HC Deb 11 May 1904 vol 134 cc1101-40
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON (Durham, Barnard Castle)

said the Resolution he desired to submit to the consideration of the House dealt with two anomalies in our electoral system which imposed disabilities upon a large section of the community and which were inconsistent with true representative government. The first of these was the charges imposed on Parliamentary candidates by the returning officers. The total expenditure in the last general election for 1,103 candidates in the United Kingdom was £777,429 0s. 1d., and of this amount no less than £150,278 10s. 11d. was for returning officers' charges. In England and Wales 825 candidates paid £119,041 5s. 5d; in Scotland 141 candidates paid £19,396 9s. 4d., and in Ireland 137 candidates paid £11,840 16s. 2d. In the case of England and Wales the total charge was made of the following items— Presiding officers, clerks and counters, £56,6756s. 11d. Polling places, £24,540 17s. 1d. Professional assistance, £19,927 17s. 5½d. Ballot boxes, ballot papers, dies and advertising, £15,544. Publishing notices and making return to the Clerk of the Crown,£10,04815s.10½d. Travelling expenses and carriage of ballot boxes. £10,452 1s. 6d. Issuing nomination papers. £2,040 19s 5d. All other expenses, £7,121 5s. 11d. In the Romford Division the candidates paid between them £874 17s. 1d.; in the case of five constituencies the candidates paid between them over £700; in ten they paid over £600; in eighteen over £550; in twenty-six over £500; in thirty-eight over £450; in thirty-three over £400. One hundred and thirty-two candidates in England and Wales paid over £400. One labour candidate paid half of £740. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division paid half of £665. And let it be remembered all this was paid for creating the necessary election machinery for the convenience of the public. During recent years the local authorities had rightly had great regard for the convenience of the electors and had given greater facilities. New polling places had been made and consequently more returning officers and clerks were necessary, each of whom meant another fine upon the candidate. The Legislature had already admitted the justice of making these charges a claim upon the public funds, as would be seen from local elections, the charges for which were provided out of the local funds. He contended that charges of Parliamentary elections should come upon the public funds, and expressed the opinion that their retention as a fine upon the candidates was altogether indefensible.

The second point dealt with by the Resolution, the payment of Members, was, he was quite aware, not so popular with some sections of the House as the first, but a strong case could be made out in support of the principle. In the first place, this House should be representative of every section of the community. Less than that was inconsistent with true self-government. What was the position to-day? The majority of the House belonged to a section of the people which was not numerically the strongest. The late Lord Salisbury, speaking on the Shop Hours Bill, had said— This is one of the cases in which the two Houses of Parliament occupy a somewhat difficult position. They are asked to legislate as to matters affecting the personal happiness and well-being of a very large number of persons—a very large class to which, with scarcely an exception, the Members of the two Houses do not themselves belong. It is, therefore, very difficult for them to know how such a measure would affect the comfort of the classes concerned. This difficulty did not exist with the brewing interest, with its fifty representatives in this House, to say nothing of those indirectly interested whom they had seen clustering like bees on the Benches opposite, waiting to vote in their own interest; it did not exist with the manufacturing classes, who had 160 representatives; or with the law with their 140; or with the landed interest with their 100 representatives in this House. It was when they came to the smaller commercial interests and the working classes that they found the smallest representation. This was not the result of deliberate selection from an unlimited area. It was the inevitable outcome of the barriers and restrictions which obtained. He thought they might fairly ask that that state of things should be altered. Not only should the area of supply be larger, but those elected should be not only the representatives of the constituencies, but the servants of the nation. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham once said— You pay Ministers of the Crown, and I cannot understand why Members of Parliament should be the only people to work for nothing, If Members of Parliament were paid it is possible they would feel a higher responsibility to those who employed them; they would then be the representatives of the people in the fullest and most complete sense. Both sides of the House professed to have an educational policy which would open the door of the University to the child of the poorest parents in the country. Surely with such a policy as that, it was inconsistent to close the door of this House against the man, the product it might be of this University training and democratic progress in education. This education policy with which both sides of the House agreed was not given to the child, which had the capacity to take advantage of it, for its own sake. It was given in the hope that at some time or other the child would be able to give a return to the State whose money had brought him to that high state of proficiency. That being so, the logical corollary was that the door of this House should be open as wide as possible.

In making the request that the principle of payment of Members should be adopted, they only asked that this count y should come into line with nearly all the countries of the world having constitutional government. With one exception the Continental nations had come into line, and were paying their representatives. Nearly every one of our Colonies had adopted the same principle, and in most cases not only paid members of the Legislature salaries, but made allowances for house-rent and travelling expenses as well, and he had yet to learn that that policy was working in any but a satisfactory manner. But it was not necessary to go so far for a precedent. In this country we were and had been for years paying the Ministers of the Crown, and he had always felt that if a Gentleman, after giving many years to the service of this House got a substantial salary as a Minister, and a perpetual reward in the shape of a pension, when his Party went out of office, for services rendered in the House, a good case could be made out for the payment of a moderate stipend to each Parliamentary representative for the work that he did. They were told that if once they admitted the principle of payment of Members there would be the danger of professional politicians entering the House. Why the House was full of them already. They were also told that if the professional politician entered this House its status would be lowered. If it were not irreverent, he would say, God help them if they got any lower than at present. He believed the payment of Members would have the directly opposite effect. If Members received a stipend and they could make each Member take out his "board" or ticket when he entered the House and put it in when he had finished his day's work, there would be no room for the professional politician; they would have to be workers and put in their time, and their constituents would see that they put in an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. In conclusion, he asked that the principles of the Resolutions should be accepted, not for the purpose of bestowing a measure of patronage upon one section of the people, not as an expression of sympathy with labour representation, but as an evidence that the right of free and unrestricted choice was to be given to the people for the selection of their Parliamentary representation. He begged to move the Resolution standing in his name.

* MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)

said that in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member he wished to recall the history of this movement since the passing of the last Reform Act. In 1886, shortly after he entered the House, a Bill was promoted by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth to reduce the official cost of elections so far as Ireland was concerned. His hon. friend was fortunate enough not only to secure a Second Reading but to put it through the other stages in the House. While the Bill was in Committee they succeeded in carrying an Amendment to relieve Parliamentary candidates in Ireland, successful or unsuccessful, of all official costs. The Bill went to another place, the Members of which were unlike the Members of this House in that they had not to face constituents or bear the burden of the cost of election. That Amendment was struck out of the Bill, and before this House had an opportunity of reconsidering the House of Lords Amendment, a dissolution took place, and consequently the Bill fell through. In 1888 he called the attention of the House by Resolution to this question, and invited hon. Members to revert to what was the constitutional practice in this country of paying Members for their services in Parliament. On that occasion his Resolution was supported by 135 votes in a House consisting of 327 Members. That, to him, was a very satisfactory result, considering that on a previous occasion, when the question was brought before the House by the late Mr. P. A. Taylor, the Member for Leicester, only twenty-six Members followed him into the division lobby. Four years later he raised the question again, when the Motion was supported by 162 in a House of 189 Members. In the following session his hon. friend Mr. W. Allen, late Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne took charge of the Motion, and on that occasion he was successful in obtaining a majority of forty-seven in a very full House of 505 Members. In 1895 the question was again raised, and the Resolution was passed by a majority of eighteen. There the question stood until last session, when the Motion of the hon. Member for Woolwich fell through as they were unable to take a division under the Twelve O'clock Rule. From this review, hon. Members would see that public opinion in reference to this question had been gradually growing from time to time, as the votes of Members clearly indicated.

What had always been the object which Parliament had in view when it undertook to broaden the franchise? The object both in the Reform Bill of 1832 and that of 1867 was to broaden the basis of the Constitution, and to secure a more full and complete representation of the people in the House of Commons. It was intended to make this House more responsive to the opinion of the people of the country, and to give the people more control over Parliament. No one would venture to deny the justice of the abstract principle that those to whom the franchise had been given were entitled to the fullest, freest, and most complete liberty of choice of those who were going to represent them in this House. Indeed, it seemed to him that the broadening of the franchise without affording the means at the same time of making a free choice or selection of Parliamentary candidates was a mere mockery and delusion to the electors. The abstract principle was beyond gainsay; but he contended that under our present constitutional practice that full liberty of choice was denied the electors. He would like to cite one or two authorities on this point— Liberty of choice, Mr. Cohen told the men of Newcastle— for all, from all, is little better than a mockery if the roll of candidates is limited by the imposition of conditions that one class only can comply with. What more right has a country to the unremunerative labour of those who work by the intellect than to the product of the rest of the community? Pay all election expenses out of the rates, and Members of Parliament out of the taxes. Then, and not till then, will there be a Government freely assented to by all, and working for all. His hon. friend the Member for Barnard Castle Division had called the attention of the House to the enormous expense which had to be borne by every candidate on both sides of the House. He himself had had to run the gauntlet of five contested elections since 1885. Five-sixths of the constituency which he had the honour to represent consisted of working men, and the official expenses in these contests amounted to £1,514. That money had to come out of the pockets of the working men. He maintained that that was a cost which Parliamentary candidates ought not to bear. He remembered that at the first election after the last Reform Bill, in the county of Northumberland every candidate had to pay for the ballot boxes, in many cases more than their real value, and six months afterwards they were charged again for those same ballot boxes. He held that it was a monstrous thing that men who gave their time to the public interests should be subjected to fleecing such as that, for it was nothing short of fleecing. At the election of local authorities, candidates did not have to bear the official costs of the election. In 1894 there was a debate in this House on the question, and his right hon. friend the Member for Montrose Burghs then said— The proposal before us will not only open the door of the House to workmen, but will facilitate the entrance of men of moderate means of all classes. The easier it becomes for Members to enter this House on their merits, and on the strength of the principles which they profess, the more lofty will become the authority of Parliament, and the greater the chance of its counsels being prudent and wise. He thoroughly agreed with the sentiment therein expressed. Speaking in that same debate, the late Lord Randolph Churchill made use of the following language— It was the greatest object the State could achieve to get a complete representation of all classes in Parliament, whether they were labour representatives, representatives of the middle classes, representatives of literature, or science, or art, or law, or even of the landed interest; and therefore it was right that to achieve that end there should be a contribution from the Consolidated Fund. No one, let him say, in any previous debate on this subject had ventured to question its justice.

Now, as to the second part of the Resolution, which dealt with the question of the payment of Members. He knew that it would probably meet with less favour on the part of hon. Members, particularly those on the other side of the House, but he ventured to say that in all previous debates the opponents of this Resolution had carefully refrained from attacking the principle and had approached the consideration of the matter entirely from the point of view of expediency. He should doubt also whether anyone who spoke that evening on behalf of the Government would put forward any other argument against the proposal than the argument of expediency. That was an argument he could understand in the depleted state of the Exchequer at this moment; but he hoped, if the Government intended to vote against the Resolution, and particularly the last part of it, they would turn their attention to the principle involved, and not ride off on the argument of expediency. When he raised the question in 1888 the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, who took part in the debate, was careful to say that he did not oppose the principle of paying Members. "He was not I sure," said the right hon. Gentleman, "that the day might not come when it might be expedient to pay Members of Parliament." Why pay Members of Parliament, it was said, when they could obtain men in abundance who were willing to serve their country gratuitously? Well, that might appeal to some hon. Members opposite, but it did not seem to him altogether a conclusive and satisfactory answer to his contention. If this House was simply to be open to men who had made their fortunes in business, or in some profession, on the Stock Exchange, or it might be on the Turf, then he contended that that was not a satisfactory arrangement. Entrance to this House ought to be easy to the humblest subject in His Majesty's dominions. His hon. friend referred to a statement made by the late Colonal Secretary. He would refer to an article written by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, which appeared in the Nineteenth Century, in which he said— There is no conclusive reason why Members should not be paid like members of the Government, and we know that this is the practice in almost every other representative Legislature. Now it was sometimes said in reply to their contention that the principle of representation in this House was based on gratuitous service. That was not so. Hon. Members who had given any consideration to this question knew perfectly well that there was such a thing as political pensions. On this point he wished to make himself perfectly clear. He was not arguing against the practice itself. It was sufficient for his argument that the practice of paying men for political services existed at the present moment. It was said that those gentleman in receipt of political pensions had withdrawn themselves from commercial pursuits, and many other opportunities of earning money, and had placed their services absolutely at the control of the public. But was there a single Member in the House who did not stand in the same position? Again, it was said that in order to obtain a political pension, a man must have held a high position; but, while having the advantage of holding high office, he was in receipt of a salary, and in that respect he was in a better position than a private Member. Sir George Trevelyan said in the House of commons that— To grant political pensions, and to refuse to pay Members of Parliament in the same circumstances as the recipients of political pensions, was the ne plus ultra of anomaly. He agreed thoroughly with Sir George Trevelyan in that respect. His hon. friend referred to the practice in the Colonies. No one would declare, so far as the Colonies were concerned, that this principle had worked other than with beneficial results. He would wait with tome degree of interest to hear that contention challenged. In that connection he wished to refer to a speech delivered in 1897 in Dublin by the right hon. G. C Kingston at that time Prime Minister of South Australia. In reply to an address presented to him by the Dublin Trades Council, who thanked him for his work on behalf of labour in South Australia, Mr. Kingston stated that there was no reform to which he attached greater importance than the payment of Members, and he added that, however strong and liberal a franchise might be, without that reform the representation of the people would be to a great extent confined to the leisured classes. He also said that it was ridiculous that when the principle of payment applied from the Queen down to the labourer it should be denied as regarded men who did good work in public affairs. That was the principle that applied in the Colonies, and which had worked with great advantage to all concerned, and he ventured to say that until that principle was conceded in this country that the franchise, however broad it might be, would be little better than a mockery and a sham. Why should the industrial classes alone have to fine themselves in order to obtain representation in this House. It might be said that if Members of Parliament were paid there would be no stopping place; and that members of county councils, district councils, and parish councils would also have to be paid. That seemed to him to be begging the question. There was no membership of any public authority outside this House which compelled a man for six months to live away from his home. The duties of a member of a county council, a district council, or a parish council were not incompatible with the duties of his profession or occupation. But representation in this House compelled a Member to withdraw himself from his home for six months in the year. Therefore there was no analogy between representation in this House and representation as a member of a local authority. The justice of their claim was absolutely established, and he sincerely hoped that the day was not far distant when it would become an established fact. He begged to second the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable and expedient that, in order to give Constituencies a full and free choice in the selection of Parliamentary Candidates, the charges now made by the Returning Officer to the Candidates should be chargeable to public funds, and that all Members of the House of Commons should receive from the State a reasonable stipend during their Parliamentary life."—(Mr. Arthur Henderson.)

* MR. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket)

said that he had listened with pleasure to the moderate speeches which had been delivered by the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion, although the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion was not moderate towards the end of his speech. But that was because the subject on which he was speaking was very close to his heart. It was a little unfortunate that the subject should be brought before the House of Commons at the present time when public money was very short. In the last three or four weeks private Members who were in a position of great freedom and no responsibility had introduced measures and Resolutions which if carried into effect, but which he hoped they would not be for the sake of the taxpayer, would involve a total expenditure of something like £10,000,000 next year. He was sorry that the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had not told the House what the total of the expenditure they proposed would be, especially at a time when the taxpayer was being almost rated out of existence. From the point of view of expediency it was really intolerable that this burden should be put on the shoulders of the people, unless it could be shown that at present Parliament did its work badly and inefficiently. Neither of the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had stated that Parliament did its work inefficiently. They only suggested that there should be more paid Members or all paid Members without reference to the efficiency of the work which was done. Essentially he was in agreement with parts of the substance of the Resolution. He was of opinion that Parliament should be recruited from all classes of the community and that the country should have what had been happily called freedom of choice, but not only from amongst representatives of the class which demanded payment of Members. He would suggest a simpler way of securing the object at which the Resolution aimed and which he thought would have the approval of every hon. Member in the House. Not only should the returning officers' expenses be paid by the State, but the legal expenditure connected with an election should be reduced all over the country. It was really intolerable that even at an uncontested by-election a Member should be charged as he now was. Further, every Gentleman who was elected to the House of Commons seemed to be regarded as the legitimate prey of every club and institution, bona fide or bogus, in his constituency. If that tradition could be broken down, a great deal more freedom of choice would exist among the subjects of the King, in connection with representation in Parliament. At present, a Member's subscription list appeared to increase rather than to diminish. The boroughs which were now within the reach of poor men to sit for would very likely be redistributed out of existence if the Bill on which the Prime Minister cast such a favouring eye came into existence.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Barnard Castle Division in his somewhat aggressive concluding remarks said that the House of Commons would probably not support the Motion because it objected to professional politicians, and he added that he thought the House objected to the Labour Members. When, however, the hon. Gentleman had been a Member of the House for a longer period he would recognise that the Labour Members were respected by all Parties. The professional politician was. however, quite another matter. Hon. Gentlemen who disagreed with the Resolution did not want politics in this country to become a trade by which men made their living. One reason was, that a man who made a profession of politics would have no occupation if he were turned out of Parliament. He had paid a certain amount of attention to the Parliaments of Europe and he did not think that the House of Commons had anything to learn from them. The Mother of Parliaments was in the proud position of having taught them everything, and he should be extremely sorry to see in the House of Commons the scenes which he had seen in almost every Parliament in Europe.

Another reason why he objected to payment of Members was that it would entail undivided attention to the work of Parliament; and, therefore, deprive Parliament of the valuable assistance of professional men and experts, not only on the floor of the House, but where better work was done, in Committees upstairs. Such men could not attend to their professional work and also occupy the position of paid Members. He thought, also, it was rather hard that the minority in a division should have to pay for the representative of the majority. When one man paid the piper it was easy to settle who was to call the tune; but when both parties paid the piper it was difficult to know who was to call the tune. It appeared to him ridiculous that a Liberal minority should have to assist in paying for the return of a Tory representative; a recrudescence of passive resistance would be inevitable; though, to be sure, it would not matter so much if the money were to be paid out of taxes, but if it were to be paid out of rates that would be another matter. He thought in the public service some private sacrifice was demanded all round. Even on the Treasury Bench many Members lost the positions which they had earned in their professions, and did not receive the equivalent in the salaries. It was true that a few ex-Ministers received pensions, but it was a mistaken view that all ex-members of a Government were pensioned. When ex-members of an Administration returned to their professions they found the greatest difficulty in getting back their practice. It was evident that public service demanded private sacrifice, and that was shown by the two Front Benches. A pecuniary sacrifice was also expected from hon. Members who sat behind the Front Benches. In the case of the Labour Members that sacrifice was surmounted by the efforts of men who wished to be represented by Labour Members. But he knew of many cases where a Member who was not a Labour Member had made great pecuniary sacrifices and had not received anything in return. Such men were not confined to either side of the House. The gain to the nation was considerable in getting public, service without payment; and he thought that the personal freedom and independence thus secured by free service more than outweighed the personal inconvenience of individuals. For these reasons, although he should press on every occasion for the reduction of electoral expenditure, he thought that no case had been made out for the Resolution; and that the House of Commons would get better and more efficient work where it was voluntarily given.

SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N.)

said he was honestly convinced that they would never get the representatives they wanted, they would never get rid of the militarism which had harmed the country so much, and they would never reduce the expenditure which had weighed them down so much, until they got a stronger Labour Party in the House. He was sorry to say county councils were suffering from the same difficulty and that the poor men were being elbowed out of these authorities because they could not afford the time and expense entailed, It was no use, however, passing Resolutions of this kind unless they purified themselves and their constituencies, and he thought he could speak in this sense because he had the good fortune to represent a constituency which was not at all greedy. His subscription list was very small, and he had no salary to pay to a man going about the constituency doing harm. But if he were a millionaire instead of being a younger son, he would not spend a halfpenny more than he did now. He should like to see everyone in the House a good hard-working man in his own profession; but it was no use voting a poor man a salary of £200 a year—he supposed it would not be more—if he were expected to spend £500 or £600 a year in subscriptions, and it was no use for the State to pay the sheriff's expenses if candidates were to pay for printing, stationery, etc., and keeping up registration. There was an excellent Bill introduced in 1893, but it was stopped by the greed of the agents. He objected to paying salaries of all kinds, and he would do away with all unions, leagues, associations, and all the rest of them. He knew of a case in which a borough got rid of a distinguished man of great ability because he did not spend enough in the constituency, and got a richer man; and he recalled an incident relative to his own first election. An elector said to him, not knowing who he was, "We want a man with £80,000 a year, and not one like Gurdon, who has not halfpenny in the world." Neither statement was quite true, but his opponent did not contradict them until he got in, and then he said he was worse off than he (Sir William) was. The most satisfactory election in which he took part was one in which the Liberal Association, of which he was president, paid the candidate's election expenses. They had one of the best Members he had known. He should support the Resolution, believing they would never get a perfect Bill until they returned the best men, irrespective of the purse.

MR. RANDLES (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

said the question divided itself into two parts. It was one thing to make it inexpensive for Members to get into the House, and another thing to pay Members for sitting there. His own sympathies were in the direction of making it inexpensive, so that a candidate should not be harassed by registration expenses, returning officers' fees and other liabilities, but that he should be able to make it an advantage to himself to become a Member and make that posi- tion to some extent a means of livelihood would be introducing an element which was altogether beside the question. He thought it was a great drawback to any class, especially the working class, that they should be debarred from a representation which was their right. They should be represented by men in their own class. That had been attained to some extent by their own good sense and judgment, which had done much, if not all, that was necessary to solve the difficulty. It was extremely likely that they would see more Labour Members in that House. The working classes had themselves solved the difficulty by subjecting themselves to a certain amount of self-sacrifice, in order to have Parliamentary representation, and that was very commendable. They had secured that end by submitting to a system of contributions. If there were no registration charges and no returning officers' fees men with a very small wage, and indifferent sort of men, might endeavour to make a living by standing for Parliament, and so the quality and character of working-class representation in that House would suffer. At present there was a process of selection by which they got excellent working-class representatives, but if it were possible to enter Parliament without charges they might perhaps have representatives who might assume to represent the working classes, but who were not fairly representative, and so split up the voting power which had returned suitable Members. It was very unfair that a man who had been elected to that House should be bound to defend his seat owing to some trivial objection and should have to right his election over again at very serious cost. That was his own experience. He successfully resisted a petition, which he thought was a very wicked one, and notwithstanding that his election was declared to have been obtained quite cleanly, and he was acquitted of all blame and obtained costs against the other side, he found it a very expensive business and was practically penalised for his success. He would say nothing against petitions which were successful or had some reasonable chance of success. So far as the Resolution went in the direction of reducing the costs and throwing them on the taxpayers, he was in entire sympathy with it, but he could not agree with that part which would conduce to men looking upon membership of the House as a means of living, and promoting interests other than those of the State. They had never found that a soldier fought better in the field because his pay was higher, or that the State was better served in any Department by men whose sole idea was remuneration.

MR. HAVILAND BURKE (King's County, Tullamore)

said they had been told that a seat in the House of Commons was a privilege worth paying for. Might it not be said in the same sense that a seat in the Cabinet was also a privilege worth paying for. He was totally unable to discriminate between the high moral dignity which accepted so many thousands a year for holding office in the Ministry, and the sordid motives which asked for a mere stipend for serving the country faithfully and regularly as an ordinary Member of the House. Where did the corruption of the Cabinet Minister or the grasping avarice of the private Members come in? They would be more likely to have a lucid debate on the question if such insulting comparisons were dropped. After all, this was a question which had been decided in the affirmative in every country in the world. Were they to be told that the morale of the Canadian Parliament was lower than that of the British House of Commons? Were they to be told that the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate in Paris were morally or judicially degraded because the Members had a modest stipend, with the right to travel free on the State railways. They had heard a good deal about corruption——

MR. MALCOLM

Is the hon. Gentleman dealing with imaginary arguments, or something that has been said?

MR. HAVILAND BURKE

said he was going on a line of his own. They had had it inferred that the payment of Members would induce a competition for seats in the House by Members whose only object would be to draw a salary and to earn a livelihood which they could not get elsewhere; that it would encourage corrupt adventurers' and ignorant politicians. Something, too, had to be said about "nursing constituencies," but the old form of corruption and bribery, under which a pocket borough was sold in the open market, and a voter got a price down for his vote, was better and more manly than the present system which so widely prevailed of the constituency sponging upon the representative and compelling him to contribute to the local church and chapel, its cattle and flower shows and sports. That was in his mind a most insidious and shameless form of corruption. The hon. Member for Stowmarket spoke very pathetically about professional politicians abroad, but he would back the House of Commons against any foreign Parliament for disgraceful scenes, as witness the scene that occurred in 1893, when there was a free fight on the floor of the House, and when false teeth and scarf pins were scattered about. Nothing so bad had ever been seen in the French Chamber. They had been told further more that it would be an injustice to the minority that a tax for this purpose should be imposed by the majority, but were not minorities being taxed every day at the will of the majority? The hon. Member for Stowmarket wept salt tears over the sacrifices of men belonging to the legal profession. Why it was enough to make a humble private Member like himself hunger for the flesh-pots of Egypt. It was really too great a demand on human credulity to ask them to believe that legal luminaries sacrificed anything by taking office under the Government. There were men in the House to-day who avowedly were supported by funds derived from public organisations, and these men occupied a perfectly honourable and above-board position, but if the present system was continued Members might be maintained, not out of funds publicly collected, but by wealthy trusts, corporations, and individuals for the maintenance of certain interests. On these grounds he thought the Motion was one that should be supported. The amount of the stipend was not worth mentioning. It need be only sufficient to enable a man to devote his whole time to the work of that House without prejudice to his actual personal interest. Personally, he took small account of the taunt about professional politicians. As a matter of fact, politics were a profession, and they were becoming more professional every year. Everybody with the smallest smattering of Parliamentary knowledge and experience was aware that during the last twenty or twenty-five years the work in this House had so increased that it was rapidly becoming impossible for a man to discharge his duty to his constituents unless he was prepared to devote to it a fair average amount of time and to put in a fair average attendance. On these grounds he should support the Motion.

SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)

said that he had the greatest sympathy with the proposal of the hon. Member, but he did not think that his plan would work. His own experience of eighteen years was that as all roads led to Rome so all charges came eventually on agricultural land. If Members of Parliament were paid, then they would have to pay county, borough, and parish councillors, so that eventually everyone would be walking about with a salary paid for by other people, and the result would be that everybody would be ruined. The mover of the Resolution was on considerably firmer ground in regard to the payment of returning officers' expenses. He remembered some time ago that after contesting an election with Mr. W. H. Wills, a former Member of this House, it was borne in upon him that the returning officers' expenses were more exorbitant than usual, and he went to law over them. He succeeded in getting 200 guineas knocked off the bill, and the learned Judge made certain remarks of a vitriolic character with reference to returning officers. The hon. Member opposite would probably find that that was the line of least resistance. As to subscription lists, they were precisely what Members chose to make them, and no more. Politically, payment of Members' expenses might not always be a good card to play. In a certain election in the West of England a candidate took that line, and at all his meetings urged with great force and vigour that his constituents should pay the expenses now generally borne by the Member. Nothing much was said against it until the eve of the poll, when an immoral opposition brought out a poster to this effect— Loans for Ireland; subscriptions for the Armenians; nothing for us; and £1 a day for himself! Good old——! The result was that that candidate found himself at the bottom of the poll.

SIR EDWARD GREY (Northumberland, Berwick)

said that the Motion before the House was not a new one. It had often been before the House, and it did not produce much new argument for or against. The objections to the Motion were two. One was the material one, on the ground of expediency; and the other was what he considered the sentimental one, on the ground of principle. As to the objection on the ground of expediency, everyone admitted its force at the present moment. The present moment was not one for advocating an increase on the public charges; but, devoted as they might be to economy, even the most devoted thought that they needed increased expenditure in some directions, and there was no more hollow part than to play the spendthrift in millions and then to try to establish a reputation for economy by holding up one's hands in horror over an increase in thousands. He believed that in some departments of the public expenditure they might save in millions; but there were others, such as education and the department now under consideration, in which he thought it was justifiable in the interests of efficiency and economy to advocate a moderate increase. He therefore put the argument of expediency on one side. As to the returning officers' expenses, he understood that the proposal found favour on both sides of the House to a certain extent. Everybody admitted that the expenses were excessive; and the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division had given a very encouraging illustration of how they might be reduced. He had not, however, stated whether his legal costs on that occasion were borne by the returning officer, nor could he guarantee that everybody who followed his example would be equally successful. What the supporters of this Resolution held was that where they had a general excess in costs they would never get it corrected except by making it to the public interest to see that the expenses were kept down, and much as they might admire the sporadic efforts of private individuals like the hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division, they must feel that the only way of getting those costs reduced was by making the public feel that they had an interest in keeping them down—that was, by putting them on the public funds. At present, they were to a certain extent met out of Party funds. Nobody but the initiated, of whom he was not one, and probably none but the initiated in the Party which had been in power for the greater part of the last eighteen years, had a thorough expert knowledge of how those funds were raised, maintained, and distributed, or of the considerations on which they were subscribed. He was convinced, at any rate, that it was not worthy of the dignity or the reputation of political life in this country that expenditure in the public interest, such as the expenses of the returning officers, should be defrayed out of privately sub-scribed Party funds. Where, on the other hand, they were not met out of Party funds, these, expenses deliberately penalised a candidate, and were a direct bar to the entrance of poor men into the House of Commons. The returning officers' expenses were imposed by the State, and ought to be borne out of public funds.

In regard to the payment of Members, he could add very little to what his hon. friend the Member for Wansbeck had said, either in logic or in principle. The House had extended the franchise widely. It had done much in theory—though still more remained to be done in practice —to make it easy for men to record their votes. That having been done, it was absurd to restrict their choice of candidates. He believed that under our present system, so great were the sacrifices required from a man who was to be a candidate for Parliament, that there was a real danger of the confidence in the representative character of the House of Commons being undermined. That was a serious argument in favour of the Motion. In logic he believed it to be irresistible. Having extended the franchise, the House of Commons was bound to make the choice of candidates free, and they could not resist that logical conclusion, unless they were prepared to say that practical consequences which would flow from the payment of Members were so grievous and injurious as to necessitate putting logic on one side. Would there be consequences of that kind? Would payment alter the character of the House of Commons? Then the further question remained: Would it alter it for the worse? In his belief it would not alter the character of the House for the worse, but, on the whole, for the better. Putting comparisons with foreign countries aside, because representative institutions worked out differently in almost every country, what was the effect likely to be amongst in at home? The effect was likely to be twofold as regarded the composition of that House. It would conduce more to the return of local men to represent the constituencies. There would always be cases where constituencies would honour themselves by passing over their own men and selecting men of real distinction in public life, in letters, or in business to represent them. But there was often the case where a constituency which needed to choose a candidate on one side or the other had in its own ranks, or within its own borders, some local man whom it knew and trusted and desired to have as its representative, and whom it was unable to have because that man could not afford the sacrifice now entailed upon him; and over and over again constituencies were placed in this discouraging position, that they were obliged to pass by the man whom they knew and would like to choose, and go outside for a man, probably a most excellent man, but one of whom they knew little, and who had as little knowledge of them. If they had payment of Members and payment of election expenses it would do a great deal to set free constituencies to induce men living amongst themselves, and whom they knew and trusted, to come forward as representatives; and the first effect would be an increase in the number of constituencies which were represented by men coming from within their own borders. That, he thought, would be to the good; certainly not to the bad. Men of real distinction would have just as little difficulty as now in being chosen.

In the next place, this change would undoubtedly help to increase the number of Labour Members. Of the present Labour Members it had been said that they had solved the difficulty of coming here. But why should they have the difficulty to solve? The number of Labour representatives had increased in recent years, but very slowly, and when they came to look at the enormous number of the wage-earning classes in the electorate and considered how intimately their interests were connected with the social problems with which the House of Commons had to deal, could it be said it was not desirable to have a larger Labour representation? The House of Commons took a genuine and sympathetic interest in these social problems, but the House of Commons would never push its way through the thicket of these problems unless' persistently urged thereto by a large body of Labour representatives. Such an increase should be welcomed on the ground of experience. The Labour representatives, as a group, compared with any other group in the House for a high percentage of merit, ability, and capacity, and experience since the franchise was lowered in 1885 would lead him to regard such an increase, not only without apprehension, but with great approval. When the first Parliament met after 1885 a good many people entertained considerable apprehension as to the composition of the new House, and feared the extension of the franchise would bring in a large body of men with crude ideas ready to embark upon revolutionary schemes. His deliberate experience since then had been to convince him that what was needed in the future House of Commons was more propelling power and less brake. That, he thought, would be the change which this proposal would be likely to effect in the composition of the House of Commons, and such a change was necessary for the solution of those social problems which they all admitted were pressing, and which, he believed, they all deplored, were advancing so slowly towards a solution. The tendency of the House of Commons was to err on the side of too much caution.

How would payment of Members affect the discharge of their duty? He believed that with good average human nature payment intensified, and did not weaken, the sense of obligation. Take the Ministers, for instance. He could quite believe that a man who undertook the office of a Minister gratuitously would feel under an obligation to do his best in the discharge of the duties of that office, but the sense of responsibility and obligation was quickened by the salary he received. He was the servant of the public, and no man was the worse servant because he was well treated by his employer. More or less, that was the position of all Members—they were servants of the public, and he did not believe that the receipt of a salary would impair their sense of responsibility. That the intensity of that sense would keep men away from the House, because they would feel they must give their whole attention and time to their Parliamentary duties, he did not believe. If the salaries were such as were paid to Ministers that might be so, but not with a salary of from £200 to £400 a year. The payments made to directors of public companies gave no claim to the whole of a man's attention. He was a director of a public company, but if he took the view that the salary he was paid was such as demanded his undivided attention he should certainly resign either his position as a director of the company or his position in the House of Commons; but if that company claimed the whole of his time, he should cease to call himself a director and claim the position and salary of a general manager. They received as directors of public companies the same sort of salary as that which was now advocated for Members of the House of Commons. What was advocated was not remuneration, but indemnity for expenditure out of pocket. If it was contended that this payment was a sort of remuneration instead of an indemnity: he would meet that objection by saying that, although a few men might seek a seat in that House for the sordid consideration of the remuneration that they were likely to receive, there were many public-spirited men who desired for honourable and legitimate motives to enter Parliament, but were now kept out, who would be able to do so. Supposing undesirable men did come forward, he believed they would be far outnumbered by desirable public-spirited men, and he would trust the constituencies to choose rightly among them.

One objection to this proposal was that it would lead to a multiplicity of candidates. They must meet that by the second ballot. The second ballot was, he thought, already a necessity. This proposal of his hon. friend's was a very moderate one. It would not do anything; even if it were carried out there would remain many inequalities and disadvantages. The advantages of wealth and leisure with regard to entering the House of Commons would always be very great. His hon. friend behind him had said that some constituences were exorbitant in their demands for subscriptions. That was an undesirable element in public life, but that House could not prevent it. All they could say in cases like that was that if a constituency chose their candidate for the length of his purse they deserved to be misrepresented. But even in other and more reputable, indirect ways, some of them beyond reproach, he thought men of wealth and leisure would continue, even under payment of Members, to have considerable advantages with regard to entrance into that House. But he did believe that it was desirable to redress the inequalities and disadvantages that now existed. He believed that by opening the door wider, as this Motion would undoubtedly do, they would, without diminishing the quality and character of the House of Commons, widen the choice of the constituencies with regard to candidates, and would increase the representative character of that House. He believed that the results of this proposal, if it was carried out, would be beneficial, and he should have no hesitation in voting for the Motion.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,) Buteshire

This is a question which has not been before the House for some time, but it is a subject which seems to enjoy a certain periodicity of recurrence. The hon. Member who seconded this Motion told the House of the various times during his Parliamentary life when he brought this subject before the House, and he told us how from a bad beginning this question had only been beaten by a gradually diminishing majority. But the hon. Member forgot that when in 1893 a Motion declaring that a reasonable salary should he granted to Members of Parliament forthwith, the right hon. Member for West Monmouth chose to interpret "forthwith" as meaning "when you have time and money," and although his Government remained in office for two years after that Motion was carried they never put that translation of "forthwith" into practice. I am very glad to acknowledge the extreme moderation and ability with which the arguments in favour of this Motion were presented to the House by both the hon. Member who moved and the hon. Member who seconded it. I look at this as above all things a practical question. The hon. Member for Wansbeck who seconded the Motion said that he had never heard it argued against in principle, and that he did not suppose that he would hear any arguments of that character to-night. I think that for the moment he forgot the terms of the Motion which he was supporting, because it is not based upon principle but upon expediency. When the hon. Member came to explain what he meant by "expediency," I think his definition was that all he meant was that the present occasion was not a very opportune one on which to spend money. On this question it is impossible to distinguish between arguments of expediency and those of principle, it is really a practical question—one of the balance of advantage. The only question of principle which the hon. Member put forward was when he said that all service ought to be paid for. I do not think that that is a proposition which will bear examination, and it is one which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would not only lead to the payment of Members of Parliament but to the payment of all the various other classes of people besides Members of Parliament, such as the members of county councils, justices of the peace, and so on; and it might even be extended to giving the voter a day's wages to induce him to record his vote on the polling day. The hon. Member tried to run away from that position by explaining that the logical outcome was not to force us to pay such bodies as the county councils, because their attendance was not such as that which was demanded in the House of Commons. The only other argument of a general character was the supposition that the payment of Members of Parliament follows as a logical consequence from the fact that Ministers receive salaries, and one hon. Member opposite stated that he could not see the difference between a Cabinet Minister and an ordinary Member of the House having a salary. If a Minister of the Crown was paid for being a Member of the House of Commons the position taken up would be perfectly true, but I apprehend that a Minister of the Crown is paid for no such thing, but he receives his salary for services rendered in his office, and not for services in the House at all. Whatever may be the view of hon. Members as to the expediency or otherwise of granting what are known as political pensions, I think it is well to remind them that such pensions are only accepted by a very limited number of Ministers, and they should be regarded more as extra remuneration or deferred pay to the person who has given his services to the State. The outcome of all this is that after all hon. Members who are in favour of this Motion have treated it from a point of view from which I am not prepared to treat it, as a question of expediency.

The particular grievance which it is sought to remedy by this Motion, is, we are told, that under the present system freedom of choice is limited. Perhaps it is not inappropriate to ask if you get work well done for nothing, why should you pay for it? I apprehend that there is no answer to that question unless you can say that you would get better work done if you paid for it. So that we come back to the old proposition of freedom of choice. I controvert the proposition at once that you would get any greater freedom of choice if you paid Members than you do under the present system. Would you get under payment of Members the class of men you want? I think you would not. I desire at once to brush away what I think was an entire misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division who proposed this Motion, and this is the only portion of his very able speech with which I entirely disagree. He said that in the mind of hon. Members of this House the professional politician and Labour Members were convertible terms. The great thing we admire in the present Labour Members is that they are not professional politicians, for we all know on what terms they come to the House. They must have made those who sent them here so sure that they are the right men to send, that they are not only willing to vote for them but willing to make certain pecuniary sacrifices from very small incomes in order to provide those hon. Members with the funds which are necessary to enable them to enter this House. That is a very good test of hon. Members being proper Labour Members. I will ask the Labour Members, do they really suppose that if a salary of £200 or £300 a year were given to Members of Parliament the same class of men would be obtained with the same certainty as you get under the present system. I think I am speaking to a good many hon. Members who know what would be the result if they inserted an advertisement in one of the daily papers tomorrow saying that they wanted a private secretary and were willing to pay £300 a year. How many applications would they get? I am certain the applications they would receive would fill many waste-paper baskets. What class of men would they get? No doubt good, bad, and indifferent, and it would be exceedingly difficult to discriminate between the quality of those who offered their services. Therefore I object to the professional politician, for his introduction would ruin the character of this House, which has made its name so high amongst the representative institutions of the world. Professional politicians would bring with them certain dangers which would be liable to be engrafted upon our political system, and they are dangers which we can avoid so long as the professional politician is not with us.

Let me tell the House what I consider a professional politician to be. I will quote from a work by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, whose fate it has been to write works, both on the Eastern and Western hemispheres, which are continually quoted against the opinions which he promulgates in this House. I, of course, allude to the right hon. Member's standard work on America, in which he wrote— Politics has now become a gainful profession in America, like advocacy, stockbroking, the dry goods trade, or the getting up of companies, People go into it to live by it, primarily for the sake of the salaries attached to the places they count on getting, secondarily in view of the opportunities it affords of making incidental and sometimes illegitimate gains. Every person in a high administrative post, whether federal, State, or municipal, and above all, every member of Congress, has opportunities of rendering services to wealthy individuals and companies for which they are willing to pay secretly in money or money's worth. That is the description of the state of affairs that arises where there is the professional politician. [OPPOSITION cries of "Protection."] That has a very remote bearing indeed on the question I am now addressing to the House. If it had any relevancy one would like to know what difference it would make on the temptations to corruption. How would that be differentiated by the fact that Members had £300 a year or had not? There, as I say, is a picture of what may happen on the introduction of the professional politician. It is a picture that represents dangers from which at present in this country we are admittedly free, and I am bound to say that a great many of the arguments which have been adduced, not only to-night but at other times, seem to me on this point to be exceedingly beside the mark. I mean beside the mark in this sense, that I cannot see how anyone can suppose that if there was any temptation to corruption the question of having a salary would be a protection against that corruption. I remember a speech on this very subject ten years ago by the hon. Member for Battersea, when he detailed in a rather graphic manner an insult that had been offered to himself in that way. Well, I take it that the letter he got, and in which he was offered £50 for his vote, was only written when he was a new Member, and because people did not know the man they had to deal with, and I do not suppose he has had many letters of that kind since he became a bettor known man. But if you suppose that that sort of offer had any temptation for him or anyone else, do you suppose that it would be a safeguard from temptation if he had a stipend of £300 a year? The position would be worse, because if £50 would not be enough something else would. You cannot have anything in that matter to trust to except character. It is your only safeguard, and, therefore, I say I cannot see how it is supposed that the giving of a salary would be a protection. Besides this question of the professional politician, there are one or two other matters worthy of notice. One has been alluded to by the hon. Baronet who has just sat down. He, I think, admitted quite frankly that he thought the result would be a considerable increase in the return of local men as against other persons. Well, I agree with him. We have a very homely Scotch proverb, so homely that I do not think I could express the idea as well. It means that you should keep for your own locality the advantages which that locality offers. I cannot help thinking that if there was anything going there would be a strong local feeling that a local man should get it, and if so, I grieve to think what at one time would have been the representation on the Front Bench opposite when hospitable Scotland entertained so many of those who had come from England

There has been a great deal of speaking to-night on what I think is a real grievance, and a thing against which we all strive. I mean the tax that is put upon Members of Parliament in other ways in the form of subscriptions and so on. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Norfolk gave us a graphic description of how he failed in an election because the opposite candidate was given out to be a man with £80,000 a year, while he himself was represented as not having a halfpenny. I could not help thinking as the hon. Baronet spoke that he failed entirely to see that although that might be very hard the present proposition would not cure it in the least. The £80,000 a year would be just as superior to the poor person who was gong to get £300 a year as to the person who was supposed to have nothing at all, because I do not suppose the stipend is going to allow any superfluities for the giving of subscriptions to local clubs. I think the effect of this measure if passed would be rather different from what some people think. I am quite certain that one effect would be a very much greater length to Parliament than at present. Hon. Members are often telling us that we ought to face the country. There would be no threat so terrible as a dissolution if it meant that every man was to loose his salary. The hon. Member who moved the Motion was wisely silent as to where the money should come from. The hon. Member who seconded it introduced that slightly archaic flavour which is sometimes so dear to hon. Members opposite by saying that this proposal was only to reintroduce the ancient practice of the realm. He forgot, I think, to tell us that it was the ancient practice of the realm for Member to be paid locally by the places that sent them, and that some places got so tired of the operation that they preferred to send no Members at all. Fearing that misadventure I suppose the proposal has generally been to put the charge on the Consolidated Fund. But I would like to make what I think is really a new suggestion to hon. Members. Why not put it on the Estimates? Then we should have one really lively evening when moving reductions on each other's salaries. I am not guilty of being a humorist, but even I could impart liveliness to a Scotch debate by examining in turn each of my compatriots and leaving them in delightful suspense as to whose salary I should like to move a reduction of in order to put myself in order at the end of my speech. I do not think any question of principle in the proper sense is involved in this Motion. Seeing the men who have in the past devoted themselves voluntarily to the service of the nation, seeing the reputation for incorruptibility which this House has always enjoyed, and seeing also that even under our present system it is not, impossible to secure proper representatives of the labouring classes by the method which I have pointed out, and which makes it certain that those who send them here are sending the right, men, I think it would be striking a blow at the idea of free and voluntary service which would cut deep into our national life if the Government accepted this Motion in any form whatsoever.

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Haldane, lit. Hon. Richard B. Pirie, Duncan V.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Hammond, John Power, Patrick Joseph
Ainsworth, John Stirling Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale Priestley, Arthur
Allen, Charles P. Harwood, George Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Atherley-Jones, L. Hayden, John Patrick Rigg, Richard
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Helme, Norval Watson Roberts, John H. (Donbighs.)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Robson, William Snowdon
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Holland, Sir William Henry Roche, John
Bell, Richard Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Roe, Sir Thomas
Black, Alexander William Horniman, Frederick John Runciman, Walter
Boland, John Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Russell, T. W.
Brigg, John Jacoby, James Alfred Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Burke, E. Haviland Johnson, John (Gateshead) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Burns, John Joicey, Sir James Shackleton, David James
Burt, Thomas Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Caldwell, James Jordan, Jeremiah Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Joyce, Michael Sheehy, David
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Kearley, Hudson E. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Causton, Richard Knight Kilbride, Denis Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cawley, Frederick Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Slack, John Bamford
Channing, Francis Allston Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Condon, Thomas Joseph Layland-Barratt, Francis Soares, Ernest J.
Crean, Eugene Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Spencer, Rt.Hn.C.R(Northants
Cremer, William Randal Leigh, Sir Joseph Sullivan, Donal
Crooks, William Levy, Maurice Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Cullman, J. Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,F.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lloyd-George, David Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Delany, William Lough, Thomas Thomas,J.A(Glamorgan,Gower
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Lundon, W. Toulmin, George
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Ure, Alexander
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles M'Crae, George Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Dobbie, Joseph M'Hugh, Patrick A. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Douclan, Captain A. M'Kean, John Wason, Eugene. (Clackmannan)
Doogan, P. C. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin White, George (Norfolk)
Duncan, J. Hastings Markham, Arthur Basil White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Elibank, Master of Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.) Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Murphy, John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Emmott, Alfred Nannetti, Joseph P. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) Wood, James
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Woodhous, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Young, Samuel
Furness, Sir Christopher O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Yoxall, James Henry
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John O'Dowd, John
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Malley, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Henderson and Mr. Fenwick.
Grant, Corrie O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick Parrott, William
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Arrol, Sir William Balcarres, Lord
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r
Anson, Sir William Reynell Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir. H. Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.
Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O. Bain, Colonel James Robert Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Question put.

The House Divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 221. (Division List No. 120.)

Bartley, Sir George C. T. Hare, Thomas Leigh Pierpoint, Robert
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich Plummer, Walter R.
Bignold, Arthur Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Blundell, Colonel Henry Heath, A. Howard (Hanley) Pretyman, Ernest George
Bond, Edward Heath, James (Staffords., N.W. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Brassey, Albert Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Pym, C. Guy
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Randles, John S.
Brymer, William Ernest Hickman, Sir Alfred Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne
Bull, William James Hobhouse, RtHn H(Somers't.E Reid, James (Greenock)
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside Remnant, James Farquharson
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hoult, Joseph Renwick, George
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Richards, Henry Charles
Chamberlain, RtHn J.A(Worc. Hudson, George Bickersteth Ridley, Hon. M.W(Stalybridge
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hunt, Rowland Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Chapman, Edward Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Charrington, Spencer Jessel, Captain Hebert Morton Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Clive, Captain Percy A. Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H. Rose, Charles Day
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Coghill, Douglas Harry Kerr, John Royds, Clement Molyneux
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Keswick, William Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Knowles, Sir Lees Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col. Edw.J.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim,S.) Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Cust, Henry John C. Llewellyn, Evan Henry Spear, John Ward
Dalkeith, Earl of Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Davenport, William Bromley Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stock, James Henry
Denny, Colonel Loyd, Archie Kirkman Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dickson, Charles Scott Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Thorburn, Sir Walter
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Maconochie, A. W. Thornton, Percy M.
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn.Sir Joseph C. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Tollemache, Henry James
Doughty, George M'Calmont, Colonel James Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W Tuff, Charles
Doxford, Sir William Theodore M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Valentia, Viscount
Duke, Henry Edward Majendie, James A. H. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Malcolm, Ian Walker, Col. William Hall
Dyke, Rt.Hn. Sir WilliamHart Manners, Lord Cecil Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Martin, Richard Biddulph Warde, Colonel C. E.
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W. Maxwell, RtHn.Sir H. E(Wigt'n Webb, Colonel William George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Melville, Beresford Valentine Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E(Taunton
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wely, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Fisher, William Hayes Milvain, Thomas Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord
Flower, Sir Ernest Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Forster, Henry William Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.) Moore, William Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R.(Bath
Fyler, John Arthur Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Galloway, William Johnson Morpeth, Viscount Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Gardner, Ernest Morrison, James Archibald Wylie, Alexander
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin&Nairn) Mount, William Arthur Wyndham-Quin, Col. W, H.
Gordon, Maj. E. (TV Hamlets) Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Goulding, Edward Alfred Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Younger, William
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Nicholson, William Graham
Gretton, John O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Groves, James Grimble Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Hall, Edward Marshall Parkes, Ebenezer
Hamilton,Marq of(L'nd'nderry Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford) Percy, Earl