§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,530, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI beg to move,
That the Vote be reduced by £1,530.This will reduce the sum to £6,000, and the main reason I am moving the reduction is this. I am afraid it is now a reason which loses some of its weight by its constant repetition, but it is the only way, I am afraid, to drive a thing fully home. This is the fourth increase during the present year. The first increase was when the original Estimate was submitted. That original Estimate asked for a sum of £73,287. But that was an increase of £19,722 on the preceding year. Then 2221 a further sum of £20,310, included in the Supplementary Votes, for War bonus, came on twice, first in July and then in November. What possible reason can there be for these four increases in 12 months? We have had it out before in other Estimates, and I must direct attention to this very significant fact. It is only by constantly hammering away that we find out what the real increases are. By way of illustration, I would remind hon. Members of the Debate we had yesterday on the National Debt Office, and the Comptroller-General's increase there was from £2,000 to £2,500, but it was only at the very end of the Debate that an hon. Member asked for particulars as to bonus. My right hon. Friend at once said, quite frankly, £500, so that really the increase that gentleman had during last year was from £2,000 to £3,000—a clear net increase of £1,000 on his salary. That is the only way in which you can get at the facts. I again urge upon my right hon. Friend, when these Estimates are framed, to see that, instead of hon. Members having to go through this long process of examination, and possess a good deal of technical knowledge of these Estimates, all these relevant facts should be plainly stated on the Paper itself, so that anybody can understand by any reasonably careful examination of the Estimates what the facts really are.So far as I am concerned, I am more fortunately placed than the majority of Members of this House, because for a number of years it was my special business, when I was occupying your position, Sir Edwin, to see these Estimates through the Committee, and very often, in listening to hon. Members, I used to divert my attention, and occasionally amuse myself, by seeing what these Estimates really meant, and it is by that knowledge that I have really got to know what the Estimates are. It is most unfair that the ordinary Member has not got all these perfectly simple and relevant facts so that they should be staring him in the face. Let us apply that to this particular Vote which is before us. First of all, what is the real actual increase which these gentlemen are getting? In addition to the sum appearing on the Paper, they have had their share of £20,310. Then the next question I would ask my right hon. Friend is this. Under Sub-head A (Salaries, Wages and Allowances), there is provision for reorganisa- 2222 tion of and additions to Map Department Staff, £1,850, additional assistant clerks £435, copying, etc., £300, and then a very remarkable item—overtime, £4,200. I want to know what that really means. What was the special pressure which necessitated the work of overtime[...] What was the particular occasion which caused it, and is it a regular practice, as is sometimes the case, to supplement salaries by working overtime? My right hon. Friend will agree with me that that is a figure which requires an explanation, and I am sure he will give it. Why should these large increases be made under the present circumstances of today when unemployment is rampant and liable to be even more widespread? All servants of the State should join other citizens in bearing their share of the burden, and whatever their merits may be for these increases, they should wait a more favourable time.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONI have been trying to understand this Estimate, and should like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions about it. In the first place, in the middle of the page, rather like a plum in a cake, there is a sum down for receipts, but it does not look, unfortunately, as if this plum was ever in the hole, for, as far as I can see, the receipts amount to £45,000; the original Estimates were £120,000, the revised Estimate is £165,000, so you have an increased amount of receipts put down as £45,000. But I do not see that these receipts have been taken into account in the actual sum the hon. Gentleman is now asking from the House. I do not see how these receipts work into the Estimate. Does this Estimate really include the whole of expenses of this Department? The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that one of the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure was that each Vote should show the total expenses of the Department. It very often happens that outside the actual sum asked for for a Department under a particular Vote other moneys are required for a Department that come under different Votes, the Stationery Department and Office of Works, for instance. Does this really represent the whole of the money required for this Department? Does it include, for instance, the Stationery or Postal Department? When we are discussing the Votes of this Department it is really a good thing to know whether 2223 that is the total expenditure or whether there is some other Departmental expenditure belonging to the Department under a separate Vote.
I should like to emphasise the point of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) It seems to me that there is an enormous sum required for overtime. I do not understand that. If you look at the original Estimate you will find that last year the sum required for overtime was £200. This year the original Estimate for overtime was £850. That is to say, an increase of £650 over last year; but now we are asked for £4,200 extra for overtime, an increase of £4,850 over the overtime last year—a total altogether of £5,050 overtime. One would naturally suppose that if all this overtime was being put in the officials would have remained the same, but that is not so. Not only are we asked for an enormous extra sum for overtime, five times what it was last year, but we also find that the officials have increased. In last year's Estimate there were 229 officials in the Land Registry Department. This year the original Estimate was 256, an increase of over 12 per cent, and now they come down with a Supplementary Estimate for "Reorganisation of, and Additions to, Map Department Staff," and various other sections, so there is a further increase of staff under this Estimate. I daresay my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us how this additional sum was necessary since the original Estimate was made. Anyhow, we are going to be charged apparently for the Map Department alone, for additions of staff, £1,850. That seems to me, taking this enormous increase in overtime into consideration, to be a figure that must be explained, because if you look at the original Estimate it gives the list of the various gentlemen who are engaged in this Department, and it is quite clear that a proportion of the whole list of the officials have been working overtime. Possibly comparatively few of these people have actually been earning this overtime money. In my right hon. Friend's reply I should like to know how many of these officials have been earning this £5,050, because the business of this Department must have increased quite enormously for the sum of overtime to have increased five times over what it was last year. My right hon. and learned Friend will correct me if I am 2224 wrong, but every county in England does not have a registry. It is a very limited number of counties, and Middlesex and Yorkshire are probably the two chief counties in England that have these registries. Therefore we are only dealing with a very limited area of the country, and I cannot conceive why there should have been this very large increase now. I should be very grateful if my right hon. Friend could reply to these points.
Colonel NEWMANIn this Estimate there is the usual note about war bonus amounting to over £20,000 on a salary estimate of £83,800. You recollect that when we discussed Vote 2 (A), page 10, the salary of a Minister without Portfolio, I raised the question then about this war bonus. In that case it amounted to £3,700 on an estimated salary of £34,000, and further you pointed out to us that we were able to discuss the Vote for war bonus on page 36, "Unclassified Services, 20," where there is a war bonus on £12,650,000. When we come to discuss the war bonus, shall we be able to go right back and discuss its allocation on all these Votes? I cannot understand how it is that in this particular Vote the bonus comes out at a very big figure, £20,000, nearly a fourth of the whole, whereas the unfortunate people under the Minister without Portfolio get only about one-eighth. How does that come about, and who is to answer the question? Is it to be deferred until we get the war bonus Vote, and, if it is, shall I be entitled to go right back and ask the various Departments if they have been diligent in getting their seven-twenty-sixths?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI may not be in the Chair when the Vote in the unclassified services dealing with the war bonus comes under consideration, but I take it that when that matter is under discussion the only question will be whether the Committee will grant the Supplementary Estimate. If it does, the Treasury will have the money to deal with, and, if it does not, the Treasury will not have the money. It would not be in order to go back to the Votes passed, and discuss the allocation of the money. Nor is it in order, as I said yesterday, upon each of these Supplementary Estimates to discuss the policy of the war bonus, though the amounts are given for the information of Members.
Colonel NEWMANMight I definitely ask this question? Why is the War bonus in the case of the Land Registry officials so much higher than in the case of the officials of the Minister without Portfolio? In going through the different Votes, I find the same discrepancy, though apparently the bonus is given in a systematic way. The Vote for the bonus says:
Provision for further increase from 1st March, 1921, of 2/26th (making 7/26ths in all) in the rate of bonus payable from 1st March, 1920, in accordance with the scheme approved for the Civil Service, subject for payment of rates of bonus fluctuating with increases and decreases in the cost of living.
§ Sir JOHN BUTCHERI should like to ask one or two questions about this large amount for overtime. How many hours do these gentlemen normally work, and when does overtime begin? Have the hours which they work decreased, or have they been the same for some considerable time? Overtime is very expensive work. I presume it is paid at a higher rate than ordinary time. If so, and if the increase in business is likely to demand overtime for some considerable time, would it not be far better and cheaper to employ, temporarily, some ex-service men until the pressure of business decreases, thus giving them employment and getting their services at the ordinary rate instead of paying extremely well-paid civil servants additional sums for overtime? Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend to tell us whether overtime is likely to continue, and if so, will he adopt the cheaper and more advantageous course of employing, temporarily, at any rate, ex-service men?
§ Mr. CAUTLEYThere are two questions which I should like to ask. The original Estimate was £76,292, and just below in small type it says:
The total original net Estimate, 1920–21, for the Land Registry was £89,292.I want to know what is the reason for the additional £13,000, and why £89,000 2226 was not given as the original Estimate instead of the figure that is given. Is there any provision by which the amount of the war bonus varies with the cost of living, and, if so, how often is it adjusted? Now that prices are going down and the cost of living is diminishing, is there any immediate prospect of this sum for war bonus diminishing accordingly?
§ Sir H. CRAIKThis question of war bonus is being raised over and over again in small driblets, but I understood you to hold that it could be only discussed at some length when we come to the unclassified services. I feel very strongly about it and wish to criticise it from several points of view, but it will really interfere with a satisfactory Debate if we attempt to deal with it in driblets. I would therefore suggest that we should postpone it until we get to that Vote. Otherwise, those of us who feel strongly on the question must raise it and discuss it on each Vote.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAs I understand it, a Supplementary Estimate may be asked for an increase of £200 on a salary of £1,000, making it £1,200, and at the same time the same official may receive £200 war bonus, making the total £1,400. That seems to me proper and essential information for the Committee to have without discussing the policy of the war bonus. Without knowing that £200 war bonus is paid, the Committee would not have all the facts. When we come to the unclassified services the question of the war bonus will be open for discussion, but I do not think the Committee can discuss the bonus piecemeal simply because of the fact that it is brought to its notice that certain sums for war bonus are included in the different Votes.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI hope you will not preclude us, when we come to discuss the bonus, from raising the question of increases of salary upon which the bonus is paid. One of my objections to the bonus is that it has followed a general increase of salaries, and I could not argue the question of bonus without referring to the fact that independently of it salaries have been generally increased.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThere is no advantage to be gained by carrying on our discussion under a misapprehension. I understand that when we get to the Unclassified Services we shall not be entitled to discuss the policy of the war bonus at all.
§ Sir H. CRAIKOh, yes.
§ Lord R. CECILWell, I may be wrong, I shall be glad if I am, but I understood from the Chair that even then we shall only be entitled to discuss any addition made by the Supplementary Estimate, but not the policy of the war bonus at all. I think we ought to be absolutely clear as to where we stand in this matter, and whether we shall be able to raise the question of principle or policy of the war bonus on the Unclassified Services.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord is correct. We are talking only about Supplementary Estimates, and when I said we could discuss the war bonus when we came to Page 36 I was referring, of course, to the Supplementary Estimates, and the same Rules of Debate will apply to the discussion of the Unclassified Services as apply to the other Supplementary Estimates, and hon. Members will only be able to discuss the point in so far as any addition is asked for in the Supplementary Estimate.
§ Sir H. CRAIKAre we to be entitled to raise the policy of the war bonus when we get to the Vote for the Unclassified Services?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat point can be answered when we reach those Votes. The present discussion cannot be carried any further.
Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMSI think we ought to have a little more information in regard to this Estimate. Item A refers to "provision for additional staff, etc., necessitated by increased business and the re-organisation of and additions to the Map Department staff." The sum put down for that is £1,850, but if we look back at the original Estimate for the Map Department, we find a footnote to the effect that the numbers of the subordinate staff in that Department have not yet been finally settled. Apparently this Department is still increasing in size, and I should like to know clearly whether a definite point has yet been reached in regard to that matter, or whether further 2228 increases of staff are to be anticipated. I would also like to know why it is that this Department has allowed its expenses to get out of control. Surely the fees it receives ought to cover its expenses.
§ Mr. SWANI notice that in Item A, the total of which is £6,758, as much as £4,200 is put down for overtime. Seeing the enormous number of men out of work, it seems to me hardly fair that such a charge should appear here. I am not against overtime where it is necessary, but when we know there are so many men, not only ordinary civilians, but ex-soldiers and officers, out of work, and that huge pressure is being brought to bear on the Ministry of Labour to provide employment for them, it seems strange there should be such an amount of overtime provided for in this Estimate. Could not the work be handed over to some of these unemployed men? It would be more economic to do this, and it would be an advantage to the whole country, if an effort were made to revive posts for men out of work, and relieve them of the necessity of applying for the unemployment benefit by giving them the work now done in overtime.
§ Mr. ACLANDMy right hon. Friend just now said that his mind and mine ran so much on the same lines that he often found himself thinking what questions I might ask, and fortifying himself in advance with the information I was likely to apply for. I feel certain he will have fortified himself with an answer to the question I now propose to put, and it is: What is the meaning of the words "advertisements for absolute titles," which are to be found in Item B? I presume they refer to land titles and not titles in the peerage, because if it were the latter, and if the Exchequer resorted to the practice of advertising for persons who desire such titles, there should be considerable Appropriations-in-Aid to be brought in on the other side.
§ Mr. BALDWINI have never had much experience on the subject which my right hon. Friend has just raised, but I do not think in this country it will ever be necessary to advertise for people who want peerages. I propose to deal with one or two of the small points which have been raised in the course of the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grin-stead (Mr. Cautley) pointed to a serious discrepancy between the total of the Supplementary Vote and the total of the 2229 original Vote. Probably he has discovered his mistake by now, but I may remind him that the Supplementary Estimate applies only to Items A and B, while the original Estimate contains Item C, for which there is no Supplementary Estimate, and if he bears that in mind he will find that the totals exactly coincide. With regard to the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson), it is a curious slip for one so familiar with Parliamentary practice. He complained that there were no figures about the other expenditure, such as the Office of Works and other Departments, on the face of this Vote. If the hon. Member thinks for a moment he will remember that those figures are never given on the Supplementary Estimates, but he will find them in full on the original Estimates on page 21, and they will then be placed on the original Estimates for the coming year.
§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONWhat I asked was whether there was anything for stationery, and whether this Supplementary Estimate entailed something for stationery which might appear in some other Vote?
§ Mr. BALDWINI beg my hon. Friend's pardon. I think the best way to reply to the general criticisms which have been made will be to say a few words about the work of this office. I agree it may appear startling that an extra £7,530 is being asked for, but I would remind the hon. Member for Tavistock (Lieut. -Commander Williams) that he made an error in imagining that the receipts in connection with Land Registry did not cover expenses, because they cover far more than the expenditure. The estimated increased receipts is no less than £45,000, making the total we expect to receive £165,000 as against the original estimated receipts of only £120,000. That in itself is no reason, I admit, why we should not be as economical as possible. There is no reason to be extravagant be cause we happen to have a branch which brings in a considerable sum to the revenue.
I want to explain that the whole of the increase of expenditure on the face of this Estimate is caused solely and entirely by the abnormal increase in the work of the Department, and consequently the large increase that is shown on the face of this Estimate of the receipts that are coming 2230 in. The total number of applications for registration under all the Acts with which this office is concerned in 1919 amounted to just under 48,000. In 1920 the total was 69,000; that is the year just completed. That is a very large increase, and the result of that increase in work, bringing in increasing receipts, is that it has thrown a very great strain upon the office. That strain is the direct cause of the overtime upon which I wish to say a few words. Some hon. Members asked me why should not the unemployed come in instead of working this overtime. The position is that the overtime has been sanctioned by the Treasury with great reluctance as a temporary measure in the Map Department. The work in that Department rises correspondingly with the work in the Land Registry. We have had in the course of the year to increase the staff in the Map Department by about 30, but for a good deal of the most skilled work, such as the work done by surveyors and draughtsmen, we are in this difficulty. The premises in which they are engaged are full. We have not yet decided the best way to deal with that, and we find great difficulty at the present time in getting men skilled for this very special and technical work who will come at the present rates which are being given for that work.
The supply of men competent for that work is extremely limited, and so while the question of the reorganisation of this office is still under revision we felt that the only thing for the time being to do was to sanction overtime. If we had been able to do without overtime, we could only have done it by employing a number of fresh people, and that would have meant that we should have had to have got more room, and there was considerable difficulty about that. The overtime applies to between 80 and 90 members of the staff. I do not think it will be necessary to continue the overtime for very long, but in the circumstances it was the only way to meet the difficult position in which the Land Registry Department found itself.
I might point out rather a curious fact which, oddly enough, has attracted attention, and that is Sub-head (b) is a remarkable one. It has been the practice in this Department to pay their own postal and telegraph charges. It cost the revenue nothing for that work, and, of course, with the increased work that is being 2231 done there is extra postage as a charge on the Department. It is a satisfactory feature that although to meet this enormous increase in business we have had to have these increases which may be temporary, the receipts are increasing in quite as great a proportion as we could expect, and the actual surplus of the Department for the year, I think, will maintain work in the same ratio as when the business was done on a much smaller scale. For a short time during the War this Department was not paying, but with the conclusion of the War business has come back, and, as I have shown by the figures, not only that, but it has come tack with a gigantic increase, which I am sure hon. Members will feel is very satisfactory. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) was rather wondering why the receipts did not appear as an Appropriation-in-Aid of this Vote. The reason is that these receipts in common with certain other receipts of other Departments, are payable by Inland Revenue stamps.
§ In this case they have always been treated in the Estimates, not as Appropriations-in-Aid, but they are paid direct to the Exchequer and appear in the details to make up the total of the miscellaneous revenue account. I hope I have now dealt with all the points.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERCould the right hon. Gentleman tell me the normal length of hours which these men work?
§ Mr. BALDWINI am afraid I have no recollection, but I will find out, and send particulars to the hon. Baronet.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERWill the right hon. Gentleman at the same time state whether any change has recently been made?
§ Mr. BALDWINYes.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 141.
2233| Division No. 18.] | AYES. | [12.58 p.m. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C. | Gardner, Ernest | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. | Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge) | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Gould, James C. | Pearce, Sir William |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Grant, James A. | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Percy, Charles |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City) |
| Bellairs, Commander Car[...]yon W. | Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Rankin, Captain James S. |
| Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hopkins, John W. W. | Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East) |
| Blake, Sir Francis Douglas | Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. |
| Brassey, Major H. L. C. | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Inskip, Thomas Walker H. | Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Brown, Captain D. C. | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Shaw, William T. (Forfar) |
| Bruton, Sir James | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Smithers, Sir Alfred W. |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Stanler, Captain Sir Beville |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Cautley, Henry S. | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston) | Lindsay, William Arthur | Stewart, Gershom |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.) | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Sugden, W. H. |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Lorden, John William | Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford) |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) | Taylor, J. |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | Lynn, R. J. | Thomas-Stanford, Charles |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Coote, William (Tyrone, South) | M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P. | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Cope, Major Wm. | M'Guffin, Samuel | Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) |
| Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid) | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H. |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Magnus, Sir Philip | Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.) | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Matthews, David | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Mitchell, William Lane | Winterton, Earl |
| Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Moles, Thomas | Wise, Frederick |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. | Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West) |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. | Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak) |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram G. | Morris, Richard | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A. | Nall, Major Joseph | Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Neal, Arthur | |
| Forrest, Walter | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Sexton, James |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Holmes, J. Stanley | Swan, J. E. |
| Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Briant, Frank | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince) |
| Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian) | Waterson, A. E. |
| Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Morgan, Major D. Watts | Wignall, James |
| Finney, Samuel | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Redmond, Captain William Archer | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Glanville, Harold James | Rose, Frank H. | |
| Hartshorn, Vernon | Royce, William Stapleton | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. G. Thorne. | ||
| Divsion No. 19.] | AYES. | [3.58 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D. | Glanville, Harold James | Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen) |
| Barrand, A. R. | Hartshorn, Vernon | Poison, Sir Thomas |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes) | Sexton, James |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. | Holmes, J. Stanley | Wignall, James |
| Davies, Major D. (Montgomery) | Irving, Dan | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) |
| Entwistle, Major C. F. | Kiley, James D. | Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton) |
| Finney, Samuel | Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian) | |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Morgan, Major D. Watts | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Swan and Mr. G. Thorne. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S. | Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S. | Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Lynn, R. J. |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M. | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Falcon, Captain Michael | M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gardner, Ernest | M'Guffin, Samuel |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) |
| Barnett, Major R. W. | Gilbert, James Daniel | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | McMicking, Major Gilbert |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Goff, Sir R. Park | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Gould, James C. | Moles, Thomas |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Grant, James A. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M. |
| Borwick, Major G. O. | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich) | Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant |
| Breese, Major Charles E. | Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin | Moreing, Captain Algernon H. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton) | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Neal, Arthur |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay) | Hinds, John | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G. | Nield, Sir Herbert |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hopkins, John W. W. | Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G. |
| Cautley, Henry S. | Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster) | Oman, Sir Charles William C. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.) | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H. |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H. | Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L. |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry |
| Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. | Jodrell, Neville Paul | Pearce, Sir William |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement | Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Curzon, Commander Viscount | Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.) | Percy, Charles |
| Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd) | Pollock, Sir Ernest M. |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | Lindsay, William Arthur | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Present, Major W. H. |
| Purchase, H. G. | Stewart, Gershom | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Ramsden, G. T. | Sugden, W. H | Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H. |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Sykes, Colonel Sir A. J. (Knutsford) | White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East) | Taylor, J. | Williams, Lieut.-Com. C. (Tavistock) |
| Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple) | Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham) | Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert |
| Reid, D. D. | Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley) | Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness) |
| Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich) | Thomas-Stanford, Charles | Wilson, Daniel M (Down, West) |
| Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) | Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) | Wilson-Fox, Henry |
| Shaw, William T. (Forfar) | Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.) | Vickers, Douglas | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Smithers, Sir Alfred W. | Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich) |
| Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander | Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull) | |
| Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) | Ward, William Dudley (Southampton) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Steel, Major S. Strang | Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H. | Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest. |
Resolutions agreed to.