§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEY
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions what business will be taken next week?
§ The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George)
On Tuesday we shall take the Report of the Army Votes, and the Second Reading of the Navy and Military War Pensions (Expenses) Bill.
On Wednesday the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
On Thursday we shall move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Service Estimates, and take the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
§ Mr. PRINGLE
I desire to protest against this Motion. The next Order on the Paper is a Motion that the Eleven o'Clock Rule be suspended on the discussion of Votes A and 1 of the Army Estimates. If that is done, there will be no opportunity of really effective discussion of general Army policy during the remainder of the Session. Votes A and 1 are the only opportunity now remaining to Members of this House to discuss matters of Army policy. At the present time there is a growing desire, not only to offer criticism of Army administration, but also to make constructive suggestions for the benefit of Army administration. I know from personal knowledge that large numbers of Members in this House are desirous of taking part in the discussion on those Estimates, and many of them will not have the opportunity of expressing their views until after eleven o'clock at night. That is obviously an unsuitable time for the discussion of such important matters, and especially when this House is only meeting three days in the week. Under those circumstances I maintain that instead of sitting after eleven o'clock to-night it is the duty of the House to meet on Monday, so that we may have a full opportunity of discussing matters which are of such essential importance to many people throughout the country. It is not as in for'mer Sessions, when there was com- 2292 paratively little interest in Army administration, and when the people were satisfied to leave everything to the Government. We see by-elections being fought in every part of the country in which these questions of public policy are in issue. Obviously, then, it is the duty of the House, by discussions which can be reported in the Press, to guide and enlighten opinion so that the electors may come to a proper judgment. That seems to me an absolutely unanswerable reason for continuing this discussion on Monday, instead of concluding it to-night.
There is another reason why we should sit on Monday. We know that on several of these matters there is only one person in the Government who can speak with authority, because he himself is personally involved, and that is the Prime Minister. We have all regretted that he has been prevented by indisposition from taking part in our Debates this week, but I think we have reasonable ground for hoping that the illness from which he has been suffering will have come to an end by Monday, and then, while the House has still control over this matter, we shall have the opportunity of hearing a contribution from the head of the Government himself on these important matters; of policy. I am quite sure there are other Members of the House who take the view which I have just expressed; I therefore make this appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions to reconsider a decision which has been hastily arrived at, and to give the House this further and better opportunity of criticising Army administration.
§ Mr. PETO
I desire to reinforce what has fallen from my hon. Friend. I am surprised, as there are so many arguments against this Motion, with some of which my hon. Friend has dealt, that the course of the Debate so far has not precluded the Government from making any such proposal as not to meet on Monday. It is not as if the House had been rising during the last two or three days at eight o'clock and going home to dinner. It is well known in all quarters of the House that the time at the disposal of the House for the discussion of these vital questions of Army administration has; been absolutely inadequate. It is not only that Members have not been able to-take part in the discussion. The first of the days allotted to Army Supply was devoted very properly in large measure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman 2293 the Under-Secretary in introducing the Vote. The rest of the day's Debate was mainly occupied by two speeches from the Front Opposition Bench, which were severely criticised by the President of the Local Government Board yesterday. Then the Motion of the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett) came on, and took the rest of the day until five minutes to eleven o'clock. There is another argument I wish to put forward. Yesterday very important statements were made on Army questions in another place. Hon. Members have had no time adequately to consider the bearings of those vital statements which were made by those who are the only people, except the Prime Minister, who can possibly make any authoritative statements on this subject. It seems to me obviously the proper course to carry over this Debate until Monday, so that hon. Members may have the time to consider a situation Which is interesting public opinion all over the country, and which is indicated by the fact that two by-elections are being fought on one issue relating to Army administration at the present time in the country. Three days have been allotted to the Army Estimates. I understand that twenty days are allotted to Supply, and surely one-seventh of that time is wholly inadequate for the consideration of Army questions. As the hon. Member has pointed out, this is the last opportunity we shall have of dealing with these subjects in an adequate manner. Why should we have fourteen days still left to debate Civil Service questions and all kinds of minor questions, which no doubt are vital in times of peace, but are practically negligible quantities at the present time of crisis.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this proposal has not been made with really adequate consideration, and that he will give the opportunity to the House of doing what is its obvious duty, namely, the carrying on of the business of the country during a reasonable period of every week, unless it is quite clear that there are no subjects of public interest to discuss, and that, therefore, three days are sufficient. The Debate, so far, has been confined to one or two aspects of Army affairs. Practically not a word has been said upon such questions as promotion, waste in administration, or any of the other subjects dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, except this one question of 2294 recruiting. I noticed that in Committee last night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) by an arrangement which was obvious to us with the Chairman of Ways and Means, moved to report Progress, and therefore has priority to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] It is obvious, therefore, that a very large part of to-day's Debate will be occupied with the so-called crimes of the tribunals and the hardships of the so-called conscientious objectors. Whether these matters are important or not they will preclude discussion on many of the real questions of administration until after eleven o'clock. Therefore, I submit that this Motion is ill-conceived and is certainly contrary to the interests of the country at the present time.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I agree with all that has fallen from my hon. Friends as to the desirability of giving full opportunity to the House to discuss the very important matters that arise on the Army Estimates during a time of war. I say that subject to a reservation which I will state later on. But I think my hon. Friends underestimate the opportunities that will be afforded to the House for such discussion. For instance, next week, on Tuesday, the Report of these very Votes will be taken. The whole of Tuesday can be devoted to the discussion of Army Estimates and nothing else. On Wednesday there is the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Mr. HOUSTON
On Tuesday there are many matters—including the question of horses—that we shall be unable to discuss.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I should have thought that on the Report stage of these very Votes there could be the same discussion as in Committee. I say that, of course, subject to Mr. Speaker's ruling.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
There is a misconception with regard to this matter which perhaps I may take this opportunity to remove. On the Report stage there is no general discussion on Army policy, but the first Vote—for men—is of such a general nature that a very large number of subjects can be discussed upon it. Recruiting, pay, and all questions of that sort, arise on the number of men; but there can be no general discussion on Army policy.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am very much obliged, Sir, for your ruling. As far as I understand, the subjects in which the House has mostly interested itself are subjects which could be debated again on Tuesday. But that is not the whole opportunity. On Wednesday there will be the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, when again there will be an opportunity for discussing Army Estimates. On Thursday the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will afford another opportunity. That is three days. Then on every Vote of Credit there is an opportunity for discussing Army questions. Further, if the House is specially interested in any particular topic and expresses its view on that subject to the Prime Minister, he would certainly find the necessary opportunity for discussing that particular matter.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
The hon. Member for Devizes suggested that we might sit four days a week. I hope hon. Members will bear in mind how that affects those who are in charge of the administration of Departments.
§ Mr.LLOYD GEORGE
That is not altogether so. My hon. Friend does not appreciate the extent to which a sitting of the House takes Ministers away from very urgent business in their Departments. Even if it is only an hour or two in the afternoon, it is extremely difficult to pursue the business of a Department when you have a break like that every day. A Minister cannot be quite sure that it will not be necessary for him to be here on the off-chance of something affecting his Department being dealt with. I do not pretend that I have been in constant attendance. But it is an undoubted advantage to all the Ministers, at a time when they are working twice as hard in 2296 every Department as they were before the War, to have the whole of their time and attention for the purpose of conducting the administration of the extremely difficult problems which arise from day to day. I hope the House will bear that in mind. There is one other consideration that I wish to urge. During a War Army Estimates are of course of infinitely greater importance than during times of peace, and in view of their extent, there is every reason why there should be criticism. But it is also exceedingly difficult during a time of war to answer criticism, and I hope hon. Members will bear that in mind. I have listened to criticisms during the last day or two, and I have noticed the restraint felt by hon. Members, who constantly seemed to find difficulty in framing their criticism in such a way as not to be helpful to the enemy rather than to their own country. The same thing applies to Ministers when they reply. In view of the increased importance of the subject, there is a great deal to be said in favour of wider facilities for discussion, but there is also the other side of the question, which I hope the House will not forget. I hope my hon. Friends will allow us to discuss this Vote to-night. If there is any question in which the House is specially interested, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, in accordance with the usual custom, the Prime Minister will be only too pleased to help them to obtain the necessary facilities for a discussion. I am certain it is the feeling of the House that they would like the Prime Minister to be present, and if he is sufficiently recovered he will be able to be here on Tuesday or Wednesday next, and my hon. Friends will then have the opportunity they desire.
§ Mr. HOUSTON
I am sorry I cannot respond to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal. During the last month we have had one or two very helpful Debates on the Navy. I think that the criticisms I have offered on those occasions have been extremely helpful, not only to the Admiralty, but to the nation, and I desire to offer some similar criticisms upon the administration of the War Office, particularly upon certain matters with regard to which I have special information. I have ascertained that I shall not have an opportunity of speaking in the Debate to-day; there are so many other' speakers. Therefore, I entirely agree with hon. Members on both sides that we 2297 ought to have a further opportunity. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions is above criticism; therefore he need not be afraid. The opportunities that we shall have on the Report stage are very limited. I asked just now whether it would be in order to discuss the question of horses. I do not mean race horses, which occupied the attention of the House for such a considerable time the other day. I wish to speak more particularly in regard to Cavalry horses and to the great waste that is being entailed in connection with very extravagant expenditure. I understand that I shall be debarred from speaking on that topic on the Report stage. On the Consolidated Fund Bill one may, of course, have the possibility of discussing the whole subject, but not the opportunity. With regard to the statements of my right hon. Friend—whose assurances I am always happy to receive—that the Prime Minister would give a day for any subject in which special interest was taken, I may remind him that on a former occasion the Prime Minister personally promised me a day to discuss the purchases of wheat. I have never had that day yet. I do not ask for it now, because there are much more important questions requiring consideration. But I do ask that we shall have a full opportunity of discussing the policy and the extravagant waste of the War Office.
Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT
I rise to make a suggestion which might, perhaps, lead to a satisfactory arrangement on this point. Obviously, from a military point of view, it is most desirable that these Votes should be passed as quickly as possible, and that debate should not be unduly prolonged upon them. It is also evident that there should be an opportunity for hon. Members to offer well-considered criticism on the general management of the War Office. It is customary to do that in ordinary times by moving a reduction on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State. If my right hon. Friend would promise us a day for a discussion of that character, I think it would probably afford a convenient method of discussing the general policy of the War Office.
§ Sir WILLIAM BYLES
It seems to me that the Government will do well to consider how far they mean to carry what is now the increasing tendency on the part of Ministers to turn their backs upon the House of Commons. Some 2298 hon. Members, who have lately been visiting France and looking into the methods of the French legislature, have come here convinced that Members of Parliament in France have much more power in the conduct of the affairs of the nation than Members of this House have. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friends who think that four days a week is not too much for the House to sit; therefore if they go to a Division I shall feel obliged to support them. With regard to my right hon. Friend's observation about interfering with the business of the Departments, I really do not see that, except in the matter of questions, which is a time-honoured and precious privilege of Members, we interfere very much with the Departmental work which is going on. Debates go on here for a very long time, and Members absent themselves from the House if they want to while speeches in which they are not interested are being made. I do not know that Ministers are bound to listen to everything; at any rate, there need be only one Member representing a Department present during the whole Debate. No doubt it is convenient for Ministers to avoid criticism by not exposing themselves to the arrows of private Members; but I would urge upon the Government that this habit of disregarding the House of Commons is one that is growing upon them.
§ Mr. JAMES MASON
I quite agree that for many reasons it is not desirable that we should return to the regular habit of sitting four days a week. I do think, however, that on this occasion it really is most desirable that this Debate should not be brought to a premature conclusion in the early hours of the morning. The subject which has been considerably discussed is already arousing intense interest in the country. I refer to the question of recruiting, and of the married and single men. The whole of that question has been put in a totally different position by the speech yesterday of the President of the Local Government Board, in which he made it plain that the original intention was to be carried out in the spirit as well as in the letter. Unless the subject is thoroughly thrashed out, the consequences may be somewhat serious.
§ Mr. LYNCH
I wish to intervene for a moment to say that if the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions is pressed home in its reality, 2299 it is an argument for sitting one day a week; and further, for closing Parliament altogether. In these critical times, when all institutions are being put into the melting pot, I do not know why any of us should refuse to face the situation. At any rate, I think it is an argument for remodelling the manner in which the business of this House is carried on. In this respect some suggestions might with advantage be adopted from the French Chamber. However, I wish to put before the House a practical point which should at least appeal to every private Member. What really happens to the average private Member of this House? He waits hour after hour for the chance perhaps of bringing forward a subject of considerable national importance. He may not foe called till late in the evening. At that late hour the Front Bench is almost entirely vacant. Those who are sitting there are sitting in a listless attitude, with neurasthenic aspect, while their satellites, the Whips, who alone are active, are moving about in the House begging Members not to speak. Sometimes the private Member, in weakness and compassion, is considerate enough to give way to this request. I do not think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs for the House itself; but the practical point is this, what is the best time for discussing public business. In the hours of the day while Members are still moderately alert, while they have their clear intelligence, and while they are able to the best advantage to state what they have to put forward, or that hour when we all desire to go to bed? If reality is now to be imported into our Debates, discussion at the earlier hour would be the best solution of the whole question However, if we are to sit late, I think we ought to ensure that the Minister responsible shall at least listen to the Members who speak. If Ministers are unable to be here late, let us have the Debates carried on at such an hour that it is possible for them to be present. If there is to be an alternative between sitting at 11 p.m. and after wards, or meeting on Monday, or even Friday, I should think that the solution of meeting on Monday or Friday is in every way preferable.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with one or two of the suggestions which have been put forward 2300 in the course of the discussion. I understand from the interruption of my hon. Friend, and from your ruling, Sir, that there are, on Tuesday, difficulties in the way of conducting a full and unfettered discussion within the limits of order. This, however, can be overcome by Parliamentary custom, with, I understand, the consent of the Chair. Where there is a general desire in the House that there should be a full discussion upon war administration, and upon a particular Vote, if that desire is expressed and the consent of the Chair obtained, I understand that there may be as free a discussion under those conditions as under the conditions which have obtained this week. I suggest that that would be the best way to meet this particular difficulty. Another suggestion has been put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Sir Ivor Herbert). He suggests that on an early date a discussion upon the whole administration of the War might be secured by putting down the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State. If there is a general feeling in the House that Members would like a discussion at an early date, after the War Estimates have been disposed of, the Government will be quite prepared to endeavour to meet that view by placing the Vote on the Paper. Therefore I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that that would be a much better opportunity, because it is desirable that these Votes, for administrative reasons, should be secured at the earliest possible moment. On the other hand, there is no desire to deprive the House of every opportunity to criticise the administration of the Government. I hope, therefore, that the House, now that the Government have met the desire expressed by various Members, will be prepared to let us have this Motion. Might I remind my hon. Friend who suggests that we should sit four days a week that the House has been in continuous Session—[An HON. MEMBER: "We are only asking it for once!"]—practically for very nearly two years. Although we only meet three days a week there has been no recess of any sort or kind—certainly for Ministers there has been no recess. I hope the House will bear that in mind.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I do not think that it was the intention of anybody on this side certainly to suggest that we should 2301 meet four days a week. The only suggestion was that, as there was a considerable amount of interest in this Vote, and as there were very important statements made in another place yesterday, that we might for once meet on Monday. I do not want to press the matter, but there is something in the suggestion. It amounts, however, to the same thing if the right hon. Gentleman will see that the promise he has given is carried out.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I think there is everything in the point made by my hon. Friend that it is desirable that the Prime Minister should be present when this discussion takes place. Merely adjourning till Monday, I am sorry to say, would not meet that particular suggestion. Although the Prime Minister will be recovered, I think, I hope for his own sake he will not immediately return to the House, but take a few days rest before he comes back. Therefore, I do not think anything will be gained. The suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend that the Debate should occur later under a special Motion is the better. Then the House will be able to discuss this question with the head of the Government, who is the only one who can give a full, complete and responsible answer on behalf of the whole Government to all these questions and to the various suggestions as to policy which have been put forward. For that reason I hope the House will agree to the Motion.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The answer to that is that it might be too late. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late!"] This is a very urgent question. I do not want to press the matter if the right hon. Gentleman is determined not to do what is asked. But I should have thought that he would not have lost anything by acceding to the request.
§ Mr. HOGGE
There is a point which must be cleared up if we accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to take the advice of the hon. and gallant Member, and put down the salary of the War Secretary upon which to have a discussion. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the War Secretary does not draw any salary for war purposes. He draws his salary as Agent-General for Egypt; therefore, our discussion would be required to be on the administration of Egypt. I put that point because I think the House ought to be assured by the Front Bench, when they advise us, that 2302 we shall have opportunity later for discussion. We have not, in any case, been told what the date will be, and it has been suggested it might be too late. We have been told that we can discuss matters on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Look at the programme for next week. On Tuesday we have to take the Report of Army Votes and we have to get through a very important Bill put down for Second Reading, the Navy and Army Pensions Bill, which is one of the most vital to the social needs of the country at the moment. If we take that measure on that day the Government will lose an allotted day. Their concern, therefore, about allotted days is not apparently so keen after all.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I understood—am not sure it was not from the hon. Member's quarter of the House—that that Bill will only take half an hour.
§ Mr. HOGGE
But you lose an allotted day if you take it. I am only putting the point that when we are told we are going to lose this, that, or the other, we want to watch to see that the Government are not losing what they say they are likely to lose. On Wednesday there will be the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Admiralty Vote, and getting Mr. Speaker out of the chair. Supposing any hon. Member should clear his mind in France, bring a new question into this House on Wednesday, and raise an important question on the Consolidated Fund Bill, where are we again? Where is the average Member of the House? He is again ruled out on account of time. Really the Government keep out of these difficulties always in this way. They say if we approach the Prime Minister through the usual channels we shall be met. You can approach the Prime Minister as often as you like through the usual channels, but unless you happen to be the junior Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) you are never met. The right hon. Baronet is the only hon. Member of this House who is agile enough to get through the usual channels. Therefore I want the House to maintain its rights while not putting the Government in a hole. The right hon. Gentleman said that on the Report stage, if we agree with you, Mr. Speaker, we shall be able to raise larger questions of policy. What does that mean? It means that it rules out every Member of this House who has a small question to bring forward. After all, the first thing we represent in this House are 2303 our constituents, and on these occasions we have the needs of our constituents to bring forward. We are entitled to bring them forward. We are not entitled to be abolished by the larger questions or question brought forward by hon. Members whose minds have been cleared. We want to clear the field for the smaller questions, and we are entitled to do that.
What are we asking the Government to do? We are not asking them to lose a single moment on this occasion. We are not asking for every Monday; we are asking for the coming Monday. If they give this Monday, they will get their Report on Tuesday, and everything that they want. What are we doing to-day? We are giving the Government £1,000. It surely will not hurt if they wait until Tuesday. The difference between the number of men they will get between tonight or four or five o'clock in the morning and Tuesday will not make up very many battalions, though it has beeen suggested that it may even help to swell the Derby figures. There is another point which is a real point, though I do not care to put it because it is a question of personal convenience.
§ Mr. HOGGE
My hon. Friend urges me not to be bashful. Of course, being a Scottish Member, he has objections to long week-ends, for, owing to present exigencies, from Thursday night to Tuesday morning, he is exposed to all the temptations of London. The train services, too, are all curtailed. A large numbers of Members of this House live a very long distance from the House. Taxi-cabs which might take us home are all going the other way, and will not take us after 12 p.m. Many of us have long distances to walk. We do not mind those distances, but when you bear in mind that one night last week there would not have been sixty Members in this House had not the Coalition Whips telephoned to the Carlton, the Reform Club, and the National Liberal Club-it made no difference to the actual Division- does the Minister of Munitions think that this serious question of the Army Estimates ought to be discussed in a House of that nature? I do not think he does, and I venture to suggest to him that, as we are only asking for the Monday on this one occasion, and we are not making a demand for four days a week, it will not 2304 interfere with the provision of £l,000, and the Government will get the Report stage on Tuesday, and save the character of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow,
§ Mr. LOUGH
I venture to think the House feels in considerable doubt about this question. There is a very strong desire in all our minds to do what the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do, and I am very loth to put in a single argument" against the course he has recommended. But it must be said, I think, at this moment there is a question of the administration of the War Office exciting more interest in the country than any question I ever remember before as having agitated the minds of the people, and we in this House have not had any opportunity of discussing it at all-I mean this question of the married men. There has been really no time to go into it at all. We had an announcement made in another place yesterday. I believe there is a single argument weighing with every Member of the House with regard to these married men, and that is the question of the Order, which was withdrawn, to call up certain groups. We are all getting telegrams about it, and letters by every post. There is the greatest public feeling about that precise question, and we have had no satisfactory opportunity of settling it here. Taking that into account, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it might be more convenient to acquiesce in the suggestion that has been made.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
I desire to bring to the attention of the Minister of Munitions the fact that, if the Government take the course they propose, there would be no opportunity given for discussing the question of moratorium for married men.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On a point of Order. I understand that could not be discussed, because that would certainly require legislation.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is certainly a matter of legislation, and would be outside the discussion of Supply.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
If an Order in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act can deal with this matter, I submit it would be relevant to a discussion in Committee on the Army Estimates, and in August, 1914, that course was actually taken.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
Surely that was done by legislation? You could not pass an Order in Council stopping people from recovering rent.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
No; it was done under the Defence of the Realm Act. But, be that as it may, I would ask the Govern-
§ ment whether they will let the House sit on Monday to discuss this very question. Many married men have actually given notice to leave their houses, as quarter day is near at hand. The truth of the matter is that the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury has arranged for a large number of men to go down and speak in the Market Harborough Division on Monday.
§ Question put, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 67.2307
|Division No. 3.]||AYES.||[4.35 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford||O'Malley, William|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)||Hackett, John||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)||Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)|
|Bellairs, Commander C. W.||Hayward, Evan||Pratt, J. W.|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Radford, George Heynes|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Hill James (Bradford, C.)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Bird, Alfred||Hodge, John||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Bliss, Joseph||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Boland, John Pius||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Robinson, Sidney|
|Broughton, Urban Hanlon||Hudson, Walter||Rowlands, James|
|Bull, Sir William James||Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)|
|Butcher, John George||Joyce, Michael||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Stanton, Charles Butt|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Stewart, Gershom|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)||Sykes, Col. A. J. (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Long, Rt. Hon. Walter||Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Cosgrave, James||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Tickler, T. G.|
|Crooks, Rt. Hon. William||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Valentia, Viscount|
|Dalrymple, Hon. H. H.||Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Macmaster, Donald||Wardle, George J.|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.||Macpherson, James Ian||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Whiteley, Herbert J.|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||Millar, James Duncan||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Morison, Hector||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)|
|Fell, Arthur||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Yeo, Alfred William|
|Ferens Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Newdegate, F. A.||Young, Edward H. (Norwich)|
|Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Nolan, Joseph||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Nugent, Sir W. R. (Westmeath, S.)|
|Forster, Henry William||Nuttall, Harry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot.|
|Gilbert, J.D.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Anderson, W. C.||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Hinds, John|
|Arnold, Sydney||Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Hogge, James Myles|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.||Craik, Sir Henry||Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)||Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.||Ingleby, Holcombe|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Dixon, C. H.||Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Du Pre, W. Baring||Jowett, Frederick William|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Falle, Bertram Godfray||King, Joseph|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Ginnell, Laurence||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Bowden, Major G. R. Harland||Goldstone Frank||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Bryce, .J. Annan||Goulding, Sir E. A.||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Grant, J. A.||Malcolm, Ian|
|Carew, C.||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex. Eastbourne)||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Meux, Hon Sir Hedworth||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Weigall, William E. A.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Sherwell, Arthur James||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Needham, Christopher Thomas||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Neville, Reginald J. N.||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Newman, John R. P.||Thomas, J. H.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Nicholson, William G (Petersfield)||Thomas-Stanford, Charles||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Outhwaite, R. L.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)||Tryon, Captain George Clement||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Pennefather, De Fonblanque||Watt, Henry A.||Pringle and Mr. Peto.|
|Rees, Griffith Caradoc (Arfon)|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Ordered, That the Business of Supply, if under discussion this night at Eleven o'clock, be not interrupted under Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr.Lloyd George.]