-Secretaryship means, on an average, thirty or forty Civil servants, whose time is taken up almost entirely attending the Under-Secretary. In these days when we hear with an ever-growing menace complaints against the extravagance of Parliament and the Government is this the time lightly to create a number of additional Under-Secretaryships, which are not in the least necessary? We hear a great deal of direct action outside. All I can say is that I can conceive nothing more calculated to encourage in every possible way direct action than to go on adding to the ever increasing number of placemen in the Houses of Parliament, in the light and frivolous way in which the Government are now proposing to do.
§ Commander DAWES
I think that I am rather like the voice of one crying in the wilderness in supporting the proposal of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said that he would like to have the heads of placemen in the Government, but I would suggest the the heads of those who in Committee upstairs and elsewhere have been advocating private interests are the heads which should fall. As the House is aware, under another Bill a large number of powers of the Board of Trade is to be transferred to the Minister of Ways and Communications, and I suggest that those are totally different matters altogether, from the matters in reference to railways and transport, that we are dealing with here. That Bill does not, I believe, provide for any Under-Secretary, and I would suggest, having regard to the large powers connected with these big electrical undertakings and municipal undertakings, that a Member of Parliament is required and not a Civil servant, and it is not unreasonble that a second Under-Secretary should be appointed.
Major-General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS
I would appeal to the Government to reconsider this question. I look upon it as a great mistake for the Government to be hauled over the coals every time in another place. We all know what vote the House of Commons, if it was free, would give on this question, and I hope that we shall not have to go across the Passage to get our wishes carried out. We have already got a Government beyond numbering. I do not know what proposals Mr. Speaker 1664 has got to submit to us. But every day we get new Bills with rows and rows of new officials of the Government. In a few short years, if the present Government remain in power, as I hope they will, there will be nothing but Members for whom the pay of £400 a year is not considered enough, and they will get paid this additional money by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Why should we leave it to the House of Lords to deal with a question like this? We should legislate for ourselves. I appeal to the hon. and learned Member to reconsider the matter, and not to force us always to vote against our opinion on such a small matter as this.
I hope the Government will reconsider the position. The one feeling in the country now is that the Government arc determined to get more paid Under-Secretaries, and I am convinced that if independent Members will not speak out now, and, if necessary, vote against the Government on questions such as this, we are not going to give the country any confidence in the independence of the House of Commons. I am anxious to support the Government and anxious to get the Transport Bill on the Statute Book. But when independent Members of this House, as they have done just now, with one exception, express the opinion that this second Under-Secretary is not necessary, I do feel the Government would be well advised if they would meet those Members who express this opinion. The one Member of the House who has supported the Government on this particular Amendment has alluded to another Government Bill, which is shortly coming before the House. That Bill is one which many of us are considering with considerable doubt. If that Bill affects matters of Ways and Communications, then it will be time enough to consider whether those duties are sufficient to necessitate another Under-Secretary.
I am also in an exceptional and difficult position. I do not belong to any of the interests or prospective interests in the Bill. I am in thorough support of the main principles in the Bill, but I am also convinced, from what I hear around the country, that there is a very dangerous and growing disinclination to support the Government in various ways, because of its extravagance. That is to be found in almost every walk of life at the present 1665 time. We have had some very useful advice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech, He said that every Member in the House should give up his own particular hobby as regards legislation, and try to meet the general need to economise, I do not like to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes) to economise. I rather doubt if he would understand the meaning of the word, but I would like to appeal to the Government to impress on him at any rate, the desirability of economising, and compel him to do for the time being with only one Under-Secretary. It is very easy to add another, but it is very-difficult to bring one back once you have got him in. If the Government are not able to take that position and meet the general wishes of the House and adopt the position which the country would wish them to adopt, then I would ask them to take off the Whips, and allow the House to vote on this question freely and exactly as it likes.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Sir H. CRAIK
I would like to add to the appeal made to the Government to change their views. The Civil Service, whose feelings I fairly well know, has a certain view with regard to these political under-secretaryships. We know perfectly well that the political Under-secretary is there to represent his political chief, not to do effective work in the administrative Department. It is not his business to do effective work in administration; he cannot do it if he attends constantly at the House. He is a perfectly useless cog in the wheel; he interferes with the administration; he draws with him one Private Secretary, if not two, who have to be paid. He has a constant call upon all the staff of the office, who are obliged to be at his call. Do not add to this increasing army of political Under-Secretaries who only represent more the power of the Government in this House, and who do not add in any way to the efficient administrative power of Parliament.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Just before I came to this House five minutes ago, I went on a deputation to one of His Majesty's Ministers to ask him to do something for discharged men in this country. I want to ask him whether, now that this cotton dispute is on in Lancashire, he could take some steps to prevent discharged men and their families from starving—discharged men who are out of employment owing to 1666 the strike and who can get no benefit from their union, not having paid their contribution for twenty-six weeks.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That has nothing to do with this particular topic. There are hundreds of thousands of subjects on which the money could be spent.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
I join in the appeal to the Government to spend the money in a proper way and not on a redundant Under-Secretary.
§ Major O'NEILL
If this goes to a Division, it will be carried by the Government with the votes of those who have not been present. With the exception of the speech of one speaker the Debate has been unanimous. Seldom has this House heard a more concerted chorus of disapprobation of a course proposed by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General quoted as one of his arguments in favour of two Undersecretaries the number of questions put to the Board of Trade during this Parliament. He said that 210 questions had been put to the Board of Trade, that only one Minister was available to answer them, and, therefore, that Minister had been put to an intolerable amount of work. Take the case of the Foreign Office. They have had as many questions put to them in this Parliament as any Office of the Crown, because at this time matters of enormous importance in foreign politics are being dealt with both in Paris and at home. Those questions appear on many days of the week, and they have been successfully answered by a Department which at this moment has not only not got two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, but has only one Minister representing it in this House, the Foreign Secretary being away. There is an even more striking instance to be quoted, in reply to something mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. He stated that the War Office and the Admiralty had their two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, and that the multifarious duties that those Departments have to perform were ample justification for the two secretaries. But take another Department; take the Department of Ireland. There you have a Department which is administered not only in this House but in Dublin. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has to travel over to Ireland in the course of his duties many times during the Session, if not many times in a week, and that man, who has to face constantly the 1667 most hostile and bitter criticism in all quarters of this House—or, at any rate, has had to do so in former years—not only has not a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, but is actually unaided in the House except by the Law Officers of the Crown. With regard to Irish questions, we constantly see Law Officers of the Crown dragged in from duties which they should be performing to answer questions relating to the general policy of the Irish Government.
If you must have—I say you ought not to have—two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries in this new Department, all I can say is that practically every Department of the Crown should be placed on the same basis. I think that this proposal is most unwarranted, and I hope that the Government will, even at this late hour, fall in with the absolutely unambiguous and united opinion of the House, and agree now to a course to which they will have to agree when the Bill comes back from the House of Lords, and recognise that they are the custodians of the liberties of the nation, and not here simply to impose their will upon this House.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)
I am very sorry it has happened that I have not heard the Debate up to now, but I have had an account of it, and my hon. Friend who has just spoken (Major O'Neill) has, I believe, expressed the fact that the speaking has all been in favour of this Amendment. I, as representing the Government, feel myself in considerable difficulty in this matter. As a matter of fact I honestly think the House of Commons is wrong. I honestly think that this is a Department which will have an immense amount of work to do, and my own experience of Government Departments has been, right through, that one of the greatest mistakes that can be made is to try to get the political head of that Department to do all the work. There is a certain part of the work which can be done only by people with a certain amount of political experience. When I was first a member of the Government, I do not know how many years ago, I remember perfectly well the Under-Secretary had no definite work of any kind to do; he had no specific work allotted to him. I have found, as years have gone on, that that has changed, that more and more the heads of the Departments are delegating particular branches of their work to their Under-Secretaries. 1668 It is of immense advantage that many of these questions should be dealt with by somebody who has political experience. For instance, among the duties which have to be performed constantly is the receiving of deputations, hearing the points of view of people outside. I know perfectly well that when I was at the Treasury it was impossible for me to see them all, and it was of immense assistance that that could be done by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who, like myself, had political experience, and was able to put not merely the Government point of view, but the House of Commons point of view too. I do feel that the House of Commons in this matter is showing an amount of feeling on a very small thing which it does not merit. It is perfectly true that the Foreign Office has only one Under-Secretary, and that the Foreign Secretary himself is away; but on the other hand my Noble Friend (Earl Curzon) is doing the work of the Foreign Secretary in England, and he is finding a great deal to do.
Take the War Office, take the Admiralty, take one of the new Departments set up, the Ministry of Munitions. I have not the slightest doubt that there was work in the Ministry of Munitions for two Under-Secretaries, and I remember perfectly well that one of the complaints of the House of Commons about that Department was that one of the Secretaries was not specially deputed to look after the financial side of the work. It was largely at the wish of the House of Commons that an arrangement was made that, just as at the War Office, there was a Financial Secretary, so in the Ministry of Munitions one of the Under-Secretaries should take the financial side and be responsible for that. This Bill is going to set up a Department with an immense amount of work, and in advance you cannot tell what that work is to be. I do say that it is not worth while, if you think the Bill is one which we ought to try, curtailing the use of the Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Hear, hear!"] I can only give you my reasons. You are really curtailing the usefulness of the Department, out of what I think is to a considerable extent prejudice. I sympathise with that. There is an idea, and everyone can understand it—it is the result of the growth of new Departments during the War—that a very large number of Members must support the Government on critical Divisions or they must resign. I quite agree, and I 1669 think it is a disadvantage. But you want to put the one thing against the other. You ought to put that disadvantage against the other side—that there is really work for these two men. Take only the analogy I have given of the Ministry of Munitions. One of the most important and most difficult things in connection with this new Department will be a proper control of expenditure. Everyone will admit that. Would it not be an immense advantage that, whether in this House or another, there should be some political understudy who is responsible to the Ministry for that part of the Department? I am quite sure that if the Members of the House of Commons had seen, as I have seen, the actual working, they would realise, as I do, that it is of great advantage, assuming that there is anything like equal ability, that there should be an Under-Secretary with experience of the House of Commons instead of a pure Civil servant. If you will take that view, I am convinced that, on its merits, the House of Commons would take the view that I honestly take myself.
But I am going to say something more. Is has been said all through that this is a Bill which is being rushed in a most autocratic way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir E. Geddes) has been accused and is being regarded as an autocrat who is driving all of us in front of him in the way be wishes us to go. He is one of the most modest men I know, and there is not any truth in that statement. But it is said, in addition, that the Government itself, in regard to this Bill, is simply trusting to its majority, and saying that the House of Commons must do what it says. I do not want them to do that. I wish the House of Commons, for what it is worth, to believe me when I say that I do really think that the work of this Department would be hampered if you did not allow it to have the two Under-Secretaries. That is my honest opinion, but from what I have heard in the Debate I am afraid, in spite of the feeble way in which I have tried to put my case, the majority of the House of Commons will not take that view. I think they are wrong. I really think if you are willing to have this Bill at all it is like spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar to make a fuss about something which everyone responsible for the Bill thinks will be really necessary. But I am going to say something now, in spite of the criticism that can 1670 easily be levelled against me. I shall be told that the Government should have the courage of their convictions, and insist on what they themselves think right. I do not altogether take that view. The Government is the servant of the House of Commons, and I have felt—I have said it before in the House of Commons—I have felt it very much more in the kind of Government for which I have had responsibility since the War broke out. There is not the ordinary party allegiance. In an ordinary party Government there would not be a moment's hesitation in sticking to the decision of the Government, and our supporters would back us up; but we do not wish to run this Government on those lines. We wish to get the support of the House of Commons in all we do, and, in spite of the criticism which may be levelled against me, I have decided that I will leave the decision of this Amendment to the House of Commons, without Whips. They can take their own view. And I am going to say something more. I do not wish my hon. Friends to think that I shall feel as if they were putting a slight on me if they do not take my view in this matter. All that I can say is that it is my honest belief that you are making a mistake if you do not have them, and, having said that, I leave it to the free decision of the House.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
The offer which was made by the Solicitor-General was that there should be an Under-Secretary for three years, and no longer. In this Bill there are two Parliamentary Secretaries in this House, and power to appoint another Parliamentary Secretary in another place as well, and my Amendment is that it should be limited to one.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW
If that is in the Bill it is a mistake. We only want two Parliamentary Secretaries altogether in this House or the other.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I say that all we ask is the right to have the power to appoint two Parliamentary Secretaries, in one or other of the Houses of Parliament.
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
The Solicitor-General made me an offer, but in reality the offer was nothing at all, because the House has the power to wreck this Bill by declining to vote the Estimate in any year for a second Under-Secretary, so that the offer of a Secretary for three years would merely tie the hands of the House of Com- 1671 mons. It is a purely technical point, but I felt bound to put it. In regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), I had no idea that there; had been two Secretaries already appointed for this purpose, and I am glad to say I do not know their names—
§ Mr. RAWLINSON
We were told by the hon. Member for Horsham that there were, besides the Minister-designate, two Parliamentary Secretaries-designate, and all I say is that I did not know it. The Solicitor-General said there were 210 questions answered by the Board of Trade in reference to this very matter, but will not the Board of Trade help this Department afterwards? I used to come to this House when I was a boy to hear a man whom I looked upon then, and still do look upon, as a very great statesman—Mr. Gladstone. What would he think of the speech of the Solicitor-General to-day? I am always told that not only was he here on the Treasury Bench himself, but he would always want to know why other members of the Government were not there as well. How
§ greatly altered are we now! and if by voting against the Amendment I should be thought to encourage the suggestion that the new Minister would be able to ramble about the country instead of attending on the Front Bench, I am afraid I for one would certainly vote more strongly in favour of the Amendment. After the great courtesy of the Leader of the House, I appeal to the House to strike this blow not only for economy, which is a point of great importance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]. We shall have a Finance Bill later this evening, and we shall then see who are ready to pay these extra expenses, when we come to the £250 Income-tax limit. Economy, I say, is important, and even more important is the question of the position of the House of Commons. We ought once for all to stop this continued patronage of the Government in this House and to strike as far as we possibly can for an independent House of Commons.
That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 132.1673
|Division No. 61.]||AYES.||[5.21 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke||Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry||Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)|
|Adair, Rear-Admiral||Curzon, Commander Viscount||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)||Kidd, James|
|Ainsworth, Captain C.||Davies, T. (Cirencester)||Kiley, James Daniel|
|Allen, Col. William James||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||King, Commander Douglas|
|Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George|
|Atkey, A. R.||Dennis, J. W.||Lane-Fox, Major G. R.|
|Austin, Sir H.||Duncannon, Viscount||Law, A. J. (Rochdale)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Du Pre, Colonel W. B.||Lister, Sir R. Ashton|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.||Entwistle, Major C. F.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Lorden, John William|
|Barker, Major R.||Farquharson, Major A. C.||Lowe, Sir F. W.|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.||Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)|
|Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.||Foxcroft, Capt. Charles Talbot||M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)|
|Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)||Galbraith, Samuel||Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)|
|Bennett, T. J.||Gange, E. S.||M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)|
|Betterton, H. B.||Glanville, Harold James||Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Grant, James Augustus||McMicking, Major Gilbert|
|Birchall, Major J. D.||Green, A. (Derby)||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Bird, Alfred||Greene, Lt.-Col. W. (Hackney, N.)||Mallalieu, Frederick William|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Griggs, Sir Peter||Marriott, John Arthur R.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Molson, Major John Elsdale|
|Brackenbury, Col. H. L.||Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)||Moreing. Captain Algernon H.|
|Bramsden, Sir T.||Guinness, Capt. Hon. R. (Southend)||Morrison, H. (Salisbury)|
|Briant, F.||Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E. (B. St. E.)||Murray, John (Leeds, W.)|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.||Hall, Capt D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Nelson, R. F. W. R.|
|Burdon, Colonel Rowland||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)||Newbould, A. E.|
|Butcher, Sir J. G.||Hancock, John George||Newman, Major J. (Finchley, Mddx.)|
|Campbell, J. G. D.||Hanson, Sir Charles||Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward|
|Campion, Col. W. R.||Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)||Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)|
|Carr, W. T.||Hayward, Major Evan||Nield, Sir Herbert|
|Casey, T. W.||Henderson, Major V. L.||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hennessy, Major G.||O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.|
|Cheyne, Sir William Watson||Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.||Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)|
|Clough, R.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.||Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Coats, Sir Stuart||Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Colfox, Major W. P.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Perring, William George|
|Colvin, Brigadier-General R. B.||Inskip, T. W. H.||Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)|
|Courthope, Major George Loyd||Jesson, C.||Purchase, H. G|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)||Johnstons, J.||Raeburn, Sir William|
|Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Ramsden, G. T.|
|Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.||Stevens, Marshall||Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)|
|Remer, J. B.||Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Remnant, Col. Sir J. Farquharson||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)||Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)|
|Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Robinson, T. (Stratford, Lancs.)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)||Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald|
|Rodger, A. K.||Tickler, Thomas George||Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Rowlands, James||Townley, Maximilan G.||Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.|
|Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)||Tryon, Major George Clement||Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)|
|Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)||Turton, Edmund Russborough||Winterton, Major Earl|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.||Wallace, J.||Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)||Wardle, George J.||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)||Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.||Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)|
|Short, A. (Wednesbury)||Warren, Sir Alfred H.|
|Sitch, C. H.||Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Steel, Major S. Strang||White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)||Rawlinson and Col. Gretton.|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Grundy, T. W.||Parry, Major Thomas Henry|
|Armitage, Robert||Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')||Pinkham, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Hacking, Captain D. H.||Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Pratt, John William|
|Barrand, A. R.||Hallas, E.||Prescott, Major W. H.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Raper, A. Baldwin|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Hartshorn, V.||Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)||Rendall, Atheistan|
|Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)||Herbert, Denniss (Hartford)||Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon||Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.||Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)||Rogers, Sir Hallewell|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Bowles, Col. H. F.||Hodge, Rt. Hon. John||Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hope, Harry (Stirling)||Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur|
|Brittain, Sir Harry E.||Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis||Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)||Seager, Sir William|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hurd, P. A.||Seddon, J. A.|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)||Jephcott, A. R.||Sexton, James|
|Carter, W. (Mansfield)||Jodrell, N. P.||Simm, Col. M. T.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)||Jones, J. (Silvertown)||Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Smith, W. (Wellingborough)|
|Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Spencer, George A.|
|Clay, Capt H. H. Spender||Knight, Capt. E. A.||Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Law, Right Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)||Stephenson, Colonel H. K.|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward F.||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cohen, Major J. B. B.||Lloyd, George Butler||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Sturrock, J. Leng-|
|Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)||Lunn, William||Sutherland, Sir William|
|Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.||Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)||Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)||Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)||Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)|
|Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)||Mason, Robert||Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Commander||Middlebrook, Sir William||Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.||Thomas-Stanford, Charles|
|Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Mitchell, William Lane-||Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)|
|Foreman, H.||Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. C. T.||Waddington, R.|
|Forster, Rt. Hon. H. W.||Morgan, Major D. Watts||Weston, Colonel John W.|
|France, Gerald Ashburner||Morison, T. B. (Inverness)||Whitla, Sir William|
|Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)||Mosley, Oswald||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)||Woolcock, W. J. U.|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Nall, Major Joseph||Younger, Sir George|
|Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Neal, Arthur|
|Glyn, Major R.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Col.|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)||Burn and Commander Dawes.|
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "each" [each of the Parliamentary Secretaries"], and insert instead thereof the word "one."—[Mr. Rawlinson.]