Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,200,000, 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, 1926, for a Grant—in—Aid of the Revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
There is very little new to say upon this topic. We have had these debates for three years running in the House, and most of the arguments by this time from both sides must have been worn threadbare. Neither is there any novelty in the Vote which has been put from the Chair. On the occasion of the Irish Settlement last 2186 July I explained most clearly to Parliament that we proposed to make a further winding up grant of £1,200,000 to Northern Ireland in respect of their special police, and in addition I propose to wipe out the book entries amounting to £700,000 which figure against them for the arms and equipment which we supplied to Northern Ireland. It is true that the sale of surplus arms will produce a small amount. So far as the debt is concerned I told the House that we would provide the final £1,200,000 asked for in this Vote. Last year we provided £1,250,000, and we provided a larger sum the year before. Altogether we have provided over £5,000,000 since the passing of the 1920 Act for this purpose.
The Committee is well aware of the reasons which have justified that expenditure. The work which has been achieved in Northern Ireland of restoring order is a truly admirable work, and when you consider what the position of Belfast was in 1921 and 1922, with scores of murders taking place, horrible tragedies being enacted, and whole streets being swept by bullets by night and day, and large masses of troops in occupation of different parts of the city; when you consider the condition of things on the border and the raids made in Southern Ireland into Ulster territory, and the 2187 repeated affrays of a sanguinary character which took place on the border, and the general state of anxiety, unrest, and suspense in which the whole population of Northern Ireland had been dwelling; when one considers all this it is indeed a subject of immense self-congratulation and congratulation to those responsible, that we should now have a thoroughly well-ordered community, with practically complete immunity from crimes of violence. So much is this so that one of the Judges at the Assizes the other day noted that there were no homicides at all in the bill presented to him. When you get a condition of affairs in which both Protestants and Catholics are going about their business freely and in a peaceful manner in the midst of a city where only four years ago most shocking conditions were rife, then I say this expenditure which we have incurred is as well justified as any money which was ever spent by the British Treasury.
There are those who consider that if we had refused all such grants we should have forced the Government of Ulster greatly to curtail the Ulster police force and they contend that that would have been attended by an improvement in public order. I disagree with that view. The A Specials, of whom there were over 8,000, were a highly disciplined force and they were in the permanent service. The B Specials not only gave a greater sense of security to the population of Northern Ireland as a whole, but they also provided an organised and disciplined structure within which a certain number of elements which might have proved unruly or violent found a regular and disciplined expression. The story has been often told, but this proposal concludes the long series of payments which every year have been paid without intermission since the passing of the 1920 Act.
The Government of Northern Ireland, faced with the discontinuance of any assistance of this kind, did not hesitate to take prompt and drastic action in the reduction of their police force. The B Specials have been disbanded, only a mere skeleton organisation being retained at the expense of Northern Ireland. The A Specials have been completely disbanded, and the Committee will remember a very ugly-looking mutiny or state of insubordination 2188 occurred at the moment of disbandment amongst these men, who felt that they were being much too abruptly dismissed, but the Northern Government, under the extreme financial pressure in which they found themselves, acted with great firmness and the men returned to a proper sense of their duty, and the difficulty was completely surmounted without at any time assuming proportions which might have caused embarrassment to the Imperial Government. Therefore, we are closing a story which, although it has been attended by difficulties, has yet achieved unquestionable success. There is peace and order; the extra police have been disbanded; and this is the final payment to be made by the Imperial Parliament to help in the achievement of this desirable end, and to help in the consummation of a policy which has led Ireland through immense changes, for which changes the Imperial Parliament has assumed and must for ever bear the main responsibility.
I do hope that this Vote will not be made yet another occasion for the outpouring of hatred against the Ulster Government and against the people of Northern Ireland. They have passed through most tragic experiences, and they are now emerging into better and calmer times. I should have been confronted with a demand for £2,500,000 this year in support of the Government of Northern Ireland and its police forces, but for the fact that the boundary question has been settled. The blessed and auspicious series of events which enabled that question, hitherto insoluble, to be terminated last July, with the assent of all parties concerned, enabled an immediate reduction of more than one-half to be made in the demands which were to have been pressed upon the British Exchequer, and I agreed, as part of the arrangements which were made in that matter, to pay this final sum of £1,200,000, and to forego the charges for arms and equipment. I ask the Committee to assent to this Vote. It is a sum of money which, however we may regret the expenditure, has been, in my opinion, an essential contribution to a policy which, however it may have been viewed by this or that party at the time, will, I am sure, in future at any rate, come to be regarded as of general and lasting advantage to the British Empire.
§ Mr SNOWDEN
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100
Every Member of the Committee will share the feeling of pleasure expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that things have now assumed a more tranquil condition in Northern Ireland, but I fall to appreciate the relation that there is between that and the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now submitting to the Committee. The right hon Gentleman began by saying that there was no novelty in the proposal that he was about to submit, and with that statement, at any rate, I can heartily agree; there never is any novelty in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer putting before the House of Commons proposals for extravagant expenditure. He also made the preliminary observation that this matter had been debated full yon previous occasions, and that there was little now to be said. That, I suppose, is the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said little or nothing in defence of the proposal. Up to a few minutes ago, the House of Commons has been devoting its attention, since the end of Questions, to the Second Reading of a Bill which proposes to make a clear gift of about £500,000,000— —
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
The explanation of that slip is quite simple. I am so accustomed to the extravagance of the right hon. Gentleman that I hardly realised for the moment that he was making such a modest proposal as that. Now, having passed the Second Reading of that Bill, we are to give another £1,200,000 to the same Government of Northern Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to assume that the grants for this purpose which have been made in recent years had not merely been necessary, but had been made with the enthusiastic approval of the British Exchequer. I dealt with this matter a year ago, and I shall say no more about it now than this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows quite well that, whatever might have been the condition of Northern Ireland three years ago, there was at that time no intention on the part of his predecessors in office to continue this grant for another year. That was made quite clear to the Government of Northern Ireland three years ago by the present Prime Minister. We have given for this purpose since 1920, as the 2190 Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated, a sum of about £6,500,000. In 1923, the grant for this purpose was £2,700,000; the next year it was £1,500,000; last year it was £1,250,000, and this year it is to be £1,200,000—that is to say, just over £6,500,000 altogether which they have had in four years.
This grant has been made ostensibly for the support of the Special Constabulary in Northern Ireland. That force, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, has consisted, so far as the Treasury can give information about it, of between 30,000 and 40,000 men. About 2,500 of these, I understand, are permanent officers or constables in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Then there was a second class, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts at about 8,000, who, I believe, were allowed to carry arms which they kept in their own possession. Then there was the third and largest class, who, although they carried arms, did not keep those arms in their own possession; they were deposited in barracks. They were, of course, not fully occupied in the discharge of their duties connected with the Special Constabulary, and the charge has been made, and it has never been satisfactorily disposed of, that this Grant for Special Constabulary in Ulster has in reality been a grant for assistance in maintaining these untrained men. In this last class there will have been nearly 30,000 men, who have been able, presumably, to follow their ordinary occupations, and who in respect of these occasional duties, in their leisure time presumably, have been receiving on the average something like 14s. or 15s. a week.
It was, of course, vehemently denied from the Ulster benches a year ago that there was any truth in that statement, but we had, inferentially, remarkable confirmation of it from the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Moles), who spoke a few days ago during the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution in connection with the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading. I do not see the right hon. Gentleman in his place to-day; there must be something very pressing indeed to keep him in Belfast when the British House of Commons is concerned with the granting of money for the assistance of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said 2191 on that occasion that, when the boundary settlement was announced, the Ulster Government at once began to disband these Special Constabulary forces. The interpretation naturally to be put upon that was that harmonious relations were likely now to be maintained between the two parts of Ireland, so that this special police force was no longer necessary. But there is another equally possible explanation.
It was just about that time that the Bill which we have been discussing this afternoon was assuming shape, and definite pledges had been made by the British Treasury to the Government of Northern Ireland to give the assistance proposed in that Bill. That Bill proposes to give to the Government of Ireland this year nearly £750,000. They had been promised a year ago, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, this proposed sum of £1,200,000, and let the Committee note this, that, at the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that £1,200,000 a year ago, there was little prospect, and there certainly was no assurance, that the boundary question would be settled. There was no more likelihood then than there was 12 months before that the Government of Northern Ireland would be able to disband the Special Constabulary because of a more tranquil condition of things in Ulster.
On the contrary, I do not think it will be disputed if I say that there was little expectation that the Boundary Commission would settle that question satisfactorily, and Ulster was looking forward to the possibility of very serious trouble in the autumn of last year. There was, therefore, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that arrangement with Sir James Craig a little more than a year ago, no likelihood that the Government of Northern Ireland would be able to disband the Special Constabulary at any time during the current financial year. What happened? As soon as the boundary question was settled, the Government of Northern Ireland disbanded that force, but at the same time they had got that guarantee of £650,000—I think that is the exact figure—which is to be given to them to help their Unemployment Fund during the financial year. How are the Government of Northern Ireland going to stand? The 2192 money that we are proposing to vote them to-night is for the whole year, but their expenditure for the Special Constabulary continued, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast to say, only up to September. Therefore—
§ 7.0 P.M
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
When does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that any undertaking was given to pay this £1,200,000?The amount for last year was £1,250,000,that is to say, for the year ending on the31st March, 1925.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I suggest, on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that he gave the undertaking a year ago.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
At the time the right hon. Gentleman made that statement the boundary question had not been settled; therefore, there could be no such expectation on the part of the Government of Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I did not say the figure at that time. When the boundary question was settled in July, I then, after going into the whole matter, told him I would go into the question of expense in 12 months' time.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Really what are we to understand? The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, undoubtedly gave the impression that he made that statement in regard to a final grant about a year ago. Then he rises to say he made it in July. Now the hon. Member for Derry (Sir M.Macnaghten) goes on to the bench behind and tells him it was in December. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not appear to have a clear recollection of what took place between himself and Sir James Craig. He tells us it was in July. Now the hon. Member says it was in December. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that at the time he made the arrangement with Sir James Craig he did not know what was going to happen in connection with the Boundary Commission. I wonder if at that time 2193 Sir James Craig gave him an undertaking that after the boundary question had been settled the Special Constabulary would be disbanded? The point arising out of ail I am making now is this, that last year £1,250,000 was considered to be sufficient for the maintenance of the Special Constabulary. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking us to make a grant of £1,200,000 which is practically the same sum, although, on his own admission, the Special Constabulary now is only going to be in existence for about half of the current financial year. Therefore, it simply amounts to this that proportionately we are giving Northern Ireland for the maintenance of the constabulary twice as much as they got in the previous year. In addition to that, we are giving nearly three-quarters of a million to assist unemployment. Therefore, the contribution practically amounts to nearly £3,000,000. If the Special Constabulary had not been disbanded, then we should have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming here this evening and asking us to make a grant, not of £1,200,000, but of £2,500,000.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman giving way to me. I do not want a misunderstanding on the facts, because the Committee is entitled to know the facts. No settlement was made of any figure to be paid by this country in respect of the Irish Constabulary in Northern Ireland until the Boundary Question was settled. I was quite in error in mentioning July; I had in my mind that that was the time of the settlement. It was, of course, December. I said that in perfectly good faith, and I am sure the Committee will recognise it. The fact is that it was n December that the settlement of the Boundary Question was made, and that was the first time I arranged with Sir James Craig about this figure of £1,200,000. He immediately undertook to disband the constabulary.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
Here is a further contradiction. The right hon. Gentleman says this was in December, but the hon. Member for Belfast told us that they decided to disband the constabulary in September, and I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that. At any rate, taking his corrected statement, and taking it that the agreement with Sir 2194 James Craig was made in December, may I ask this. When were the Special Constabulary disbanded?
§ Sir M. MACNAGHTEN
One week before Christmas. After the agreement with the Free State had been made with regard to the boundary, it was then, and not till then, that the Special Constabulary began to disband.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
That means that there has been only nine months in the financial year during which the Government of Northern Ireland had the obligation of maintaining the constabulary.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
What vested interest had they in their occupation as a special constabulary? Maybe it was not an occupation at all. This was a spare-time occupation in the case of 30,000 of them of "C" class.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I am rather glad to have an admission. It confirms the statement I made 12 months ago. If these were all full-time men it means this—
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
A moment ago they were. Last December this arrangement was come to. Three-quarters of the year had gone. There is one quarter therefore during which the Special Constabulary were either disbanded or in the process of being disbanded. Therefore, there cannot possibly have been the same expenditure in the current financial year as there was 12 months ago, and yet the grant is practically the same. In addition to that, we have this gift that we are going to give to Northern Ireland under the Bill we have been discussing this afternoon which amounts to something like £750,000 this year and ultimately between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. It is no wonder the Chancellor of the Exchequer had such a hearty welcome in Belfast. I would not for a single moment suggest that the 2195 right hon. Gentleman went to Belfast in order that he might get the satisfaction of receiving the plaudits and approbation of the people of Belfast for the way in which he has paid money out of the British Exchequer to the assistance of the Government of Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. SNOWDEN
I would not. The right hon. Gentleman likes the dramatic and the spectacular. Hon. Members are always talking about economy. We are going to have an Economy Bill in a day or two. I dare say it will reduce the number of charwomen in some of the Government offices, and save £200 or £300 a year. That will be put against some indefensible extravagance. This Vote is the acid test of the sincerity of the professions of hon. Members opposite about economy. If hon. Members opposite support this Vote, then they are exposing all that talk about economy as being sheer hypocrisy. Any Member opposite who goes into the Lobby in support of this Motion will have colossal audacity if he ever dares to rise in his place in this House in the future and say a single word about the need for national economy.
§ Mr. D. REID
I have heard before this suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this claim for money for the support of the Special Constabulary was in effect for the relief of unemployment. I tried to follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning, but I am afraid I failed. The right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the Bill we were discussing this afternoon, made a statement which gave away his whole case. I think in this speech, too, he has given away his whole case. He said it was expected that the Boundary Commission would not settle the question of the boundary, and that very serious trouble was to be expected. I think I can put it that in that state of affairs there is ample justification for the retention of the Special Constabulary. I think, further, there is ample support for the contention that payment ought to come from the Imperial Exchequer. The Northern Government was set up by this House. It was never contemplated that there 2196 would be a state of warfare, but as soon as that Government was set up attacks were made on it. There were raids over the border, and there were enemies within their own walls. A late colleague of mine said to me one day in the Lobby that unless something was definitely done to maintain the existing condition it would be impossible for the Ulster Government to continue. On that footing, these specials were set up. There is now peace and quietness, which is to a large extent the result of the work of these specials. The Government of Ulster would probably not be in existence at this moment had it not been for the help given by the setting up of this Special Constabulary.
It would be quite impossible for the Ulster Government to start its various services and its Departments and at the same time to pay this totally unexpected bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite himself admitted that this was a necessary expenditure by saying it was not expected that the Report of the Boundary Commission would settle the question, and that serious trouble was expected. That is a good reason out of his own mouth. The circumstances in which the Ulster Government was set up are a good and sound reason why this should be paid from the Imperial Exchequer. The specials have done their work. If the constabulary had not been set up, there was a very considerable chance that this Government would have been involved in very much larger expenditure. It would probably have been necessary to use troops, and the cost of putting down the disturbances would have been very much greater.
§ Mr. J. JONES
One of the biggest crimes that an Irishman can commit evidently, judging by this Debate, is to be born south of the Boyne. Irishmen not from the northern side of the border used to be charged in the old days with making perpetual demands upon the British Exchequer, and on those occasions the men from the North and the men from the South used to join in holy matrimony asking for more money from the British taxpayer. Unemployment is looked upon in one part of the United Kingdom as a national charge. We who happen to live in other parts of the United Kingdom find that it is anything but a national charge. The North of Ireland 2197 has got into debt to the extent of £3,500,000 in consequence of the administration of the Unemployment Act. I come from a place with not half the population and certainly not half as rich. We have had to borrow £2,000,000 to meet our responsibilities under that Act of Parliament. We can get no assistance. We have to pay a heavy rate of interest, amounting to 6 per cent., on the £2,000,000 we have borrowed, and we are now informed that we shall have to be very good boys or we shall not even get the chance of borrowing.
§ Mr. JONES
Thank you, Sir. I thought it did not, but I did not get a chance of saying anything about it before. The force we are talking about was organised for a particular purpose. Trouble was supposed to be likely to ensue if the border question was not settled by the Boundary Commission, and this force was organised on special lines. A religious bar was put up against the men who joined it, or did not join it. I will ask hon. Members opposite to tell me how many Catholics, or men who were known to have Nationalist sympathies, were allowed to joint the force. They were deliberately selected and elected to do a certain job. I visited Northern Ireland during the time these men had control, and I saw some of their handiwork in the houses occupied by Catholic people. This is not merely a question of maintaining law and order. It is a question of finding money from the National Exchequer to subsidise religious bigotry. These men, during a certain period, were to carry out the wishes of the Orangemen who form the majority in the North of Ireland, and now Catholics will have to pay taxes to compensate the men who outraged them during the period they had the power to do so.
I protest, not from the standpoint of the amount of money it cost, but from the standpoint of the principle on which it was based, and the Catholic people of Ireland, and England too, now being called upon to find the money to pay the expenses of the people who cracked their skulls in the time of trouble in Ireland. You talk about the raids over the border. What about the raids inside, the houses that were knocked down, the people 2198 whose lives were made a misery to them, and the men who could not go into the ship yards because they were known to be Nationalists and Catholics? Are they going to get compensation? No. What they got was nuts and bolts thrown at them. There is no compensation for the trade unionist Roman Catholics who were knocked out of the shipyards by the Ulster Black and Tans, for that is all they were. If you can subsidise Unemployment Insurance in the North of Ireland, what is the objection to subsidising it in the South of England? In our own district we are paying£12,000—
§ Mr. JONES
I was only making a comparison. Part of this money, it is alleged, will go to help those men who have been disbanded from this Ulster Constabulary to help them over their time of stress in the form of unemployment benefit, and the reason they are getting it is that they created trouble. They were being disbanded and the Government of Northern Ireland, having an eye on the British Exchequer, said "We will make you a bonus grant, but we will not pay it." It is not a bonus grant to the people who were disbanded. It is a "skin-them-and-bone-them" grant. I am not a financier. All I know about finance is the lack of it. We are opposed to this kind of thing. If you are going to subsidise unemployment, do it all round. If you are going to subsidise this kind of service, we want to know why it has not been subsidised in the South of Ireland as in the North. They had the same trouble and the same difficulty with the minority of their people as you did with yours, but they have not asked for this assistance, and they have not got it. The South of Ireland has shouldered its own burdens, and we think the North of Ireland ought to do the same.
§ Sir FREDRIC WISE
I rise to ask a question in regard to this Unclassified Service. At the bottom of page 55 the following appears:The expenditure out of this Grant—in—Aid will not be audited in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General"—That may be explained, but it goes on as follows: 2199nor will any balance of the sums issued remaining unexpended at the close of the financial year be liable to surrender.Surely this is unbusinesslike. I cannot imagine, even in a Supplementary Estimate, a paragraph of this sort appearing where we are giving money and giving up the balance without any audit and without any surrender whether the amount is spent or not.
§ Mr. McNEILL
I am surprised that my hon. Friend of all people should put such a question to me, because this is the invariable practice whenever there are Grants-in-Aid, and this paragraph appears over and over again.
§ Mr. McNEILL
That is not the question. The question my hon. Friend put to me was a totally different one. I am not prepared to deal with it now by answering an immediate question. It is the question of policy which lies at the root of the whole subject.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
I am glad the point has been raised by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise). It has been admitted by Members from Ulster that the disbandment of this force began in the week following Christmas. Then the force was in existence for about nine months instead of 12. The amount of money granted is about equal to the whole sum granted for the previous 12 months. There was, therefore, a saving for the 12 months of a sum equal to £300,000. It has been suggested that part of that sum would be expended in the form of a bonus to the men who were being disbanded. I think the real explanation of the footnote is to be found in the balance of £300,000. I think that unexpended £300,000 explains the necessity for the footnote. It is a most inexplicable thing. Here is an undefined sum. It may be £300,000. It may be less. It may be only £100,000 that remained after all claims on this fund for constabulary purposes had been met. But in any case it is a sum of money that belongs to the British Exchequer and not to the Government of Northern Ireland. There is the question that the Financial Secretary does not deign to explain. He says it is a usual bargain. I should think it a most unusual bargain. I cannot imagine any private person 2200 acting in this manner, and if there is any reason for opposition to this Grant-in-Aid it is to be found in this extraordinary footnote, that there is to be no audit and no supervision.
Did disbandment of any section of this force begin before Christmas in anticipation of a settlement? Is it possible that any of these 24,000 men were disbanded before the disbandment of the more regularly employed forces of the constabulary? If so, the £300,000 might easily become a great deal more than £300,000. It might easily happen that if disbandment began in anticipation of a settlement before the definite disbandment of the more regular forces, instead of saving £300,000 there might be a saving of £500,000, and I cannot believe that £500,000, or even £300,000, would go in pensions to the men who were disbanded. We have a right to press for a definite answer to the question as to what is the amount that was saved, and why is this extraordinary provision made that the balance is not to come back. According to the Financial Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Members opposite, the sadly-pressed British taxpayer, who must look for economy in all parts of the country, who is compelled to probe sedulously expenditure of the most minute character, must not be given any advantage under this arrangement. If there is anything in excess of the needs of the Northern Ireland Government, that balance must not come back. If that balance did come back, it might save the employment of a few typists in our Government offices when the economy campaign comes into full swing. It might save the Unemployment Insurance Fund to that extent. It might save the employment of some poor charwomen. The saving will be thousands of pounds, and yet the Northern Ireland Parliament are to keep the balance, in addition to the very generous bargain which they have extracted from the Government already. Except in so far as the balance could be kept in strict accord with the law, I suggest that the balance should come back to those who are so generously paying out to Northern Ireland.
§ Captain GARRO-JONES
I confess to a feeling of alarm at the discussions which go on between representatives of the Exchequer and representatives of foreign interests and home interests, one 2201 of the results of which we are discussing to-day. If we are to pay at the rate of £200,000 for every peroration which a Cabinet Minister makes at a Civil Service dinner, or at a function in Ulster, we shall soon be a bankrupt nation. I am amazed to find that this discussion was proceeding in regard to a guarantee made to Northern Ireland for the payment of hard cash to the extent of £1,200,000 without any conditions, without any supervision whatever. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury in seeking to explain the fact that no proportion of this sum can be returned in any circumstances, blandly turns to the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) and said, "This is a Grant-in-Aid." Whereupon the hon. Member asked, "Why is it a Grant-in-Aid?" I should like to repeat that question. Why is not this sum liable to surrender if there remains an unspent balance? It is no use saying that it is a Grant-in-Aid. Some financial procedure could have been adopted which would have entitled us to claim a return of part of this sum. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will convey my remarks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he deems them of sufficient importance.
We are entitled to have some information how this money is to be expended. In 1924–25 when we paid £1,250,000, that was a sufficiently high proportion of the expenditure which the Northern Ireland Government were going to undertake in respect of the constabulary. This year the proportion is even higher, notwithstanding that the expenditure is about £50,000 less. What is the total expenditure on this constabulary in Northern Ireland? Are we paying one-quarter, one-half or 90 per cent. of the expenditure on this constabulary? Before we vote this sum we ought to know these facts. I appeal to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite that when they are in Ulster, or at a Civil Service function, or when they are dealing with foreign affairs, they should not make these prodigal gestures of generosity, at the expense of the British taxpayers.
This is a financial matter. I am not concerned with the old wrongs and complaints which Northern Ireland has had with Southern Ireland. This is merely a question as to which taxpayers, the Northern Ireland taxpayers or the tax- 2202 payers of this country should pay. I believe there are a great many wealthy men in Northern Ireland, at least as many wealthy men as there are in many of the constituencies represented in this House. The taxpayers of this country are already hard pressed, meeting the claims of every nation in the world, and yet we are asked to pay. The question is: should the taxpayers of this country pay or should it not be a question of an extra 2d. on the Income Tax for the taxpayers of Northern Ireland?
I am entitled to mention as an example of the undue generosity of Cabinet Ministers, the fact that the Foreign Secretary, at the Civil Service dinner, made a peroration which cost us £200,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's dialogue with Italy cost us untold millions, and hi6 dialogue with France has cost us many millions, the extent of which we have yet to discover. The Prime Minister's dialogue with American financiers some years ago is costing us £30,000,000 a year, while his dialogue with the coalowners and the miners costs us £15,000,000 a year. He has already given to Northern Ireland, in addition to this sum on account of unemployment insurance and constabulary, a considerable sum, because he has forfeited the British claims for a large amount of money in respect of munitions of war supplied to Northern Ireland at a time when fever was running very high between Northern and Southern Ireland How much does that amount to? We are entitled to know all these things. I beg right hon. Members on behalf of my own constituents, and I am sure the plea will be shared by other hon. Members, that they should not be too generous with the taxpayers' money, but should stick out for a few of our own people who are already very hard hit.
§ Mr. J. HUDSON
I wish to revert to a point raised by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). The memories called up by my hon. Friend must have reminded us that the special constabulary in Northern Ireland, on behalf of whom this grant is to be made, have not exactly conferred on the community those wonderful benefits that were painted in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown was received by a considerable amount of contempt by hon. Members opposite, but 2203 hon. Members would do well to remember that there are still to be settled certain matters in which there are painful issues. It is not wise to assume that because you have apparently peace and quiet in Ulster, induced by force majeure, that that is an end of all your troubles. Apparently, by means of Prussian militarism in Alsace-Lorraine for 50 years there was peace and quiet, but the issues were not settled. The proposal now before us for bonuses for special constabulary in Ulster makes me suggest that we should have some greater undertaking from the hon. Members representing Ulster regarding the settlement of past difficulties and past hatreds.
Could we have had from them, for example, a better undertaking regarding the men who are still in prison, we should have appreciated it. We are glad that some of the men have been released, but they are not all released, and there is still bitterness and discontent. Could we have cleared that matter out of the way, I am sure the House could have contemplated the future with better prospect of settlement of outstanding difficulties than seems likely to be the case. Unfortunately, we are not yet in that position, and I am afraid that many if the issues that have been raised in connection with this Debate mean that there are matters still to be settled in the future, and that, instead of going forward to a new era of peace, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumes, we shall get instead all sorts of questions and new resentments added to some of the older ones not yet settled.
The hon. Member for Ilford, who is a great expert in financial questions, raised the issue regarding the note printed at the bottom of the page respecting the Grant-in-Aid. It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say that a note similar to this is to be found usually at the foot of statements regarding Grants-in-Aid, but this is not a Grant-in-Aid in the ordinary sense. We are told that it is a final settlement and that the matter is never to come up again. If it were to be regarded as a final settlement then if there be a surplus, as seems likely, after the payment to the Special Constabulary and the payment of certain bonuses, 2204 that surplus ought to come back into the very hard-pressed British Exchequer. I am amazed at hon. Members opposite, who profess to be so keen about this issue of national economy, that they should allow a matter like this to go through almost without comment, leaving it practically to only one Member on the other side to raise the issue.
We are faced in this country by shortage of money for things which are badly needed. We are told that proposals for the education of the children must be cut down, that proposals in every direction regarding unemployment and the health of the people will be subject to reduction, and yet hon. Members are prepared to hand over holus bolus this great sum of public money, on the understanding that if all the money be not required to meet the case as set down in this Vote, nothing will be said about it, and the Government of Northern Ireland can use it in Whatever way they like. That is not the way to carry out the promises so frequently made by hon. Members opposite, to pay careful attention to the question of economy. We protest vigorously and we are glad to be reinforced in our protest by one hon. Member on the other side of the House. Even at this late hour we do ask that the balance, if balance there be, shall come back to the British Exchequer.
§ Mr. McNEILL
I ought to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat. He asks a question based on a strong criticism in regard to this being a Grant-in-Aid. I do not know in what other form this money could have been advanced except as a Grant-in-Aid. It is the usual form in which money is given from the Exchequer out of the general taxpayers' money in aid of any object of local administration. I think there is a good deal of misapprehension on this matter. The hon. Member opposite showed some indignation and said that the money which was unspent should come back to the hard-pressed British Exchequer. In a sense I quite agree. We have a hard-pressed Exchequer, and it is very important that money that can be got into it legitimately should come back. But the hon. Member, and others who have spoken in this Debate and that which immediately preceded it, seemed to be under the impression that a large amount of money is being taken out of the 2205 pockets of the British taxpayer and sent across the Channel to Ireland. That is their view, but, except in a sense which I will explain in a moment, as a matter of fact not one penny is going out of the taxpayers' pockets to Ireland. Every penny of this money which is now being voted is money collected in Ulster by the tax machinery of this country, just as much as though they had collected taxes in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and then, having collected the taxes in Lancashire and Yorkshire, give a Grant-in-Aid to assist some local object there. That is the fact; all this money is more than covered by the amount of taxation derived from Northern Ireland
§ Mr. McNEILL
It all goes into a pool. The actual amount of money in taxation which is contributable by Northern Ireland and derived from Northern Ireland, and which is put into the pool here, exceeds all that this Parliament is sending back to Northern Ireland. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the other day, there is a contribution from Northern Ireland to the Empire. The people in Northern Ireland are proud to give it—
§ Mr. McNEILL
Yes, and they claim to be in the Empire on exactly the same footing as the people of Poplar. Do not let the Committee therefore make the mistake of thinking that the monetary transactions between these two Governments, the Imperial Government and a subordinate Government, is money taken out of the taxpayers' pockets of Great Britain as distinct from Northern Ireland. As a matter of fact, all that it means is that the contribution from Northern Ireland is reduced by that amount. That is the only sense in which it can be said to come out of the British taxpayers' pocket. It is quite true that the contribution from Northern Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer might be larger. It began by being £7,000,000, but under the change in values it has gradually come down, but it still remains, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, during recent years an average of £1,250,000. So far from it being true to say with a great air of indignation that the unfortunate English taxpayer is being 2206 called upon to pay these large subsidies to Northern Ireland, all it means is that the contributions which Northern Ireland pays to the Imperial Government are reduced by a certain amount.
That is a totally different way of looking at the matter. The view taken by hon. Members opposite, and by the hon. Member who seems to be leading the Liberal section at the moment, is an utterly mistaken one. I have not time to go into the points which the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) raised, or to reply to the elementary blunders he has made. He made the mistake, however, of assuming that this is an immense subsidy going from this country to Northern Ireland, whereas all that it means and all that it amounts to is a pro rata reduction.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on the point raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson). Will he tell us what it is proposed to do with regard to the question of prisoners. We are not allowed to Table questions on this matter. We are told that it is a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland, but now that we are being asked to bring about a settlement in regard to the money cost of the disturbances, may we not ask some representative from Ulster to tell us whether the time has not arrived for a general amnesty for those men and women who are still in prison for offences committed during that bad time. I hope we shall get a satisfactory answer.
§ Mr. D. REID
It is quite impossible for me to give a definite answer on that point. I understand that a number of the prisoners have already been released. The matter rests, of course, with the Home Office. They will release such prisoners as they consider should be released, and they will not release those prisoners they think ought not to be released.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
I hope hon. Members from Ulster will understand that these are not prisoners for whom the British Government is responsible—
I must remind the hon. Member that the representatives of Ulster do not sit here as the representatives of the Ulster Government, and they are not responsible for 2207 the Ulster Government. They represent their constituencies in the Imperial Parliament.
§ Mr. LANSBURY
They have spoken in this House on behalf of the finances of Ulster, and I congratulate them on their success. I should like to remind those to whom this question should be addressed that we on this side of the House feel very strongly indeed on the question of those prisoners who are housed in this country and for whom we are obliged to find accommodation. The British Government are not responsible for them. We are now being asked to vote this sum of money in order to bring about the financial settlement of a very ugly set of circumstances in Ireland, and we feel that before a vote is taken, before any decision is come to on the matter, we should have some satisfactory answer from someone representing Ulster on the question of an amnesty for these prisoners. Some of them are charged with terrible offences—
I do not think I ought to have allowed the hon. Member to resume his speech on this point, because there is no one in this House responsible for the Government of Ireland who can answer his question.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
On that point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in presenting this Vote, based a large part of his case on the pacification which had been achieved as the result of this expenditure, and I understand my hon. Friend is merely asking a question on one point of pacification—namely, the position of the prisoners. I suggest to you that it is in order on this Vote.
§ Mr. McNEILL
Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. I should be most glad to respond in any way I can to the appeals that have been made, but I have no knowledge whatever of the matter. The point was never brought to my notice beforehand, and communication with the Government of Northern Ireland beforehand is necessary in order to answer the question.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMAS
I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his statement, but it is true that on this side of the House representations have been made in this sense. This agreement 2208 was in our opinion a reconciliation, we hoped it was a reconciliation, and a permanent reconciliation between the North and South of Ireland. We are not in the least desirous of raising old controversies. On the contrary, we congratulate them on the settlement, but the object of my hon. Friend is to effect a real step towards the reconciliation which we all desire. It is known that there are numbers of people charged with these offences, and all my hon. Friend wants is that representations will be made in the spirit in which he speaks for an amnesty of some kind which will enable us to start with a clean slate.
§ Major CRAWFURD
I am sure every Member on this side of the House, and on all sides of the House, will agree with what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think the Committee ought to allow its attention to be diverted from the extraordinary reply which the Financial Secretary has given to the criticisms advanced on this Vote. At the beginning of his reply he said, referring to the form of a Grant-in-Aid, and to the fact that no balance could be returned to the British Exchequer, that it was a matter of policy. Later on, in giving his considered reply to the Debate, he did not develop that point of policy at all, and I think the Committee is still in ignorance as to the policy which has suggested this particular form of money grant. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of another observation he made in reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Hudson). He said,"What form could it have taken if not a Grant-in-Aid?"
It may be there is no other form, but I would suggest to him that it would have been possible to make the Grant-in-Aid in such a way that there would not have been any reasonable probability of a surplus, so that any balance that remained would still be due to the Government of Northern Ireland, and not due from them to us. In the one case it could be paid and in the other case apparently it could not be paid. I throw out the suggestion, not knowing the intricacies of the system. In spite of the strictures which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was pleased to pass on, the hon. and gallant Member for South 2209 Hackney (Captain Garro—Jones), what his argument amounted to was this: If I steal from you £2 the effect is not the same as if I did not pay £2 that I owe you. In effect that is what the right hon. Gentleman said. In either case, the taxpayer of this country is short by the amount of that surplus which is not going to be repaid. You can have it whichever way you like, plus on the one side or minus on the other, but the effect is the same. I would like the Committee to hear the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) on this matter. I am sure that the Committee will not be misled by the extraordinary elementary mistake that the right hon. Gentleman made in trying to give us an explanation.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I have not been present during a great part of the Debate, but I have gathered that one hon. Member on the other side has criticised this expenditure on the part of the Government, and it therefore may not be inappropriate for one Member on this side to take the view that I propose to take, namely, not to vote against this particular Estimate. I could not see my way to vote against the last Estimate dealing with the unemployed in Northern Ireland, and I cannot see my way to vote against this one either. This Colony of Northern Ireland had to start a new form of government under very difficult circumstances, with a history of disturbance and expense preceding it, and landing into a period of very great trade depression. The big industry of the community, the shipbuilding industry, has been very seriously hit by the general industrial depression. The form of government which the Northern Ireland people have chosen is not the form of government which I would have chosen for them, but it is the form of government that they have chosen, and it is only right and fair that they should start on their work of developing this new community without any undue hardships being imposed upon them.
I am, therefore, strongly in favour of this House relieving them of every possible burden. I am strongly impressed also by the fact that in that particular corner of the British Empire we have, perhaps, a higher percentage of poor working class people than in any other part of the country, with the exception of my own district of the Clyde. 2210 I think I have a right to assume that sooner or later, and probably sooner rather than later, the Government of that country will be under the control of representatives of organised labour. I am glad to see that organised labour is already represented in the Ulster Parliament. I take some little pleasure in the fact that I had an opportunity of taking part in their Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland, and I am glad to be able to say that I received considerable service from the police, for whom we are voting this money to-day. There is there that small Labour group, which, I have not the faintest doubt, will grow until it is the dominating force in the Northern Ireland colony. I do not want that Labour Government of the future to inherit, as the last Labour Government had to inherit in this country, very little from their predecessors except a national debt. That is about all that we are going to have in Northern Ireland if this country imposes upon it intolerable burdens.
We have paid previously the four or five years' instalments, and why should we swallow the camel and get the hump about the gnat? I understand that this is the last payment for this particular purpose. Although I recognise fully that there is no one here to speak on behalf of Northern Ireland officially, I know of the very great influence that the Members from Northern Ireland have with the Ulster Government, and I would press them to extend their clemency towards their political opponents who are in prison, to the absolute limit of generosity. I think it would make for very great harmony if they even went the length of liberating men whose offences have passed beyond what can be regarded as purely political and took something of the nature of criminal offences. I think a great good would be got if that were done, and I am sure that the hon. Members concerned will use their very good offices in that direction with the Government of Ulster.
§ Mr. THOMAS
May I ask the Minister who is really responsible, the Home Secretary, to undertake to make the necessary representations to the Northern Ireland Government as to what we feel deeply—that the spirit behind this settlement can be interpreted only by a clean sheet?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)
I thought the House understood that, immediately after the last happy conclusion of the difficulties in regard to Ireland, I sent across to Northern Ireland for a full list of all the prisoners who were there. That list was submitted to a Committee of the Cabinet, which went through it, and nearly the whole of the prisoners have been released. There are only two or three who have not been releasd.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had been ill, and I was away at the time when the list was gone through, but a considerable number were released, and my impression is that only a very few were left. They were in no sense political prisoners, but had committed very serious offences, involving the death of a man. But I am quite willing to make the fullest possible
§ inquiries into the matter. I cannot give any pledge that any further pardon will be granted. A very great number have been pardoned, but I will go further into the matter and communicate with the Northern Ireland Government.
§ Captain GARRO-JONES
It would be a pity if this Debate ended on a note of sentiment rather than of finance. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated that there was no method by which a sum could be paid to a local authority except by a Grant-in-Aid, and. under a Grant-in-Aid any surplus remaining unexpended cannot be returned to the Exchequer. If that be the case, cannot some steps be taken, in the interests of economy, to establish some such procedure for the future?
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,199,900 be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 120; Noes, 235.2213
|Division No. 73.]||AYES.||[8.12 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Grundy, T. W.||Scurr, John|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)||Sexton, James|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Baker, Walter||Hardie, George D.||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Barr, J.||Hayday, Arthur||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hayes, John Henry||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Slesser, Sir Henry H.|
|Broad, F. A.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Bromfield, William||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bromley, J.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Snell, Harry|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Cape, Thomas||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)|
|Charleton, H. C.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Clowes, S.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Taylor, R. A.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)||Kennedy, T.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)|
|Compton, Joseph||Lansbury, George||Thurtle, E.|
|Connolly, M.||Lawson, John James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cove, W. G.||Lee, F.||Townend, A. E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Livingstone, A. M.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Lowth, T.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lunn, William||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Mackinder, W.||Warne, G. H.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||MacLaren, Andrew||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Dennison, R.||March, S.||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Duncan, C.||Morris, R. H.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Edwards, C.(Monmouth. Bedwellty)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Oliver, George Harold||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Fenby, T. D.||Palin, John Henry||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Paling, W.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Gillett, George M.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Windsor, Walter|
|Gosling, Harry||Potts, John s.||Wise, Sir Fredric|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Purcell, A. A.||Wright, W.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Young, Robert(Lancaster, Newton)|
|Greenall, T.||Riley, Ben|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)||TELLERS for the AYES.—|
|Groves, T.||Scrymgeour, E.||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Neville, R. J.|
|Albery, Irving James||Gretton, Colonel John||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Grotrian, H. Brent||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Applin, Colonel R. V. K.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Oakley, T.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Barclay-Harvey C. M.||Harland, A.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Barnston, Major Sir Harry||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Harlington, Marquess of||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Philipson, Mabel|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Pielou, D. P|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Haslam, Henry C.||Pilcher, G.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Hawke, John Anthony||Preston, William|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Radford, E. A.|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Henn, Sir Sydney H.||Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sury, Ch'ts'y)|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hilton, Cecil||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)||Holland, Sir Arthur||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Homan, C. W. J.||Rye, F. G.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Butler, Sir Geoffrey||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Campbell, E. T.||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sandon, Lord|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Savery, S. S.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hurd, Percy A.||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley|
|Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Slaney, Major P. Kenyon|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Jacob, A. E.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Christie, J. A.||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Cope, Major William||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Couper, J. B.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Knox, Sir Alfred||Strickland, Sir Gerald|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Lamb, J. Q.||Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Dalziel, Sir Davison||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Tasker, Major R. Inigo|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Locker-Lampoon, Corn. O. (Handsw'th)||Templeton, W. P.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Looker, Herbert William||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Dawson. Sir Philip||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Lumley, L. R.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Elveden, Viscount||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)||Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)|
|England, Colonel A.||MacIntyre, I.||Wells, S. R.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||McLean, Major A.||Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||MacMillan, Captain H.||White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John||Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Centre)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G. D.||Macquisten, F. A.||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Fleiden, E. B.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Finburgh, S.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Margesson, Captain D.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Forrest, W.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Withers, John James|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Meller, R. J.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.||Meyer, Sir Frank.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Wood, E.(Chest'r Stalyb'dge & Hyde)|
|Ganzonl, Sir John||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Wragg, Herbert|
|Gates, Percy||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Moore, Sir Newton J.|
|Gee, Captain R.||Moore-Brabazon, "Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)||Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord Stanley.|
|Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Murchison, C. K.|
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.