HC Deb 21 April 1921 vol 140 cc2181-93

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,441,450, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."—[Note.—£700,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £5,000.

I should like to protest against this enormous Vote for building purposes at a time when, I suppose, building costs were never higher. At the present time everybody knows, I imagine, that building a house is one of the most costly things you can do. Yet the Government choose at this time to undertake an enormous building programme for these revenue purposes. We know what legislation is going on, and we are well aware that the poor taxpayer is going to be hunted even more severely than he has been in the past, and not only hunted, but it seems that he will have to pay a very large extra sum for the pack of hounds that hunt him. I am afraid the Committee does not like figures very much, but I must, in order to make my case, quote one or two figures of this Estimate. In the first place, the Department is asking for £500,000 more than it did last year in respect of these buildings. The chief increases are not merely for works that are already in progress. I am sorry to say the chief increases are in respect of entirely new works, that is to say, works to be proposed in future. Another point to which I think the Committee ought to pay attention is the great difference between the original1 total estimate of these works, and the revised total estimate. I will give figures in a moment showing that in a great many cases the original estimate for these works has been enormously increased, showing that the cost of building, apparently, is still going up, and that, therefore, it is highly undesirable to go into this building programme at the present moment.

Taking, first of all, the works that were in progress, you have got an estimate for Manchester, the purchase of a site and the erection of a building on which £29,000 was spent last year, and the Government are going to spend £40,000 this year. The original estimate for that building was £113,800, and it is now £163,530; that is to say, the revised estimate is £50,000 over and above the original. Take one or two more instance of works already in progress. You have a new stamp office at Mount Pleasant. Four times more is to be spent this year than was spent last year. You have a new letter sorting office at Mount Pleasant on which the Government is spending double this year that they spent last year, and, in regard to the second item, the original estimate was £120,000 and the revised estimate is £418,000, or very nearly £300,000 more than the original estimate. Surely that being the case the Government ought to hold its hand and postpone the erection of this building until things are a little cheaper. Then £40,000 is to be spent on rebuilding the Threadneedle Street branch post office. The original estimate was £23,500, and the revised estimate is £90,000. There are dozens of similar items all through the country. There is a new parcel office at Liverpool on which three and a half times more is to be spent this year than last year. The original estimate was £83,000 and the revised estimate is £310,000, and yet, knowing the way in which building costs are going up, apparently day by day, the Government insist on these most expensive works. At Reading there is a new head post office on which it is proposed to spend this year 20 times what they did last year, namely, £40,000 as against £2,000. Those are works already in progress which, in a great many cases, could very readily be postponed.

I now come to works which are entirely new this year. They are going to build, apparently, 90 new district offices for the, Inland Revenue, and £190,000 is to be spent this year. They are going to spend on entirely new works, £10,000 apiece this year on a new station sorting office at Croydon, and a new post office at Rochdale, the total cost being £75,000, and they have got minor unforeseen works costing nearly double what they did last year. I suggest this is not the time to incur this enormous expenditure on buildings. Surely they can wait a little time until the cost of building comes down. This is the moment, I suppose, when it was never more expensive to build these elaborate works. I say they ought to be postponed. We ought to have an explanation about this work. We all know that a Revenue Bill is going to be introduced. I suppose that Bill is going to be one of the most controversial measures of modern times. I should like to ask the Government whether this Estimate is founded on the state of affairs that will be when that Revenue Bill is passed, or whether this Estimate is founded on the present state of affairs before the Revenue Bill is passed? It is very important. I have hero the Report of the Royal Commission of which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) was a distinguished member. I find that the Commissioners estimate that considerable saving will take place in the Revenue Department if the Bill is passed. We are going to pass the Second Reading of this Bill almost immediately, and I suppose the Government do not bring in a Bill unless they expect to pass it. I should like to know whether this enormous increase over last year has been based on the supposition that your Revenue Bill is going to pass, because, if so, I should like to know why, instead of an increased cost, you are not going to have a decreased cost? I should like an explanation about that, because I have no doubt my hon. Friend (Mr. Graham), who knows far more about this question than I do, will be able to point out that in various ways, into which I will not go, the cost of collecting these taxes has been greatly reduced during last year, and therefore this Estimate for revenue purposes ought to have been considerably reduced also. To cut the matter short, I suggest that this is the worst possible time to engage in this enormously expensive building programme. I believe it is a fraud on the taxpayer, and therefore I propose to move to reduce the Vote by £5,000, and shall go to a Division on it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I should like to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, but I wish to begin by making a protest against the absence from the Treasury Bench of the Assistant Post master-General, because most of the expenditure is due to his Department, and I think he might have been here to explain some of these extraordinary items. Secondly, I wish to protest against the absence of any representative of the Treasury. This is, I suppose, the only opportunity of discussing this Vote, which shows an increase, in spite of all the talk of economy on the part of the Prime, Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who boast to the country of what they have done to cut down expenditure, and then there is this increase of over £500,000 for Revenue and Post Office buildings. I think we certainly might have had the Assistant Postmaster-General present, and some representative of the Treasury. I do not think it is treating the Committee properly. Look at some of these items. They estimated for a new parcel office at Liverpool, and I suppose the people who are pressing for this office said it was only a fleabite—£83,000, when the work was started. Now there is a revised estimate of £310,930. In other words, the original estimate has been exceeded by 400 per cent. What is the explanation of that? There are many other cases. At Harrogate a new sorting office was to cost £8,975. Now it has gone up to £24,200. There are actually 46 of these items for buildings, great and small, ranging from the Liverpool scandal of £310,000 and the Mount Pleasant new letter sorting office of £418,000, down to village post offices, on which they are spending a few thousand pounds. In practically all these cases the original Estimates have been exceeded three or four times, and the result is that the Estimate is up by £500,000. I very much regret that the hon. Member for Wood Green did not move to reduce the Vote by a much larger sum. I am very glad to see that the Minister of Labour is here. He is always telling us that one of the reasons why we cannot get houses built is because of the shortage of bricklayers. We have had that ad nauseam. This Vote explains where the bricklayers are who might be building workmen's cottages. It is not the fault of the wicked trade unions, but the fault of the Government who are taking these men for building sorting offices, parcel offices, etc., up and down the country, and revenue offices and Excise buildings all over the place. At Coventry they are spending £51,400, and at Crewe £41,000. North, south, east, and west they seem to have burst out into an orgy of re-building, re-modelling, and new buildings, mostly on behalf of the Post Office. It is simply scandalous.

The housing problem is still acute, and I think this Government building programme might have been postponed. It means that the Government are competing with the local authorities in building material, and are forcing up prices. It means that there is delay in housing the people, and then the Government wonder why there is unrest. Here we are in the most dire need of economy, with industry crippled by heavy taxation, with unemployment caused by reckless expenditure on the part of the Government, and, so far from economising, they are spending an extra £500,000 on works for one Government Department alone. Then the Assistant Postmaster-General thinks the House is so complacent and the public outside are so docile and cowed that he does not think fit to put in an appearance, and no representative of the Treasury, who are supposed to be the guardians of the taxpayer's pocket, does us the honour of coming. I hope that the few Members who are present will not only support us with their vote, but that they will tell other hon. Members who are not present of the scandal that is being perpetrated. Apparently, the Government's intention is to force this sort of thing through in the dinner hour. The whole thing is a good example of the Government's financial methods of profligate, reckless extravagance.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I am sure that the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) would be the last to refuse Government officials the necessary accommodation for the discharge of their duties; but I am bound to associate myself most strongly with the proposal he has made for the reduction of this Estimate. I propose to support him mainly because I regard the Estimate as altogether indefensible from the point of view of the new Revenue buildings in particular. If this had been a mere matter of repairs or additions pr alterations, I might not have had the same objection to the Estimate; but it includes large sums for new Revenue buildings. I submit that the circumstances surrounding these proposed buildings are such as to make it impossible for the Government to proceed with this expenditure at the present time. There are two considerations which we must keep clearly in mind. In the first place, there is in different parts of the country anxious inquiry by experts and others into the cost of building, and there is a feeling at the moment that if we have a combination of forces designed to effect economy there may be substantial reduction in cost, which presumably would enure to the benefit of the Government as to the private individual. That alone would be sufficient to justify us in our opposition to the erection of new buildings, unless we are absolutely convinced that they are required.

In the matter of Revenue buildings there is a more important reason. Two years ago the Royal Commission on the Income Tax spent 12 months considering the whole structure of Income Tax, and more particularly its administration, and in the parts of the Royal Commission's Report dealing with administration they drew attention on innumerable occasions to the economies which they thought the adoption of their proposals would effect. These economies are not merely economies of personnel. They are economies of an administrative character, which would involve, one would imagine, a certain concentration of work and a reduction of the number of buildings required. Hon. Members may argue that in some ways the extent and scope of the Income Tax has been broadened and widened, and probably additional buildings will be necessary; but against that I would put this consideration, that the Excess Profits Duty will disappear, which must very largely reduce the work in the Department, that in the second place the Income Tax limit has been substantially raised, which would again tend to reduce the number, and, thirdly, we know that about 70 per cent. of the Income Tax of this country is collected at the source, which must further tend to reduce the work in the Department. When we add up these considerations it becomes impossible for those who sat on the Royal Commission on the Income Tax to understand how these new buildings can be proposed at the present time.

That is not by any means the whole case. In the Budget of last year a number of the proposals of the Royal Commission on Income Tax were introduced, and in the Revenue Bill which has been presented to Parliament a number of other changes of an administrative character are proposed. The memorandum which has been issued in connection with that Bill indicates that only a portion of the recommendations of the Royal Commission is incorporated in that measure. In some future measure the further part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission will be adopted. Those recommendations in our judgment all make for economy, and that economy includes economy in the matter of buildings. In these circumstances, when we have not yet tackled the redistribution of the units or areas for Income Tax purposes, and when there are definite proposals to try to establish some kind of co-operation between the local authorities and the Inland Revenue in the diffeent districts to secure economy, I find it quite impossible to defend this Vote. I sincerely trust that my hon. Friend in charge will consider the advisability of withdrawing these proposals, so that we can wait and ascertain the way in which the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Income Tax will work out in practice.

Dr. MURRAY

This Vote throws light on some things that were dark to me before. I have often protested against the mean economies of the Post Office with regard to the mail service in some parts of the country, and now I find that the money, which ought to be spent in providing a decent mail service for some of the outlying parts of the country, is being wasted on bricks and mortar, especially in England. When I go to the Post Office and ask them to restore the pre-War service, for instance, between the mainland and my constituency, where there was a daily service in existence about 40 years, I am told: "They must learn the lessons of the War there. The finances of the country are pinched, and we cannot afford to give the necessities to civilisation in the way of postal facilities." But here are unnecessary buildings, on which hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent. No doubt some of them would be necessary in normal times, but the Post Office and other Departments should also remember that the country is poorer than before, and they ought not to practise the little mean economies, which are practised in our part of the country, but save on the bigger things on which they are now wasting so much money.

These little mean economies are practised on an undefended people in a remote part of Scotland. Therefore I join in the protest that has already been made. In these days when building is so expensive, and everyone wants to put off even necessary repairs in his own house, the Post Office and the Revenue Department should not indulge in this luxurious building while entering into competition in building with people who need houses. There is one item that needs explanation. On page 31 I find that fuel, light, and household articles for the Post Office for England and Scotland cost £203,500, against £141,000 last year. Has the price of candles gone up? I would like an explanation of the tremendous increase in this one item. Did they think that the total eclipse of the sun was going to last the whole year? Of this Vote only £13,800, I am glad to say, is spent in Scotland. When you consider the relative populations of England and Scotland, this sum ought to be very much larger. Why should England and Wales, spend a much larger proportion than Scotland? England is supposed to be a sunnier clime than Scotland. Why, then, should they use more candles? I join in the protest that has been made by the faithful watchdog of these Estimates against this great expenditure on buildings at a time when every man should try to do with laying as few bricks as possible.

Sir J. GILMOUR

Hon. Members will realise the practical difficulties under which I speak. I am answering for a Department which has to carry out the necessary building repairs, and look after the upkeep of all these public Departments at the request of the various Departments concerned, and all that this Department is peculiarly concerned with is to see that such expenditure as is incurred is done in the most economical manner. The policy is imposed in a great many cases on the Department by the demands of the various other Government Departments, and with the consent and approval of this House. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) referred particularly to the case of buildings in Manchester. I think that the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) also referred to this. As far as I understand this case, the original arrangement for the purchase of a site which was contemplated last year fell through. Subsequently, another site of a suitable kind was found. It is the belief of the Department that by the bringing together of the Revenue officials in central buildings there will ultimately be a real economy. At present they have got to be housed in various places at an increasing cost. Until the House actually sanctions this expenditure no contract for the buildings has been entered into.

On the general question, the efficiency of the various Departments concerned cannot be obtained unless the absolute necessities of the Department are met. The greatest care will be taken both by the Department for which I am speaking and by the Treasury to see that excessive demands are not made. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) referred to the increased cost of lighting. I am not able to give a definite reply, but it is recognised that the cost of lighting has increased in every part of the country, as also the cost of fuel, electric current, and furniture. I do not know that I can say anything else usefully on this Vote except that I am certain that my Noble Friend who represents the Department will take care to investigate, as far as this Department is concerned, all further schemes of building of an extravagant or permanent kind. I do not admit that the demands made, for instance, by the Post Office are grossly extravagant. I hold that both the Post Office and the Office of Works have justified the calls they are making on the taxpayer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman heard me, but I asked about the new parcels office at Liverpool, for which there was an original Estimate of £83,000, which has now grown to £310,000.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I am afraid I cannot at the moment give full details of the increases, but it must be clear that the general cost of all building undertakings has gone up since the original Estimate was framed. It is impossible for any Department, or even for any firm of contractors, to keep the figures as low as they were a year or so ago.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I agree that it is not fair to expect my hon. Friend to be able to answer these questions. He has just gone into the Department and he cannot possibly know all these details. It is all the more important, therefore, that we should have here Ministers who can answer questions. This Vote is for buildings for revenue purposes and for the Post Office. Why are not the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury present? We cannot get on. We are not being asked for £100 or £1,000, but for over £2,000,000. It is an outrage upon the dignity of this House that Ministers should not be present to answer these questions. Therefore I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Sir J. D. REES

I do not think that the proposal of my hon. Friend is reasonable, or that it is fair for him to make such a complaint at twenty minutes to 9 o'clock. I have been in this House some years, longer perhaps than himself. It is a well-known thing that at this particular period the House is always thin. I never remember it otherwise on any occasion, nor have I ever seen at this hour the Treasury Bench laden with Secretaries of State and Ministers of that calibre. At the present moment, besides my hon. Friend who replied on the Debate, there are present the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade, fresh from a victorious election. I think the hon. Member's objection is really beyond the necessities of the case.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY

I do not think the hon. Baronet who has just spoken quite appreciates the position of hon. Members who have been here dinnerless while he presumably has refreshed the inner man. I hope the Committee will support the proposal to report Progress. This is a Vote for £2,140,000. It is for Customs and Excise buildings and Inland Revenue buildings, which concern the Treasury, and for Post Office and Telegraph buildings, which concern the Post Office. Although we appreciate the candour of the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government, and the very delightful way in which he met our points to the best of his ability, I say that the people concerned ought to be here. The Assistant Postmaster-General ought to be here. If I may say so with respect, it is what the House of Commons pays him his salary for. The question is not whether it is 20 to 9 o'clock or 20 to 10 o'clock. This is the only chance we have of examining the Estimate in detail. I wonder what the voters of Nottingham will say to-morrow when they ascertain that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. D. Rees) has made the speech we have just heard.

Sir J. D. REES

The hon. Member need not trouble himself about what the people of Nottingham think about me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Perhaps the hon. Baronet will excuse my heat, but I am speaking for hundreds of thousands of people living on small fixed incomes who are ground down by taxation. I declare that there has been reckless extravagance in building new post offices up and down the country. We should have some explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the item referring to revenue buildings in Manchester. Last year there was a very heated Debate in the House on this item. It was then proposed to spend £113,800. The reasons put forward for the item tonight were put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. The House of Commons did not accept the explanation last year, and eventually a compromise was reached. It looked very much as if the Government would be defeated, and they agreed that only the land would be bought and that further consideration would be postponed for another year. This is the further consideration that we

were promised by the Government. The sum has now increased from £113,800 to £163,530. The only result of last year's protest is that we are now asked to spend another £50,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should be here to give some explanation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir W. Pearce)

rose to put the Question—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

On a point of Order. The Motion before the Committee is that the Chairman do Report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I did not accept the Motion.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

When a Member proposes a Motion of that sort, and other hon. Members are allowed to debate it, does not that constitute it the Motion before the House? When the Chairman decides not to accept a Motion of that kind, does he not rise before the Member has proposed it, and say that he cannot allow it?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

As I understand it, that is not so. I allowed a certain amount of debate, and I think that has exhausted itself. Consequently I propose to put the Question.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,436,450, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 120.

Division No. 82.] AYES. [8.48 p.m.
Atkey, A. R. Gritten, W. G. Howard Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Grundy, T. W. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) Poison, Sir Thomas
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Hallas, Eldred Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Sitch, Charles H.
Cairns, John Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness) Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Cape, Thomas Hayday, Arthur Spoor, B. G.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) Hirst, G. H. Swan, J. E.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin) Hodge, Rt. Hon. John Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Hogge, James Myles Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Holmes, J. Stanley Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) Irving, Dan White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) John, William (Rhondda, West) Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick) Johnstone, Joseph Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) Wilson, James (Dudley)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South) Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)
Entwistle, Major C. F. Lister, Sir R. Ashton Wintringham, T.
Finney, Samuel Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Galbraith, Samuel Lunn, William Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Gillis, William Morgan, Major D. Watts
Glanville, Harold James Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Myers, Thomas Sir C. Cobb and Mr. G. Locker-
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) Nail, Major Joseph Lampson.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
NOES.
Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Perring, William George
Barlow, Sir Montague Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank Purchase, H. G.
Barnett, Major R. W. Hills, Major John Waller Ramsden, G. T.
Barnston, Major Harry Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Rankin, Captain James S.
Barrie, Charles Coupar Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.) Raper, A. Baldwin
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Hopkins, John W. W. Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Blair, Sir Reginald Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis Renwick, George
Borwick, Major G. O. Hurd, Percy A. Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Breese, Major Charles E. Inskip, Thomas Walker H. Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Broad, Thomas Tucker James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Brown, Captain D. C. Jameson, J. Gordon Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Bruton, Sir James Jephcott, A. R. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Johnson, Sir Stanley Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Casey, T. W. Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly) Seager, Sir William
Cautley, Henry S. Joynson-Hicks, Sir William Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Churchman, Sir Arthur Kidd, James Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Clough, Robert King, Captain Henry Douglas Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) Lloyd, George Butler Stanton, Charles B.
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh) Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n) Stevens, Marshall
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) Lorden, John William Stewart, Gershom
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) Lort-Williams, J. Strauss, Edward Anthony
Doyle, N. Grattan Lynn, R. J. Sturrock, J. Leng
Edge, Captain William Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Sugden, W. H.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) Macquisten, F. A. Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Farquharson, Major A. C. Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) Taylor, J.
Fell, Sir Arthur Mason, Robert Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Fildes, Henry Mitchell, William Lane Tickler, Thomas George
Ford, Patrick Johnston Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. Tryon, Major George Clement
Forestier-Walker, L. Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)
Forrest, Walter Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Gardiner, James Moreing, Captain Algernon H. Waring, Major Walter
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Neal, Arthur Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) Nield, Sir Herbert Winterton, Earl
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E. Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. Wise, Frederick
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Parker, James Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. Pearce, Sir William
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) Perkins, Walter Frank Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.

Original Question put, and agreed to.