Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on Consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £40,165,287, 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 the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones.
§ Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £40,165,187, be granted for the said Service."
§ Mr. SPENCER
I quite agree with the proposition which has been placed before the Committee by the Minister in charge of this Vote to-night, namely, that, so far as it lies in his power, his Department should be made a paying Department, and if there is a loss, or likely to be a loss so far as the Department is concerned, I think it is the duty of the Minister to give very serious attention to any proposals whatever which might have the effect of putting the Department upon a sound financial basis. The first consideration should be whether it is possible to reduce in any degree the expenses of that Department, and so far as it is possible to reduce the expenses of that Department, I think the Minister is justified in giving it his very serious attention. He is proposing that the expenses of his Department shall be reduced by discontinuing the Sunday service. I am not disposed to question his wisdom in taking that step, but I should like to say that this proposal of his is viewed with alarm, at least by the lower paid staff of that Department. I have in my hand a letter which has been sent by the secretary of a very great branch of postal servants, who are complaining that they, as employés of the Department, through their organisation have not been consulted with regard to this proposed alteration. I should like to say, in connection with this, that before a Department of this character makes any change whatever in the service of its employés, the employés have a right, I think, to expect the Department at least 2206 to consult them, and to see whether they themselves can suggest any alternative which will give the same effect as the Minister has in view with regard to the change.
The employés object to this change with regard to the Sunday service on three main grounds. The first is in regard to income. Some of the lower-paid servants, I understand, are getting, if not under £2 a week, very little over £2 & week for the full service for which they are wanted. I am thoroughly convinced that any servant of the Post Office in receipt of £2 a week at the present time is not in a position to have that standard of remuneration reduced in any way, and if it is contemplated that, by the discontinuance of Sunday service, men who are in receipt of low salaries of that character are going to be affected, then I think the Minister ought to pause before he makes that change. The second ground of objection is with regard to the change in the standard of their duty. I think I am right in saying that when Sunday duties are performed there are special rates. If Sunday service is discontinued, I am given to understand that men who to-day are engaged on Sunday in making proper arrangements for Monday's work will have to come at midnight on Sunday for the purpose of doing service hitherto rendered on the Sunday, and at substantially increased rates. The Post Office servants in some respects are objecting to have to come on Sunday evening to render service that has hitherto been done on some part of the Sunday. I am not advocating Sunday work; I believe, so far as it is possible and practicable, Sunday work altogether should be discontinued. But if you are going to discontinue service of this character, in discontinuing it you ought not to place a greater burden on those who are today bearing a very great burden so far as the service is concerned.
The third point is that they have not been consulted. I am not going to apologise for saying that, in my opinion, the Government should have consulted their employés with regard to this proposed scheme. All the best employers in the country, if they were contemplating some change so far as the relationship between themselves and their employés was concerned, would first have given due notice, and, secondly, would have been prepared to listen to any suggestions the 2207 employés had to make for the purpose of giving the same effect by some other method. In this particular instance I understand from the letter which I have received, the employés of the Postal Service are to have no such opportunity of expressing their opinions. They look upon this action of the Minister with regard to this particular point as invalidating altogether their agreement with him. This is going to lead to very grave and serious discontent. I want to make one observation in particular, because it has been said by an hon. Member below the Gangway, that, if there is to be any reduction in wages or salaries, the reduction should not fall unduly heavily on the lower-paid workers. If there is to be any saving of expenditure by cutting down the remuneration of the employés that reduction should be spread over as large a field as possible. It should fall least heavily on those least able to bear it, and more heavily on those in a better position to shoulder the burden.
With regard to the extra charges which are going to be levied for services rendered, I quite agree that the Minister has a perfect right to direct his attention to seeing whether the services are paying or not, but when he comes here and proposes to levy an extra charge on any branch of the service he ought to be perfectly certain that that particular branch on which he proposes to place the extra charge is the branch that is losing. I have not seen any conclusive figures which justify the Minister in levying the extra charges in the direction he proposes to do. Take the case of postcards. I am not aware of any data laid before the Committee proving that postcards do not pay. Is there any evidence that Press telegrams do pay? Here are two branches of the service as to which I think the Minister would have been perfectly justified in making careful and close examination to see to what extent they either pay or lose.
§ Mr. KELLAWAY
I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard my statement, but I did give figures to-day showing the loss on postcards.
§ Mr. SPENCER
I did not I confess, hear the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. At any rate he has not given us any conclusive evidence with regard to Press telegrams. If it is true that the postcard service does pay, then 2208 the right hon. Gentleman ought to ask himself whether, by the imposition of an additional charge, he is going to derive an advantage in the shape of increased revenue, such as he seems to contemplate. I cannot speak with any authority, but the opinion of those who can do so is that if this further impost is applied to this service it is going to have the effect of lessening the number of postcards sent through the post, and therefore instead of deriving more money from this particular branch of the service the right hon. Gentleman will get less revenue, while the impost will also have a very serious effect on trade so far as postcards are concerned. I am not going to deal with circulars, which already have been ably dealt with, nor with telegrams, but I suggest that instead of seeking to contract the service that his Department is rendering, the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to see whether he can expand in some degree that service. It has been put to him that there is a large field of service which has proved highly remunerative in other countries, and which he might well adopt, namely, postal cheques. The system of postal cheques has been adopted on the Continent in Germany, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, France, and other countries, with a great deal of advantage to the people of those countries. I understand that in 1917 the transactions in Germany amounted to no less than £5,000,000, and that upon that a profit of £1,000,000 was made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Profiteering!"] I am not suggesting for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman should make the same charge, but here is a branch of service which may be highly convenient to the British public and at the same time may be highly remunerative to the Department concerned. In the United Kingdom we have over 11,000,000 active depositors with the Post Office, the average amount standing in the name of those depositors being about £19 18s. If we were to adopt the system of postal cheques in this country for a body of people whose savings are so small that they will never think of going to a large bank, but simply deposit their money in a savings bank, it would be highly convenient to those small depositors, and I believe it would encourage thrift, while at the same time it would prove a growing source of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman will 2209 do well, not to see in what direction he can contract the usefulness of his Department to the British public for the purpose of saving revenue, but rather to direct his attention to those avenues where he can best expand the service, and by that expansion confer on the British public great advantages from the work of his Department.
§ Lieut.-Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE
The right hon. Gentleman did much to disarm criticism amongst many Members who were much opposed to these new proposals by his frank and lucid statement, and more especially by the notification that the proposed increases in the rates for foreign printed matter have been withdrawn. That was my principal ground of objection to the proposals, but I put very little short of that my strong objection to the increase in the postcard rate. It is a truism to say that the post card is the poor man's letter-card. What he wants to write—I do not know that it conveys very much, but he seems to like to write it—is something like this:Dear Sal.—I hope this finds you in the pink, as it leaves me.Apparently, now, if he wants to send a postcard for a penny, he will have to step into a shop, buy a picture postcard, and reduce the number of words to five:In pink; hope you same,or something of that sort. I am strongly opposed to this increase in the postcard rate, and I shall feel it my duty to vote against the Government on account of it. The right hon. Gentleman will say: "We must make the service pay." I have never been able to understand why you cannot have the two accounts separate, the telephones and telegraphs in one, which are, so to speak, the privilege and luxury of the richer classes, and the postal rates, which largely affect the lower classes, in another category, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can give some hope that that can be done I am afraid I shall find it my duty to vote against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to postcards and told us the handling of postcards was carried on at a slight loss. As with the sliding scale the wages automatically drop that slight loss would disappear and very soon postcards would be handled, not at a loss, but at a slight profit.
I was very much struck by the speech of an hon. Member who referred to the cost of elections and the impossibility of keeping within the prescribed limit, particularly under the new Regulations. I under stand in this country there is an allowance of 5d. per head of the electorate. In Ireland we are only allowed 2d. per head, and if it is impossible for English Members not to exceed their allowance how much more impossible will it be for us there. I hope the Postmaster-General will take that into consideration in regard to the extra allowance during election time. I wish he would try to get once more into his control the Post Office in Ireland. The may seem an extraordinary request to make, but when we get letters passed by the censor of the Irish Republican Army which have come through the Post Office in Ireland, I am sure the House will appreciate the reasonableness of the request. I was rather disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the very serious question of the building programme of the Post Office. I hope we shall be given some information with regard to this extraordinary expenditure. May I give one or two instances. Take, for instance, General Post Offices. The original total Estimate was £465,000. The revised total Estimate is £502,000. Mount Pleasant new letter-sorting office, original Estimate, £120,000, new Estimate, £418,000. Mount Pleasant new Stamp Office, £59,000, original Estimate, revised Estimate, £112,000. Accrington new Post Office, original Estimate, £6,786, revised Estimate, £23,895. I could go on multiplying these. Liverpool, £83,060, revised Estimate, £310,000. In an explanation of the Post Office Estimates the House ought to get some idea why all this additional expenditure is necessary. If these Post Offices had been carried on in their present buildings for 30 years, surely, in the present financial position of the country they could be carried on for a few years longer. When everybody is talking about economy, surely we might try to do without this additional expenditure for a year or two. It is possible that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain satisfactorily why these additional Estimates are required, but we have not had that explanation yet.
Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON
I wish briefly to supplement what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Spencer) with regard to the burden which is cast upon some of the lower paid workers by the withdrawal of the Sunday delivery. In my own district the abolition of the Sunday post—a reform with which everyone will agree in the main—will fall heavily upon the low paid workers Other speakers have said that the burden should not fall more heavily upon the lower paid staff than on the other portion of the Post Office staff. I am in formed that in my district the outdoor workers will suffer a weekly reduction of from 7s. to 17s. per week. That is a statement I have received from the local branch of post office workers, but it has not been possible for me to verify that statement. If there is any substance in it I hope that, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, conferences will take place between the Post Office officials and their staff so as to alleviate as far as possible the burden which falls on men whose basic rate is only £2 a week plus bonus. We all agree that the lesser amount of Sunday work that is done, the better. In fact, the Post Office officials who have written to me complaining of the unequal burden on the lower paid workers, say that they are in favour of the abolition of Sunday labour; but they do ask for some consideration in this case.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott) who suggested that the reduction should only fall on the higher grade officials. I do not agree with him that a trade Department such as the Post Office should bring down its scale of pay to that which might be given in the professional classes. Criticism has been made from various quarters that the Post Office has no right to pay officials in their trade Department more than is paid to the scholastic or professional classes. That is a very false comparison to make, because if you have a civil service engaged in a trading Department, if it is to be economically worked and run on business lines, you must pay for brains. You must pay for the brains that will be demanded as a competing value in the ordinary commercial world. Although the pension has to be taken into account as a set-off against some of the advantages that the outsider gets, the comparison ought to be more comparable with that of men similarly engaged outside in a trad- 2212 ing Department, than with the professional class.
When you are making these reductions in the Sunday service, I hope that consideration will be given to the collection of night letters not merely in centres such as London and the capital cities, but in practically all the large towns, because the postal service as a whole yields a profit, and it is unfair that a service which yields a profit should be penalised by the lack in any large district of the collection of Sunday mails which prevents letters posted in that area getting to their destination before Tuesday morning. Let those Departments which suffer a loss, such as the telephones and the telegrams, bear their share, but do not penalise the postal service to a larger extent than is necessary. Let us have a Sunday night collection, whereby letters would be delivered on the Monday morning and not on the Tuesday morning.
With regard to the question of economy—for I quite realise that the Post Office must be run on self-supporting lines—does the Postmaster-General realise that in 1913–14 the Estimates were £27,000,000 and that to-day they are £70,000,000? That increase is more than is due to the increased cost of commodities and the increased cost of living. Has he taken into consideration the reduction in prices which has already begun, and which we hope will be accelerated? Owing to the depreciation of trade the volume of work which the Post Office has to handle will unfortunately not be more than in 1913–14. Therefore, is it not possible with internal economy and improved administration to reduce the £70,000,000 by £3,500,000 rather than save that amount by penalising the service? I know that every one of us makes demands for his own particular constituency for improved facilities, but those demands are not at variance with the desire for economy, because the better the service the greater the return to the Department. Therefore, while one presses for these increased facilities, we can at the same time ask the Postmaster-General to see that economies are carried out so that the figure of £70,000,000 will show a reduction enabling us to avoid those other reductions in service which will prove to be a false economy.
§ Mr. PEASE
Last year the Post Office had no opportunity of having its Esti- 2213 mates taken, and I think that that was a great pity, because there are a great many false ideas which can be dealt with by the Postmaster-General or the representative of the Post Office on an occasion of this kind. First, I would like to say that personally I appreciate what has been said in regard to the Postmaster-General's speech this afternoon. I think that the eulogy which has fallen from the lips of so many Members must cause satisfaction to himself, especially as this is the first opportunity which he has had of addressing the House on the subject after a comparatively short experience of the position which he now occupies. I would like also to say a few words in regard to the question of the bonus. Plainly we are bound to carry out the undertaking in regard to the bonus. For many years during which I have been a Member of this House I have never before known the question of too much pay being raised. On previous occasions hon. Members always raised the question of the service not receiving adequate remuneration. On the 18th March last the President of the Board of Trade, referring to this question of the bonus, said that the House approved the principle of war bonus in December last year. He went on to say:Do not let anyone say there are other people in just the same position.As far as we are concerned, the House has approved this bonus, and we have to take into account the fact that for some time the employés of the Post Office did not receive the full amount which they would have received for bonus.
The figures already have been given by the Postmaster-General, but as there are more Members in the House now I would like to give them again. I would like also to say, in regard to this question, that nobody could expect the Post Office worker, as the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) suggested, to work at the old rates of pay. Therefore the only question that arises is as to whether the bonus is the proper amount or not.
§ Sir C. OMAN
I did not say he ought to work at the old rates, but that he should not have three times as much as the old pay.
§ Mr. PEASE
It has been pointed out by the Postmaster-General that the rates of pay now are a little over the cost of living basis, but before the present rates 2214 were paid the Post Office employé was receiving less than the amount which he should have received on the cost of living basis. It is also perfectly plain that when the review of the bonus takes place on 1st September there will be a fall in the bonus. In any case, what we have to consider at the moment is whether we are to honour the cheque which has been given. I do not think that any hon. Member, when he considers the matter from the fundamental point of view, would believe that we have any right to act in opposition to the decision I have mentioned. I wish to emphasise one point in regard to industry generally. I realise that it has been a great benefit to have a sliding scale. As one who has some opportunity of judging the case from outside, I believe a very large number of industries would be in a much more satisfactory position if they had sliding scales, so that when wages had to be reduced the reduction could be made without the feeling of friction which now exists in many quarters. An hon. Member has asked how we have estimated the loss on postcards. That is a very difficult question to answer. The same thing applies to all the departments of the Post Office. There is a large number of standing charges to be taken into account. Anyone connected with a large business knows that when you take maintenance charges into account it is almost impossible, except approximately, to find out what the charge is in regard to any particular item. When you have an increase total of postcards and letters, as far as sorting is concerned, it is just as difficult to sort a postcard as a letter. We have to accept the advice of those best qualified to give it as to the cost of handling and conveyance and other matters. A question has been raised as to Press telegrams I have been Assistant Postmaster-General for a considerable number of years, and I held that position in the first Coalition Government under Sir Herbert Samuel. I remember that at that time we received a deputation on the question. The House thinks, naturally, that this affects to a great extent the large newspaper proprietors of the country. It does not, to any great extent, because they have their private wires. But there are many struggling newspapers, and the fact placed before us was that many of them would be almost in a state of bankruptcy if they 2215 had to pay the full charge for Press telegrams. An arrangement was made by which an increase was paid by them, and as far as I remember, that increase took place in January of last year. I think it may be reconsidered, but I do not know exactly what is the position of news papers in the country, and the question of the ratio of the increase is a serious one.
The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gilbert) said there were too many deliveries in London. That is one of the questions always mentioned on occasions of this kind, and it is said, "Why do you not save money by having fewer deliveries?" We are advised there would be practically no saving at all by having fewer deliveries. The fact is, the first delivery would be unmanageable if some other delivery did not take place, and the carrying of this large number of letters would involve the employment of part time men, which is very difficult to arrange. This is one of the most difficult things with which we have to deal, and as far as the trade union is concerned, the difficulty of arranging terms is well known. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) raised again a question which he has raised many times. He did me the honour of coming down to the Post Office and talking it over with me. I asked him to wait on the official in charge of that and he did so, and put his case almost as forcibly as he did this after-noon—at least I expect he did. I would have been very glad, had it been possible for me to comply with that request as with any request from the hon. Member, but unfortunately it was found in this particular case it meant giving privileges to his constituency against other applications which were made. All I could do was to accept the advice given by our representative in that district, and he said he thought this place Ruspidge was served as well as, or better, than other places in the district. I am sure he will not agree with that—
§ Mr. WIGNALL
No, I do not.
§ Mr. PEASE
But he will realise I would be very glad if I could say "Yes" to his request. With regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) I believe he recognised that the Post Office is not quite so badly managed as some people 2216 think when he said, so far as he knew, there was no possibility of increasing the staff. He spoke as one who has some considerable experience in regard to questions of this kind. I am quite sure he speaks in this House with considerable weight and everybody knows—although most disagree with him—he is very honest in his opinions. Many Members of this House if they came to the Post Office or to one of the savings banks, telegraph offices, or any of the offices, would find them not so badly managed as they might possibly think from reading articles in the Press. I invite hon. Members to come down and I am quite certain they will be extremely interested. It is rather absurd to read some of the statements that are made with regard to chaos in the Post Office. The men who are there are practically the same men, in almost all cases, who were employed there about 3 years ago when the surplus was £7,000,000.
They are working on the same lines. The fact is that their charges in every respect are very much increased, and therefore there is no profit, but a loss. If you apply the same principles to any other business in the world, you will have exactly the same result. I believe that if hon. Members would take the trouble just to examine the working of these offices from the inside, and would take the advice of those who have real knowledge of the question, they would find that the Post Office is run on business lines.
With regard to the question of dividing the Post Office Department from the Telephone Department, that is impossible. If I had more time I could give some reasons for that, but I will only one. That is that in all the provincial districts the telephones are in the post offices and it is quite impossible to run a separate company in regard to that.
§ Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE
It is separate accounts I want.
§ Mr. PEASE
I was not dealing with that particular question. I know what my hon. and gallant Friend means in regard to that. The hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) spoke of the cost of postcards, and quoted a protest from the Church Reform League and other societies. I sympathise with him in regard to the increase in the cost of post cards, and should be very glad indeed if 2217 it could be abolished. The hon. Member, however, has no alternative. That is the point. I do not think any hon. Member has suggested any alternative for finding the very large sum of money that is required.
Mr. GIDEON MURRAY
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is to be the permanent policy of the Department to charge 1½d. for the postcard, in other words, to pay for the handling of the postcards? In former days it was always understood that the postcard did not pay because the poorer people were able to use it. I represent a constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order," "Speech"]—
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is not out of Order in putting a question to the Postmaster-General.
I represent a constituency which will be affected to the extent of about 90 per cent. by this particular increase. I only wish to know if this is to be permanent?
§ Mr. PEASE
My right hon. Friend gave a complete answer to that in his speech this afternoon. He said that so far as these charges were concerned if the revenue were obtained there would probably be no reason why we should not have penny postage again and halfpenny postcards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) mentioned express letters. These express letters can be sent by the Post Office in London, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Birmingham, and Sheffield. So far as the Sunday post is concerned, the letters that cannot be delivered will be delivered in London on the following morning. With regard to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman), I quite admit that there is a very considerable increase in the charge on postcards, and that this will affect the printing trade for which he spoke. Personally I should be very glad indeed if it were possible for this extra charge to continue for a short time only. Under existing circumstances, however, it is quite impossible for the Postmaster-General to withdraw it.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) made a very strong charge against the central staff of the Post Office, and suggested that 2218 the Post Office would be better without a great many of its representatives. It is hardly necessary to deal with a charge of that kind, which only shows that the hon. Member has really no knowledge with regard to the matter. A statement was also made with regard to the amount of money paid to the Post Office servants, but a basic salary of £1,200 to the chief engineer of a department which has between 20,000 and 30,000 men in it is perfectly absurd, and cannot be, from an economic point of view, a wise policy. We as a country have been living in a fools' paradise. We all expected after the War to get large dividends, to work less time, and to get higher wages. As far as the Post Office is concerned, I consider it has been well managed, and as far as the particular case of the workers is concerned, odd cases have been suggested in regard to men who have perhaps not done as much work as they might have done, but we can find hard cases in every walk of life. The question of the efficiency of the telephone service has not been raised to-night, but if I had the opportunity I could give figures of tests made in London recently as compared with last year, and I could show conclusively that the telephone service has improved in the way I said it would improve a year ago. In regard to the bonus, it is plain that if the Committee decides to honour the cheque with regard to the wages of the Post Office staff they ought to vote for this Estimate. In regard to increased facilities, I am convinced that if Rowland Hill were to come back from that sphere which all deceased Post-masters-General inhabit to this sublunary planet he would not think it possible to put forward a penny postage, because the penny has not the same purchasing value to-day as it had in the days gone by.
§ Sir A. FELL
If a Division is taken on the Amendment, will it be possible to move another reduction on another subject?
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the reduction moved by the hon. Member for Wednesbury were to be carried, that would settle the question that a certain reduced sum should be granted to His Majesty, but if it were rejected the Vote would stand and could come on another day, and a different reduction could then be moved.
§ Question put "That a sum, not exceeding £40,165,187, be granted for the said service."2220
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 118; Noes 196.2221
|Division No. 158.]||AYES.||[11.0 p.m.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Grundy, T. W.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin||Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Gwynne, Rupert S.||Polson, Sir Thomas A.|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Kannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Rankin, Captain James Stuart|
|Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hayday, Arthur||Remnant, Sir James|
|Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, G. H.||Robertson, John|
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Holmes, J. Stanley||Rose, Frank H.|
|Briant, Frank||Hopkins, John W. W.||Royce, William Stapleton|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere||Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund|
|Bromfield, William||Houston, Robert Patterson||Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)|
|Brown, Major D. C.||Irving, Dan||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jephcott, A. R.||Spencer, George A.|
|Bruton, Sir James||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Swan, J. E.|
|Cairns, John||Kennedy, Thomas||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Cape, Thomas||Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Kenyon, Barnet||Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Lawson, John James||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Waterson, A. E.|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)||Watson, Captain John Bertrand|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lyle-Samuel, Alexander||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||White, Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Mallalieu, Frederick William||Wignall, James|
|Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)||Marriott, John Arthur Ransome||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||Mills, John Edmund||Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)|
|Erskine, J. M. M.||Molson, Major John Elsdale||Wilson, James (Dudley)|
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Morgan, Major D. Watts||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Mosley, Oswald||Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Murchison, C. K.||Wintringham, Thomas|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)|
|Gillis, William||Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Myers, Thomas|
|Gould, James C.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Nield, Sir Herbert||Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Neil|
|Grant, James Augustus||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.||Maclean.|
|Gretton, Colonel John||Oman, Sir Charles William C.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender||Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Coats, Sir Stuart||Gregory, Holman|
|Amery, Leopold C. M. S.||Cobb, Sir Cyril||Greig, Colonel James William|
|Austin, Sir Herbert||Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Conway, Sir W. Martin||Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Cope, Major William||Hamilton, Major C. G. C.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Barlow, Sir Montague||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Harris, Sir Henry Percy|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Davies, Sir Joseph (Chester, Crewe)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)|
|Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)||Dean, Commander P. T.||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Doyle, N. Grattan||Hinds, John|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Du Pre, Colonel William Baring||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy|
|Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)||Edgar, Clifford B.||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Elveden, Viscount||Hood, Joseph|
|Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)||Evans, Ernest||Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)|
|Blair, Sir Reginald||Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)|
|Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-||Fell, Sir Arthur||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Bowles, Colonel H. F.||Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.||Flannery, Sir James Fortescue||Jodrell, Neville Paul|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Ford, Patrick Johnston||Johnson, Sir Stanley|
|Brassey, H. L. C.||Foreman, Sir Henry||Johnstone, Joseph|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Forrest, Walter||Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George|
|Casey, T. W.||Glyn, Major Ralph||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)||Goff, Sir R. Park||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)||Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)|
|Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.||Green, Albert (Derby)||Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Lindsay, William Arthur|
|Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.||Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)||Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray||Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)|
|Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir H. C. (P'nrith)||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Lyle, C. E. Leonard||Preston, W. R.||Townley, Maximilian G.|
|Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)||Prescott, Major W. H.||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)||Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.||Turton, Edmund Russborough|
|McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.||Wallace, J.|
|Macleod, J. Mackintosh||Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)||Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Reid, D. D.||Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)|
|McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)||Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)||Waring, Major Walter|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)||Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.|
|Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Weston, Colonel John Wakefield|
|Manville, Edward||Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.|
|Matthews, David||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)||Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald|
|Mitchell, William Lane||Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud|
|Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz||Royden, Sir Thomas||Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.|
|Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)|
|Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur||Winterton, Earl|
|Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Wise, Frederick|
|Morris, Richard||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Morrison, Hugh||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)||Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)|
|Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar)||Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)|
|Murray, William (Dumfries)||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)||Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)|
|Nall, Major Joseph||Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)||Woolcock, William James U.|
|Neal, Arthur||Smithers, Sir Alfred W.||Worsfold, T. Cato|
|Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Steel, Major S. Strang||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John||Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.||Young, E. H. (Norwich)|
|Parker, James||Stewart, Gershom||Younger, Sir George|
|Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry||Sturrock, J. Leng|
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike||Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Perkins, Walter Frank||Sutherland, Sir William||Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie|
|Perring, William George||Taylor, J.||Wilson.|
|Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)||Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)|
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again upon Monday next (13th June).