HC Deb 02 August 1904 vol 139 cc673-704

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,) Derbyshire, W.

in moving this Resolution, said that in Clause 10 of the agreement the Government undertook to provide a loan for the building of two ships named in the agreement. The Government were bound to advance this loan to the company in order that the vessels specified in the agreement might be completed. It was proposed to raise the money by means of Exchequer Bonds.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £2,600,000, as are required for making the Advances to the Cunard Steamship Company (Limited) under an Agreement with that Company, dated 30th July. 1903, and approved by the House of Commons 12th August,1903, to authorise the Treasury to borrow money, by means of Exchequer Bonds, for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof, the principal of and interest on such bonds to be charged on the Consolidated. Fund, and to make other provisions relating to the sail agreement."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)

MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said it was impossible to discuss the matter at that late hour. He should like to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of fulfilling his pledge that a full opportunity would be given for the discussion of this Motion. Therefore he would move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. William Jones.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he thought that the hon. Member's proposal was unreasonable. There was nothing to discuss except a matter which, if they were treating it individually, they would think the plain simple duty of honest men who had entered into an agreement. He did not see why the House of Commons should be less honest than the Members who composed it. He suggested that it really required no debate, and it was irrespective of the hour of the day whether they should or should not carry out their plain duty.

SIR EDWARD GREY

said he would remind the Prime Minister that on 12th May of this year, in reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he stated that he could not promise a day for the discussion of the Cunard agreement before the Whitsuntide holidays. When the Prime Minister made an answer of that kind, surely in the common understanding of what passed across the floor of the House between the Leader of the House and the House of Commons as a House, it did lead the House justifiably to contemplate that some better time would he given before the close of the session than half-past three o'clock in the morning. The Colonial Secretary demurred to that?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I demurred to it.

SIR EDWARD GREY

thought the Prime Minister was doing what he thought he might fairly say was a very unusual thing—putting a narrow, legal, and technical interpretation upon the language he had quoted. In future they were to understand that whenever the right hon. Gentleman said he could not promise a day before the Whitsuntide holidays, that was to be interpreted that probably no time would be given.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

hoped the right hon. Baronet, when he used that form of language again, would think in future, as he hoped the right hon. Baronet thought in the past, that he meant exactly what he said. No Leader of the House could forecast the whole business of the session or tell what course the Opposition would take in furthering or in not furthering the Government business, and so difficult was it to arrange business and so careful was every Leader of the House who knew his trade not to give pledges that he could not fulfil, that pledges must be interpreted literally in the sense in which they were given.

SIR EDWARD GREY

said that that was to say the words must be interpreted in the narrowest possible sense, and that when the Prime Minister said that he could not promise a day before the Whitsuntide holidays, they were to take it that no reasonable time would be given at all before the end of the session.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is not the conclusion to be drawn from what I said. I could not promise a day before the Whitsuntide holidays, and by implication I could make no promise one way or the other with regard to the rest of the session.

SIR EDWARD GREY

said all he submitted was that Members who were interested in this discussion, and who in May last were displaying a desire to have a discussion on this subject, and got from the Prime Minister the answer he then gave, were entitled at least to be disappointed and to express their disappointment now when they found they had no opportunity at all. The Prime Minister was not treating the House fairly in this matter. The Opposition had not been unreasonable. The first Motion to report Progress was not intended to stop business; it was intended to effect some discrimination in the business later and was accompanied by an offer to take other business. The Prime Minister said he proposed to take Orders 1 and 2 on the ground that they were purely formal stages, and upon that he (the speaker) offered to withdraw his Motion and to agree to those stages being taken as formal, provided an undertaking was given that on a subsequent stage of each Bill discussion should be admitted. He fully expected the Prime Minister to agree to it, but when he asked directly whether such an opportunity would be afforded he was met by a blank negative. That was why he thought the right hon. Gentleman was not treating the House fairly. To ask the Committee to pass two measures on the ground that they were formal stages, and that there would be subsequent opportunities for discussion, was to allow the Committee to suppose that those opportunities would come at a time when they might be availed of. He was glad the discussion on the Motion went on, because if it had stopped after the Prime Minister's statement, and it had been found afterwards that the subsequent stages were to be equally formal and brought on when discussion was equally impossible, there would have been a misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentleman and the House more unpleasant than anything which had occurred in Parliament within his memory. He had been a Member of the House for a good many years, and he had seen several Leaders of the House, but he had never seen the House so treated, and nothing had occurred in his memory to leave behind it so unpleasant a feeling. And what led up to it? There had been no waste of time previous to the Motion to report Progress. It was true he had spoken on the Imperial Defence question longer than he had intended, and he was sorry he had done so, but it was not his intention to deal with anything, but the merits of the question. The Motion to reduce the Vote on a comparatively small but not altogether unimportant point was not followed by a long debate, and in the division many of the Opposition voted with the Government. The whole discussion was as friendly as could be wished. Then came what he had described to the Committee, and when they finally proceeded to the discussion the closure was applied at a time when debate had certainly not lost interest and when more than one important question had been raised but no answer given. What had happened would leave the feeling that the Government were not making a fair use of the power at their disposal; it would deepen the feeling which had began to take possession of many Members, that discussion in the present House of Commons was a farce, because the Government treated the House with a want of consideration which had never been exampled, at any rate in his memory, by any previous Government or any previous Leader of the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said there was no man in the House with whom he was less desirous of coming into conflict than the right hon. Baronet, for whom he had the sincerest regard. When the right hon. Baronet made an attack upon him he was sure he did not simulate a passion which he did not feel, which he should have suspected in the case of a person for whom he had less respect, but certainly the grounds for such indignation were the flimsiest he could imagine. It was extremely probable that the right hon. Baronet would one day stand where he (the speaker) now stood as Leader of the House, and then when he had to give answers dealing with the time of the House he would he uncommonly surprised if he was told that when he said a day could not be given before a particular date it meant that a day was to he given after that date.

SIR EDWARD GREY

We have not asked for a whole day.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he was trying to reply to the personal attack upon himself. If he said that a day could not be given before Whitsuntide it could never mean that a day should necessarily be given after Whitsuntide He could not agree with the right hon. Baronet's account of what had passed. He had never heard a more profitable discussion than that which took place up to quarter to twelve, but after that the debate degenerated and lost caste. The House that afternoon, by a large majority, in consideration of the amount of business yet to be transacted, had given the Government power to proceed with their Bills after twelve o'clock; and the Government had cut down their demand upon the House to the passing of two Resolutions of a formal character. If any one had cause of complaint it was the Government, who were suffering from the action of the Party opposite, and all because they had asked for a small instalment of the business of the nation which was necessary to carry out the honourable obligations of the House.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the old traditions of the House and had stated that they used to sit late. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the House also used to meet earlier, and in the old days there was no closure and no guillotine Resolutions, but now they had all sorts of methods of preventing discussion, and they had resorted to other methods after the new-fangled notions were introduced more or less by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had created this purely as a formal stage to carry out what he had called honourable obligations. It was quite true that this contract was ratified by the House, but there were two important considerations to be taken into account. The Prime Minister had overlooked the method by which the money was to be raised. It was going to be raised by Exchequer bonds, and that was a very serious departure, which would affect very much the credit of the Government. Surely that was a question which ought to be discussed very fully. An important question of public policy was involved. Supposing the House of Commons came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to carry out this agreement for reasons of public policy; circumstances might arise under which it might be better to buy up the contract although it had been signed. It was a question now of the character of the agreement, and whether it was desirable now to proceed with it. With regard to the opportunity promised for discussing his agreement, he thought that nine out of every ten Members who heard the speech of the Prime Minister upon that question would have come to the con

usion that he promised to give a day after Whitsuntide if he proceeded with the matter. That was really a pledge that he would give a day to discuss this question. The right hon. Gentleman a ked how was he to know what course the Opposition would take? What course could they take in view of the facts and the events of the last few months? They had in power a Government which had absolutely forfeited the confidence of the country and they were proceeding with business which they had no mandate to proceed with. It was their first duty to resist any proposal brought in by the Government if they did not approve of it. He asked the right hon. Gentleman what he would have done if he had been Leader of the Opposition? He ventured to say that the opposition the right hon. Gentleman would have given to the measures of a Liberal Government would have been of a more fierce and persistent character than any which he himself had had to encounter. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had any reason to complain of the Opposition with which he had been faced. He thought the Government had been treated too leniently and that they had no right to complain of the treatment they had received at the hands of the opposition. Under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman must have known the course which the Opposition would take. His right hon. friend had made a perfectly fair suggestion in regard to the Cunard agreement. What about Friday? Why did the Prime Minister not put it down as the first Order on Friday and go on with the Parsons Bill afterwards? The House of Commons was asked to discuss the Cunard agreement at this hour in the morning (four o'clock).

An HON. MEMBER

sitting on the back Bench on the Ministerial side of the House interjected a remark which was not heard in the Gallery. The remark was followed by a cry of "Sit down," to which another Member replied "Go to bed."

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

I rise, Sir, to order I venture to say that an hon. Gentleman made an interjection in the debate which is calculated to be deliberately insulting to my hon. friend. I appeal to you, Sir, to use the authority of the Chair to control and restrain him.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I did not catch the observation. I wish it were in my power to control and restrain all the people in this House who make insulting observations. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the remark if it was offensive.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said he did not complain. He could perfectly see that the hon. Member was in a condition of excitement and was not responsible. When interrupted he was supporting the reasonable suggestion that an opportunity for discussing this matter should be given on Friday in daylight. Why should the Prime Minister give all the best time to that very spiteful little Bill which he was going to bring forward on Friday? Why did he not give the House opportunities for discussing the real business of the country? After all this was the real business of the country, because it involved matters in relation to the defence and the commerce of the country. The Cunard agreement ought to be brought forward at a time when they would have a fair opportunity for scrutinising it. There was the whole of next week when that could be done, but the Prime Minister was giving no opportunity for debating the matter at all. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not now promise to give an opportunity for discussion next Friday, making this matter the First Order of the day? [Cries of "No."] He thought it was a perfectly reasonable offer. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well what would happen if he did not agree to this. Was not this the sort of thing that would happen every night unless the Prime Minister gave them an opportunity for discussing the agreement? He was not speaking in any spirit of defiance. He was speaking with some experience of what happened in the House when the right hon. Gentleman and his fiends were in Opposition. He remembered how they used to keep hon. Members up, moving Motions for the adjournment of the House and to report Progress, because, as they thought, the Front Opposition Bench had refused reasonable requests from the then Opposition. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was serving the best- interests of the House of Commons by the course he was now taking. After all, Members of the Opposition were not responsible for these things being thrown to the fag end of the session. The Licensing Bill was guillotined anti forced through the House in five or six days, and the present state of business was not due to the measures of the session having been over-debated. They had not been debated at all practically. The state of business was due to something else. The right hon. Gentleman had his difficulties no doubt, but he had managed to get out of them very well up to the present. The management of the business of the House was not in the hands of the Opposition, and, therefore, if important questions were driven to the fag end of the session the Opposition were not responsible. Was it fair that they should be compelled to discuss great financial problems involving a complete departure from precedent and affecting the defence and commerce of the country at this hour?

MR. RUNCIMAN

pressed the Prime Minister for an answer to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick. Would the Prime Minister treat as formal the stage of the Cunard agreement which he proposed to take now, and give an opportunity on a later stage for discussing the matter?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said he did not mean that this question was not formal.

MR. RUNCIMAN

said that there could be no reasonable discussion of this question at four o'clock in the morning. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to carry on this principle through all stages of the Bill they ought not to discuss the Bill at all. When the right hon. Gentleman was in Opposition he would not have agreed to such a procedure as he was now forcing on the Committee. Were they not to discuss the status of these vessels in view of events now passing in the Far East? The idea was preposterous. The truth was that the Prime Minister did not mean to give any day for discussing this Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said that he meant what he said. He could not say whether there would be any discussion at all.

MR. RUNCIMAN

said that as to the question put by the hon. Member for King's Lynn there was no mention of Whitsuntide. It was a perfectly gratuitous interpolation on the part of the Prime Minister to say that no day would he given before Whitsuntide. He was quite sure that what was wanted was that a clear day should be given, or even half a day, before the end of the session, in order to enable those who had such strong views in regard to this agreement to give expression to them. The right hon. Gentleman must know that a discussion after twelve o'clock would be absolutely futile. There would not be more than 110 Members in the precincts of the House, and such a discussion would be perfunctory in the last degree. The action of the Prime Minister in suggesting that the Committee could discuss this important question at a quarter past four in the morning was nothing more nor less than flouting the House of Commons.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

said that his hon. friend had drawn attention to the fact that there had been an honourable engagement to give a day to the discussion of this question, and which the Government was bound to keep. But, after all, it rested with the House or the Committee to approve or reject such an engagement. He ventured to point out to the Prime Minister whether they were not getting into rather an unsatisfactory and difficult situation. If the Prime Minister wanted to get his business through he ought to act in a more conciliatory mariner. If the right hon. Gentleman adopted a course of give-and-take, and made a fair bargain with hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, this struggle might be altogether avoided. All parts of the House were interested in pledges given being

carried out. He did not suggest that the Prime Minister had broken a promise, but there was a general impression that a proper opportunity would be given for the discussion of this question. And why not? It was a very important question, and had acquired a new importance in consequence of the Morgan combine. It was a proper thing that the Committee should discuss it; and he submitted that it was a reasonable interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Committee would be given an opportunity for discussion. That impression might be erroneous; but was the right hon. Gentleman willing to profit by a false impression?

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 123 Noes, 53. (Division List No. 301.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dimsdale,Rt.Hn.Sir Joseph C. Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S)
Anson. Sir William Reynell Doughty, Sir George Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Arkwright, John Stanhope Donclas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Arnold-Forster,Rt.HmHughO. Doxford, Sir William Theodore M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Arrol, Sir William Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Manners, Lord Cecil
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.
Bagot, Capt, Josceline FitzRoy Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sir J. (Manc'r Maxwell,RtHnSir H.E(Wigt'n
Bailey, James (Walworth) Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire
Bain, Colonel James Robert Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Milvain, Thomas
Balcarres, Lord Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon Morgan DavidJ.(Walthamstow
Balfour,RtHnGerald W.(Leeds Forster, Henry William Morrell, George Herbert
Banbury,Sir Frederick George Foster,Philip S.(Warwiek.S.W. Mount, William Arthur
Blundell, Colonel Henry Galloway, William Johnson Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham (Bute.
Brassey, Albert Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gordon J.(Londonderry,South Percy, Earl
Brotherton, Edward Allen Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Butcher, John George Grenfell, William Henry Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Gretton, John Pretyman, Ernest George
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Groves, James Grumble Rankin, Sir James
Cautley, Henry Strother Hall, Edward Marshall Reid, James (Greenock)
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Hamilton,Marq.of (L'donderry Remnant, James Farquharson
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hay, Hon. Claude George Renwick, George
Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Worc. Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley) Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Chapman, Edward Heath,James (Staffords.,N.W.) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Charrington, Spencer Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hope, J.F.(Shetfield,Brightside Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Coates, Edward Feetham Hunt, Rowland Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Compton, Lord Alwyne Kerr, John Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Keswick, William Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Craig, Chas. Curtis(Antrim, S. Knowles, Sir Lees Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Law. Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)
Davenport, W. Bromley Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Davies SirHoratioD.(Chatham Legge, Col. Hon Heneage Spear, John Ward
Dickson, Charles Scott Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.) Warde, Colonel C. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Webb, Colonel William George Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Whiteley,H.(Ashton und Lyne and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Tuff, Charles Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Valentia, Viscount, Wylie, Alexander
Walrond, Rt.Hn.Sir William H. Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
NOES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Horniman, Frederick John Shackleton, David James
Barran, Rowland Hirst Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Benn,John Williams Joyce. Michael Soares, Ernest J.
Boland, John Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W. Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Brigg, John Kilbride, Denis Sullivan, Donal
Bright, Allan Heywood Labouchere, Henry Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Levy, Maurice Thomas David Alfred(Merthyr)
Caldwell, James Lloyd-George, David Thomas,JA (Glamorgan, Gower
Causton, Richard Knight Lyell, Charles Henry Tontkinson, James
Churchill, Winston Spencer Moss, Samuel Toulmin, George
Cullinan, J. Murphy, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Doogan, P. C. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Warner, Thomas Courtenav T.
Edwards, Frank Norman, Henry White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Elibank, Master of O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E.(Berwick) Rickett, J. Compton
Griffith, Ellis J. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Harcourt,Lewis V.(Rossendale Runciman, Walter Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M Arthur.
Higham, John Sharpe Samuel, Herhert L.(Cleveland)

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 123 (Division List No. 302.)

AYES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Horniman, Frederick John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Barran, Rowland Hirst Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Soares, Ernest J.
Benn, John Williams Joyee, Michael Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Boland, John Kennedy,VindcentP.(Cavan,W Sullivan, Donal
Brigg, John Kilbride, Denis Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Bright, Allan Heywood Levy, Maurice Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Lloyd-George, David Thoinas,J A. (Glamorgan,Gower
Caldwell, James Lyell, Charles Henry Tomkinson, James
Causton, Richard Knight Moss, Samuel Toulmin, George
Churchill, Winston Spencer Murphy, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Cullinan, J. Nolan, Joseph(Louth, South) Warner, Thomas, Courtenay T.
Doogan, P. C. Norman, Henry White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Edwards, Frank O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Elibank, Master of O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, Henry J. (York,W.R.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Rickett, J. Compton
Grey,Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Griffith, Ellis J. Runeiman, Walter Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.
Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Higham, John Sharpe Shackleton, David James
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Blundell, Colonel Henry Clive, Captain Percy A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Brassey, Albert Coates, Edward Feetham
Arkwright, John Stanhope Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cochrane, Hon.Thos. H. A. E.
Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O. Brotherton, Edward Allen Compton, Lord Alwyne
Arrol, Sir William Butcher, John George Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Campbell,J. H. H.(Dublin Univ. Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ed. T. H. Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cautley, Henry Strother Dalkeith, Earl of
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire) Davenport, William Bromley-
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham
Balfour, Rt. Hon.A.J. (Manch'r Chantberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A(Wore. Dickson, Charles Scott
Balfour,RtHn Gerald W.(Leeds Chapman, Edward Dimsdale,Rt.Hon.Sir Joseph C.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Charrington, Spencer Doughty, Sir George
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lees. Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir WilliamHart Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sir J.(Mancr' Leveson-(Gower. Frederick N.S. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Finch, Rt. Hon. Georee H. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Finlay, Sir Eobert Bannatyne Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon M'Killop, James (Stirlingrshire) Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Forster, Henry William Manners, Lord Cecil Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick.S.W. Massey-Mainworing, Hn. W. F. Spear, John Ward
Galloway, William Johnson Maxwell,RtHn.SirH.H.(Wigt'n Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Gibbs Hon. A. G. H. Maxwell,W. J.H (Dumfriesshire Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Gorden, J. (Londonderry, S.) Milvain, Thomas Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Grenfell, Williain Henry Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow Tuff, Charles
Gretton, John Morrell, George Herbert Valentia, Viscount
Groves, James Grimble Mount, William Arthur Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.
Hall, Edward Marshall Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham(Bute Wattle, Colonel C. E.
Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry murray, col. wyndham (Bath) Webb, Colonel William George
Hay, Hon. Claude George Perey, Earl Whiteley,H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Heath, James (Stafford, N.W. Plummer, Sir Walter R. Wylie. Alexander
Hermon-Hadge, Sir Robert T. Pretyman, Ernest George Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Hope,J.F.(Sheftield, Brightside Rankin, Sir James
Hunt, Rowland Reid, James (Greenock) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Jessel, Captzlin Herbert Merton Remnant, James Farquharson Alexander Acland-Hood
Kerrr, John Itenwiek, George and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Keswick, William Ridley, Hon.M.W. (Stalybridge
Knowles, Sir Lees Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Original Question again proposed.

*MR. RUNCIMAN

said that the Cunard Company, if it went into the market to obtain money in the usual way, would certainly have to pay over 4 per cent., so hat the Government were advancing money to the company at 1¼ per cent. less than the market considered safe. Beyond that, the Government paid a subsidy of £150,000 with respect to two steamships. The Cunard Company would repay £130,000 of the loan and £35,000 in interest. So that the company would pay £15,000 per annum to the Government, and would be insuring for themselves, at the end of twenty years, the entire ownership of those two vessels which the Government were financing at the startlingly low rate of 2¾per cent. From the present state of the money market he calculated that it would cost the Government something like 3½ per cent, to float their Exchequer bonds, so that in that transaction alone there would be a dead loss to the Government of ¾ per cent. on the loan of £2,500,000. That was a thoroughly bad business transaction. The whole genesis of this transaction grew out of Admiralty requirements and the state of panic which the Government did a great deal to foster at the time of the formation of the Morgan Combine. The Secretary to the Admiralty defended the proposal by saying that one of its main objects was to allay the panic which had somehow captured the British people. If the Government had known anything about shipping they would have known that the Morgan Combine, given its inception, was doomed to failure. The whole control had now practically drifted back to Liverpool under, he believed, Mr.[...]smay. It was stated that these vessels were not to perform the ordinary duties of cruisers: it was therefore to be assumed that they were to act as scouts or despatch vessels. But how could so enormous an increase of the nation's indebtedness be justified merely for the purpose of securing two scouts or two despatch vessels? Moreover, if it was necessary to embark on this undertaking, why did the Government at the same time withdraw from similar undertakings with regard to other companies? It was material to the question to consider the vessels in respect of which this agreement was entered into—the cross registered tonnage and the value at which the Government would be hound to purchase the vessels if in time of war they considered it necessary to do so. The "Lucania" and the "Campania" were advancing rapidly in age; their tonnage was 12,900, and under this agreement the Government would be compelled to purchase those vessels at £350,000, or £28 per gross registered ton. The whole tonnage of the fleet from top to bottom was 110,000, and the sum at which the Government would be compelled to purchase was £1,990,000. The total market value of the shares of this company when the agreement was drawn up was £1,200,000, and since that time the Government had undertaken to purchase a portion of the property represented by those shares for £1,990,000. That was one of the reasons why they found their credit running out and why they had to resort to all sorts of schemes in order to raise the wind. The Cunard Company was under an obligation to allow their boats out on hire, if necessary, at a certain rate, and what was that rate? If the speed was above twenty-two knots the charge was 30s. per gross registered ton. There was no ship-owner in the country who was not prepared to allow his vessels out on hire for ever at that price. Recently they had had a chance of testing these figures and he had found that out of the whole list of 117 vessels of a fairly fast speed only a few received over 20s. per gross registered ton. What did the "Aurania," which was just under seventeen knots, receive? The agreement stated that if she steamed seventeen knots she would get 20s.

*THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,) Suffolk, Woodbridge

said these terms were in existence at the time trader the old agreement which had been embodied in this agreement. He thought the hon. Gentleman opposite was a business man and he ought to know that when they made terms for compulsory hire they were higher than when they were made in the open market.

*MR. RUNCIMAN

said this company undertook to place their fleet at the disposal of the Government upon those terms. Supposing the Admiralty went into the market at the beginning of the next war. If they were able to hire vessels at anything under these rates, did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Cunard Company could not come down and insist upon the Government taking some of their vessels? Was the hon. Member not aware that by this agreement the Government practically settled the price?

*MR. PRETYMAN

said the hon. Member had stated that the "Aurania" was obtained at a much less rate.

*MR. RUNCIMAN

said he could not understand why the "Aurania" was chartered at 16s. per gross registered ton at a time when she was entitled to 17s. 6d. according to the agreement.

*MR. PRETYMAN

said that the Cunard Company had to take at that time, and they would have to take in future, whatever they could obtain in the ordinary market in competition with other companies, and that was what was obtained for the "Aurania." The Cunard Company were bound by this agreement to let the ships to the Admiralty at that rate, but the Admiralty were not bound to take them at that rate. This was binding on the company but not Oil the Admiralty.

*MR. RUNCIMAN

said that he quite understood the position indicated by the hon. Gentleman, but that did not at all meet the point. The agreement would give an enormously high profit to those engaged in this particular service. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain how far we could rely on the old figures incorporated in the new agreement. Perhaps he would further tell the Committee what was to be the exact standing of these vessels. Were they to be vessels like the Volunteer Fleet—of a semi-mercantile and semi-warlike character? If they were to be vessels similar to the Russian Volunteer Fleet what would happen if one of the new Cunarders happened to be at New York at the moment when we went to war with another Power? Of course, the House did not know at present the exact bearing on this scheme of the questions raised by the recent passage of the Volunteer Fleet through the Dardanelles, but he ventured to suggest that the complications which were arising with regard to that fleet would considerably handicap us with regard to the employment of these Cunard vessels if they happened to be outside our waters when hostilities broke out. The House ought to have an opportunity of discussing the whole of this question, not at 5 o'clock in the morning, when it was impossible to have a full discussion, and when a large number of hon. Members were prevented from being there.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

said his hon. friend stated a little earlier that it was not possible to have an effective discussion of the subject at this hour of the morning. He thought the Committee would be generally of opinion that the hon. Gentleman had erred on the side of modesty, for he had just delivered a comprehensive and vigorous speech, in which he had shown a profound knowledge of the whole of this complicated subject. He ventured to say that a more lucid statement had rarely been heard, and it argued not less for his hon. friend's vigour than his intellectual strength that he had been able to deliver such a speech. His hon. friend had laid before the House the details of this extraordinary agreement. It was quite clear that for an annual payment during twenty years of £15,000 the Cunard Company would ultimately become the possessors of these two great ships of the value of £2,600,000. The value of the company's fleet in being was only estimated by them at a sum of £2,000,000. This wonderful argument was due to the President of the Board of Trade, who was thrown into a state of panic by the Morgan combination.

MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD (Liverpool, West Derby)

appealed to the Chairman for a ruling as to whether the agree- ment or the raising of the money was the proper subject for discussion.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The question before the Committee is the means of raising the money, but in discussing the, means of raising the money it would be in order for the hon. Member to discuss the agreement.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

said he would endeavour not to trespass long upon the indulgence and attention of the Committee. He should like to say that this shipping agreement was the twin brother of the Sugar Bounty Convention.

*THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can discuss the Sugar Bounty Convention.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

said he did not mean to do more than mention it. This agreement and the Sugar Bounty Convention were the product of the right hon. Gentleman's brain at the time when all those new ideas of taxation were abroad. Everybody knew that the great steel combination had broken down and that the great shipping combine had also broken down, and was the laughing-stock of everybody except the shareholders. He did not pretend that this question should be settled on financial or even purely economic grounds. He recognised the fact that the blue-ribbon of the Atlantic was a thing that they ought not to forget. It had its sentimental value apart from its practical value, which no politician who took a comprehensive view of the question could possibly ignore. Of course, the Admiralty had to consider the question from a naval and military point of view. The question of the value of cruisers and scouts was now being discussed, but why should the Admiralty have gone to a private company to solve the problem instead of solving it for themselves? He admitted that to have steamers running at 24½ knots an hour would enable us to send troops on an emergency to some critical point; but he thought that, on reflection, it would be found that we had made an extremely bad bargain, no matter with however laudable an object. He trusted that when the Committee stage was reached there would be full discussion as to whether we had or had not made bad terms with the Cunard Company. He held that numerous facts, which were accumulating, showed that when a Government interfered in the affairs of trade they frequently committed blunders.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said he regretted the somewhat unreasonable and unconciliatory attitude which had been shown by the Prime Minister. He anticipated that after what had taken place that night there would be many other nights like it. He contemplated going away at the end of this week and leaving others to take up the duty of denouncing the Government and all their works. The junior Member for Oldham must then represent the Liberal Party in the House. He had wanted to discuss the question of Uganda, but the Prime Minister got up and moved the closure. As to this Cunard agreement, they knew that it had been rushed through the House on 12th August last year, when there was no possibility of discussion, and when there were only about eight Members in the House when the division was challenged. The Prime Minister had made a most solemn engagement that the matter would be properly discussed. A more foolish and silly arrangement than that which was now under discussion had never been entered upon. He regarded it as most unfair to other shipowners. They were giving large sums of money to this company to build ships which would be employed in their own trade, when there was no war, and when the probability was that the country would not be at war with any modern Power. The company would be able to charge smaller rates than other companies, and that would be unfair. He denied that this was a good speculation. The representative of the Navy had not explained what advantage would be derived from these ships, and whether it would not have been better to have built ships of their own. He hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would give an explanation. At present there was some difficulty with Russia owing to the action of the volunteer fleet in the Red Sea; and complications of a similar character might arise if they accepted these new ships as ships of war. In the event of war they might find themselves in conflict with France, Germany, or the United States. If the Secretary to the Treasury was able to show him what advantage would he derived from the ships he would be prepared to accept his view in preference to his own.

*MR. PRETYMAN

said the gravamen of the attack upon this agreement was based upon two main grounds. One was that they were not getting value for their money and that the Cunard Company were getting very much the best of the bargain. In that connection he might be allowed to quote the words used in the debate on this subject last year by two Gentlemen on the Benches opposite. The hon. Member for Gloucester said— He really did not think the Cunard Company had much to congratulate themselves upon. On the whole he was inclined to congratulate the Cunard Company more upon their courage in taking this contract than upon their luck in getting it. The late Sir William Allen, who also had considerable knowledge of shipping matters, said— He thought this was purely a matter of business, and that from the financial point of view the Government had got the best of the bargain.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

Experience has dissipated these predictions.

*MR. PRETYMAN

said that at any rate they showed that this was an open question among authorities on the other side of the House, and the Committee should not accept it as proved that as a purely business matter the Cunard Company had got anything more than the value they were giving in return. The other point raised was that since the agreement was entered into in a moment of panic everything had changed. He entirely traversed that statement. Nothing had changed from the point of view of the Admiralty. The only thing that had changed was the case as regards the Atlantic combine. How far that change had been brought about by the very fact of this agreement being in existence he left the Committee to estimate. What the Admiralty were getting in return for this agreement were ships of a speed which would enable them to command the Atlantic. There were in existence at this moment four steamers of considerably greater speed than any steamer owned in this country. Bearing in mind recent events, the position of the food supplies of the country, and the fact that there were four steamers on the Atlantic which we could not catch, he thought it would be worth a large sum to obtain vessels which would secure to them—

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

Are there no warships that could catch these steamers?

*MR. PRETYMAN

said the range of a warship was measured in a totally different way to that of a merchant ship. Atlantic liners were constructed on very different lines to warships. The new Cunarders would be able, if necessary, to command the Atlantic. They would be able to catch any ship which could be placed on the Atlantic to injure their trade and stop their food supplies.

SIR EDWARD GREY

How soon will they be ready?

*MR. PRETYMAN

said the orders for the ships had already been given by the Cunard Company. One was being built on the Tyne, the other on the Clyde. He believed something under two years was the term within which the ships would be completed.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that he did not think the hon. Gentleman was serious in one suggestion he made that this agreement contributed in any degree to smash up the international combine. The hon. Gentleman's idea was that this agreement had something to do with the failure of the Morgan combine.

*MR. PRETYMAN

said he did not suggest that.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE

said that the moment the panic was over people would not see anything in it. During the panic the idea, was that the ships of this country would be taken over by other countries and that they would have no ships left. But the combine had turned out an absolute failure, and it was a serious warning to American shareholders not to attempt anything similar in the future. The combine had been a matter of the greatest possible securityto this country, as it showed how utterly impossible it was to run anything of the kind except in a free-trade country such as this. He thought the agreement was one of the things which it would have been better had they not entered into. They had shown the peoples of the world that they could meet them on equal terms; but instead of doing that the Government got frightened, and the idea got abroad that this country was afraid and that it was conscious of a certain weakness in its position, whereas if they went on at before they would have been suecessfel. They. however, got frightened by newspaper articles in the Daily Mail and other newspapers which helped to make the South African War; and the Government said that they would do something striking and dramatic. Governments which acted in that manner were generally the most feeble in the long run. It was Lord Salisbury's great strength that he never allowed himself to be affected by panic. If the Government had looked at all the conditions,

they would have known that this country could have fought the great American combine and could have beaten it. They might have started a serious shipping war with America. A formidable agitation arose for the American Government to enter into similar arrangements, and if a Presidential election had beet pending no one could tell what might have happened. Luckily there was a Government in power in America sufficiently strong to resist the pressure, otherwise we might have been involved in a serious shipping war with America. It was a question not of whether this was a good or bad bargain on its merits, but of whether it was desirable for the Government to enter into transactions of this character. He submitted that the agreement constituted a dangerous precedent which ought not to be followed.

MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)

rose to speak.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL,

seated and covered, said this was the second time the hon. Member for Crewe had risen to address the Committee, and on both occasions he had been closured.

MR. TOMKINSON

explained that he only rose to ask a Question.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 303.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Arkwright, John Stanhope Arrol, Sir William
Anson, Sir William Reynell Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. HughO. Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Fitzroy, Hn.EdwardAlgernon Murray,Rt.Hn.AGraham(Bute
Bailey, James (Walworth) Forster, Henry William Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Foster,Philip S.(Warwick,S.W. Percy, Earl
Balcarres, Lord Galloway, William Johnson Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Balfour,Rt.Hon. A.J. (Manch'r Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds Gordon. J. (Londonderry, S.) Pretyman, Ernest George
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury Rankin, Sir James
Blundell, Colonel Henry Grenfell, William Henry Reid, James (Greenock)
Brassey, Albert Grotton, John Remnant, James Farquharson
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Groves. James Grimble Renwick, George
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hall, Edward Marshall Ridley,Hon.M. W. (Stalybridge
Butcher, John George Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Hay, Hon. Claude George Royds, Clement Molyneux
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Heath, James (Stalfords. N.W. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Hobert T. Sarkville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A(Worc. Hone,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Chapman, Edward Hunt, Rowland Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Charrington, Spencer Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Kerr, John Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Coates, Edward Feetham Keswick, William Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Knowles, Sir Lees Spear, John Ward
Compton, Lord Alwyne Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Dalkeith, Earl of Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S. Tuff, Charles
Davenport, William Bromley- Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S) Valentia, Viscount
Davies,Sir Horatio D.(Chatham Loyd, Archie Kirkman Walrond,Rt.Hn. Sir William H.
Dickson, Charles Scott Lyttelton, Ht. Hon. Alfred Warde, Colonel C. E.
Dimsdale,Rt. Hn.Sir Joseph C. M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Webb, Colonel William George
Doughty, Sir George Manners, Lord Cecil Whiteley,H.(A.shton und. Lyne
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Maxwell, Rt.Hn.Sir H. E(Wigt'n Wylie, Alexander
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart Milvain, Thomas
Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst MorgamDavidJ.(Walthamstow Alexander Acland-Hood
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Morrell, George Herbert and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Mount, William Arthur
NOES,
Ainsworth, John Stirling Horniman, Frederick John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Barran, Rowland Hirst Jones,William (Carnarvonshire Soares, Ernest J.
Benn, John Williams Joyce, Michael Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Boland, John Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W. Sullivan, Donal
Brigg, John Kilbride, Denis Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Bright, Allan Heywood Labouchere, Henry Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Caldwell, James Levy, Maurice Thomas, J. A (Glamorcan,Gower
Causton, Richard Knight Lyell, Charles Henry Toinkinson, James
Churchill, Winston Spencer Moss, Samuel Toulnin, George
Cullinan, J. Murphy, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Doogan, P. C. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Edwards, Frank Norman, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Elibank, Master of O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Wilson,Henry J. (York.W.R.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Rickett, J. Compton TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Harcourt,Lewis V.(Rossendale Runciman, Walter Herbert Gladstone and
Higham, John Sharpe Shackleton, David James Mr. William M'Arthur.

Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided:—Ayes. 121; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 304.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy
Anson, Sir William Reynell Arrol, Sir William Bailey, James (Walworth)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bain, Colonel James Robert
Balcarres, Lord Foster,Philip S.(Warwick,S.W. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Balfour,Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Galloway, William Johnson Percy, Earl
Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW,(Leeds Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gordon, J (Londonderry, S.) Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury Pretyman, Ernest George
Brassey, Albert Grenfe11, William Henry Rankin, Sir James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gretton, John Reid, James (Greenock)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Groves, James Grimble Remnant, James Farquharson
Butcher, John George Hall, Edward Marshall Renwick, George
Campbell,J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Hamilton,Marq.of(L'nd'nderry Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hay, Hon. Claude George Robertson Herbert (Hackney)
Cavendish,V.C. W. (Derbyshire Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor Heath, James (Staffords. N.W. Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.A(Worc. Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool
Chapman, Edward Hope,J. F.(Sheflield,Brightside Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-
Charrington, Spencer Hunt, Rowland Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Clive, Captain Percy A. Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Coates, Edward Feetham Kerr, John Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Keswick, William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Compton, Lord Alwyne Knowles, Sir Lees Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Corbett. T. L. (Down, North) Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Spear, John Ward
Craig,CharlesCurtis (Antrim, S. Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Davenport, William Bromley- Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) Tuff, Charles
Dickson, Charles Scott Loyd, Archie Kirkman Valentia, Viscount
Dimsdale,Rt.Hon. Sir JosephC Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.
Doughty, Sir George M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Warde, Colonel C. E.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Manners, Lord Cecil Webb, Colonel William George
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W. F. Whitcley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Maxwell,Rt.HnSir H.E.(Wigt'n Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire Wylie, Alexander
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Milvain, Thomas Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Morgan, David J(Walthamstow TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Morrell, George Herbert Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Mount, William Arthur
Forster, Henry William Murray,Rt.Hn A.Graham(Bute
NOES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Horniman, Frederick John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Barran, Rowland Hirst Jones,William (Carnarvonshire Soares, Ernest J.
Benn, John Williams Joyce, Michael Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Boland, John Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W Sullivan, Donal
Birgg, John Kilbride, Denis Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Bright, Allan Heywood Labouchere, Henry Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Caldwell, James Levy, Maurice Tomkinson, James
Causton, Richard Knight Lyell, Charles Henry Toulmin, George
Cullinan, J. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Doogan, P. C. Murphy, John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Edwards, Frank Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Elibank, Master of Norman, Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid Henry J. Wilson and Mr. Moss.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale Rickett, J. Compton
Higham, John Sharpe Shackleton, David James

Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £2,600,000, as are required for making the Advances to the Cunard Steamship Company (Limited), under an Agreement with that Company, dated 30th July, 1903, and approved by the

House of Commons 12th August, 1903, to authorise the Treasury to borrow money, by means of Exchequer Bonds, for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof, the principal of and interest on such bonds to be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and to make other provisions relating to the said Agreement.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report this Resolution to the House."

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fergusson,Rt.Hin.Sir J.(Manc'r Morrell, George Herbert
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fieiden, Edward Brocklehurst Mount, William Arthur
Arkwright, John Stanhope Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham(Bute
Arnold-Forster,Rt. Hn.HughO. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Arrol, Sir William Fitzroy,Hon.EdwardAlgernon Percy, Earl
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Forster, Henry William Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Foster,Philip S. (Warwick,S.W. Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Galloway, William Johnson Pretyman, Ernest George
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gibbs. Hon. A. G. H. Rankin, Sir James
Balcarres, Lord Gordon, J (Londonderry, S.) Reid, James (Greenock)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury Remnant, James Farquharson
Balfour,Rt Hn.GeraldW.(Leeds Grenfell, William Henry Renwick, George
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gretton, John Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Blundell, Colonel Henry Groves, James Grimble Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brassey, Albert Hall, Edward Marshall Royds, Clement Molyneux
Brodrick, Bt. Hon. St. John Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderry Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hay, Hon. Claude George Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Butcher, John George Heath, Arthur Howard Hanley Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Campbell,J.H.M. (Dublin Univ. Heath, James (Staffords. N.W. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Carson. Et. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cavendish,V. C. W.(Derbyshire Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hunt, Rowland Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc. Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Chapman, Edward Kerr, John Spear, John Ward
Charrington, Spencer Keswick, William Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Clive, Captain Percy A. Knowles, Sir Lees Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Coates, Edward Feetham Law, Andrew Boner (Glasgow) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Tuff, Charles
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Legge,Col. Hon. Heneage Valentia, Viscount
Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S. Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S. Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Long,Rt.Hn. Walter (Bristol,S. Warde, Colonel C. E.
Dalkeith, Earl of Loyd, Archie Kirkman Webb, Colonel William George
Davenport, William Bromley- Lyttellon, Rt. Hon. Alfred Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne
Davies,Sir HoratioD.(Chatham M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Dickson, Charles Scott Manners, Lord Cecil Wylie, Alexander
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn.Sir Joseph C. Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Wyndham-Quin. Col. W. H.
Doughty, Sir George Maxwell.Rt.Hn.SirH.E.(Wigt'n
Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers- Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Milvain, Thomas Alexander Acland-Hood
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Dyke, Rt.Hn. Sir WilliamHart Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow
NOES.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Horniman, Frederick John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Barran, Rowland Hirst Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Soares, Ernest J.
Benn, John Williams Joyce, Michael Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Boland, John Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W. Sullivan, Donal
Brigg, John Kilbride, Denis Tbomas,David Alfred (Merthyr
Bright, Allan Heywood Levy,Maurice Thomas,JA.(Glamorgan,Gower
Caldwell, James Lyell, Charles Henry Tomkinson, James
Causton, Richard Knight M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Toulmin, George
Cullinan, J. Noss, Samuel White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Dcogan, P. C. Murphy, john Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Edwards, Frank Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Elibank, Master of Norman, Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid Henry J. Wilson and Mr. Theodore Taylor
Gladstone,RtHn.Herbert John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Harcomtt, Lewis V.(Rossendale Rickett, J. Compton
Higham, John Sharpe Shackleton, David James

Resolution to be reported this day.

Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 2nd day of August

The Committee divided;—Ares, 121; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 305.)

Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at ten minutes after Six of the clock a.m.