HC Deb 26 April 1898 vol 56 cc1228-40
MR. W. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

I have to bring before the House a question of privilege. In a Debate which took place last week the honourable Member for South Antrim, who is a director of the London and North Western Railway Company, made a speech on a Bill in which that company was interested, and made it, as I understand, as a Member of the Government. I beg to call the attention of the House to the fact that I have no hostility towards the honourable Gentleman; on the contrary, I have received many courtesies from him, but as a matter of principle I object to a Member of the Government taking up the position he did. It is all very well for the honour able Gentleman—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! There is no question as to the right of speech, but only as to the right to vote. The honourable Member must confine himself to that question.

MR. FIELD

He voted, unfortunately, as a Minister, and that, in my opinion, aggravated the offence. He not only voted himself—which was bad enough—but he also carried 23 Government votes along with him, which was worse, but as you kindly ask me, Mr. Speaker, to direct my attention to the question I beg to bring under the notice of the House, according to your ruling, Sir, that the honourable Member was not entitled to vote—

MR. JOHNSTON

Speak loud.

MR. FIELD (to the Member for) Belfast

I am afraid you do not want to hear. "There are none so blind as those who will not see, and none so deaf as those who will not hear." I must respectfully submit that the honourable Gentleman was not entitled to vote upon this London and North Western question, in which he is a director, and had a pecuniary interest as a director; and I might point out that in the discussion upon the Victoria Embankment Bill the honourable Member for Northampton, some of whose property comes within the area of the Bill, walked out of the House to avoid voting. I beg to move, therefore, that the honourable Member for South Antrim's vote shall be disallowed in respect of the Division which took place last week on the London and North Western Railway Company's (Steam Vessels) Bill.

MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

I rise to second that Motion. I am sure that the gentlemen on both sides of the House feel grateful to my honourable Friend for having contributed to the gaiety of nations after a most distressing and tiresome afternoon. Well, Sir, I am going to take rather a serious view of this question, and I desire to say anything I have to say in the presence of the honourable Member. The first thing I have to say is that between the honourable Member for South Antrim and myself there is certainly no unkindly feeling; but I wish to bring to the notice of the House the fact that I regard this vote as one of the most flagrant violations of the Rules of the House, that no Member should give a vote in any matter in winch he has a direct pecuniary interest of a private character. In every circumstance I shall prove that this comes under that Rule; and further, I wish to say that this vote is perfectly exceptional in the history of Parliament for this reason: that this is the first time that the vote of a Minister of the Crown has been impeached, as voting as a railway director, voting from the Treasury Bench, and voting in his own pecuniary interest. Now, Sir, this Rule, which is a very old Rule, was laid down in the Parliament of 1604, which was not a very high-minded assembly, for two-thirds of the House of Commons were in the pay of the French king. This ruling was to the effect that the vote of a Member "appearing to be somewhat concerned" (in the subject in hand), "his vote was disallowed." "Appearing to be somewhat concerned"—not a director of a company, not a Member of the Government, not a Member sitting on the Treasury Bench, but "appearing to be somewhat concerned." Now this Rule was acted upon, a century and a half afterwards, in the great case of the Loyalty Loan. I am always frightened when I hear the word "loyalty," because persons who profess to be loyal are generally loyal to themselves. The object of the Loan was to raise a sum of £80,000,000 at a certain security. Those securities were paid, and it was proposed by Mr. Pitt that for every £100 in securities 5 per cent. should be added, and that Motion came before Parliament; and then Mr. Manning, who was the director of the Bank of England and father of the great and eminent Cardinal Manning, who has gone, asked Mr. Speaker what he ought to do, and it was laid down by Mr. Speaker Addington, and which I say emphatically has been acted upon invariably ever since by every Speaker who has been asked the question. Mr. Speaker Addington then said— Having been appealed to in so distinct a manner by the honourable Member, it is my duty to state what appears to me to be the rule and practice of the House upon questions of this nature. I have always understood the rule and practice of the House to be that no Member can regularly (subject to some qualification) vote on any question which involves in it an immediate interest of such Member. This, I have said, is subject to some qualification. I will not detain the House by entering into the detail of that qualification at present; but when any Measure is submitted to the House, the substance of which is to confer a pecuniary advantage or diminish a loss, which is the same thing, I am satisfied it is not consistent with that mode of proceeding, which the House has adopted on occasions of delicacy and importance, that any Member should vote on a measure by which he intends to derive any benefit in case that measure should be carried into law. Mr. Manning said he was much obliged to the Speaker for delivering so clear an opinion; he should decline voting upon the question. The Speaker: I am extremely desirous of being distinctly understood by the House upon this important question. It does not appear to me to be possible for the House under any existing Rule or Order to preclude any Member from voting. But I will state what appears to me to be the practice of the House as far as my researches have gone. The only precedent that I have been able to find analogous to this case is to be met with in 1664, when a Member voted in a question in which he was directly interested, and his vote was disallowed afterwards on a Division. If, therefore, any Members vote upon any question which includes that species of interest in the opinion of the House, the House may afterwards disallow their votes. I must, however, add that this applies to benefits which they expect and intend to derive. If Members who seem entitled to benefit shall say that they do not intend to derive any, it will be for the House to judge whether they will allow their votes. In the present case the Bill for which the honourable Member had voted was for conferring on the company, of which he was a director and a shareholder, a monopoly of traffic. It was a Bill clearly calculated to confer a pecuniary benefit upon himself. Now, Sir, that opinion of the Speaker was contested by two gentlemen on the highest moral grounds, that they were independent Members of Parliament; that they were so good that no idea of pecuniary interest would regulate their votes. They took a high moral tone when their pecuniary interests were concerned. One gentleman was Mr. Dundas, and Mr. Dundas was impeached afterwards for malversation of public funds. The other gentleman, who was a mere Government creature named Ryder—Ryder lived 87 years in the public service, and was pitchforked from one side to the other. There was only one good thing he did. When Ryder was Foreign Secretary, and he found there was nothing to do, he resigned. In this Debate in the House of Commons a century ago there was one very pertinent observation made. It was made by Sheridan, and I am sure honourable Gentlemen will be pleased to hear what Sheridan said on the matter, first to show how good they are, and how bad that House of Commons was— But if these proceedings"—(said Sheridan)—"were carried on, the House would become more unpopular even than the Ministers. From the one the people expected only to be cajoled and plundered, but from the House they expected at least some attention to their interests. I have given enough of antique authorities. Let me come nearer home. I sat upon the Select Committee on Personal Interests a couple of years ago to discuss these matters as to how far personal pecuniary interest should affect the votes of Members of Parliament. That Committee was composed of eminent Members, all except myself; in fact, the Committee was composed of very eminent men indeed, and they thought that they should not in the slightest degree affect the old Rule. They wished the Rule to be as elastic as possible, in order to cover every case, and when the Speaker had stated the principle of the case, the House itself was to be judge and jury in the matter. They wished the Rule of 1664 on the Loyalty Loan to be supported. This was put to the vote, and the Motion was only lost by a majority of one. It so happened that two gentlemen who intended to vote for the old Rule if they had been present would have actually carried it, and it almost fits this case. The paragraph that they wished to be inserted in the Report was this— Your Committee think it desirable that the position and votes of members who are directors or shareholders in companies affected by private Bills should be regarded more strictly than has been the case of late years. [Cries of "Order!"] Sir, if you, in your discretion, think that I am out of order, I will not proceed in reference to that, but I will proceed with the paragraph in Committee, which exactly fits this case— Such instances as those of directors and shareholders, who have undertaken to represent their companies in conducting Bills through the House, appear to come within the spirit, if not the letter of the rule. [Here the honourable Member, in waving his hand, sent Mr. Knox's hat upon the Gangway; amidst the laughter of the House.] I am glad that I did not interfere with the brains inside that hat. Not one of the Members of the Committee ever contemplated, when they drafted that Resolution—and I had something to do with it myself—that a Minister of the Crown would himself be conducting a Bill in the House of Commons, and voting for it partly in his private and partly in his public capacity. The thing is outrageous, and utterly wrong. The House has listened to me with great attention, and I am obliged to them for it. If the Secretary to the Admiralty had voted as a Member of the House only there would have been nothing to say, but first he voted as a Member of the House, he then voted as a shareholder of the Company, and then as a director. But the honourable Gentleman also voted in another way—he voted as a Minister of the Crown in a matter conferring a personal and pecuniary benefit to himself. I say that there is no parallel for that. The theory is, of course, that every Member of the House, on the floor of this House, is equal. ["No, no!"] Yes, but no Member of Parliament, except a Minister of the Crown, could dare to propose to the House a charge on public funds. If a gentleman who has that power as a Minister of the Crown is able to go and work to his own advantage, good-bye to all purity of action in this House. Mr. Speaker, I remember some little time ago one of those men belonging to the genus Editors—an editor of an evening newspaper—asked a number of eminent men to give a list of the books which impressed them. They did not send to me; but I will tell you which book impressed me greatly; it is the Directory of Directors. I have studied that book, Mr. Speaker. I find the right honourable Gentleman is not only in one company, but he is a director in three companies. ["No, no!"] It was so till the first of the year. I will not pursue this; but, supposing now that any Member of that Bench were a director in more companies than one, it is a strange thing, having regard to this Rule, that a gentleman could vote in this House as a director of a public company in which he has an interest, and would be precluded from voting in this House if there was a contract in which he had an interest. In other words, how does it happen that the right honourable Gentleman could not have gone upstairs and appeared on that Committee without declaring that he had no interest in it, and then to come down here and vote for it? It is like a judge in a common law court who is unable to act because he had a personal interest, but when it comes to the Court of Appeal his case is much stronger, for he is in at the final adjudication of the case. I have two or three quotations, not in the Report itself, but in the evidence of the gentlemen who presided over this House with great ability, and whom we all respect very much, and that is Mr. Speaker Peel. If the House will allow me, I will just read one or two extracts from Mr. Speaker's view of the case. Mr. Speaker Peel said this, and Mr. Speaker Peel was only repeating the words of Mr. Gladstone in a similar case—The Mombasa Railway Company. Mr. Gladstone said— Honourable Gentlemen ought to decide for themselves, and if there is a doubt to give the benefit of that doubt against themselves. Mr. Speaker Peel said exactly the same thing— I have uniformly, if I may speak of my own rulings, said that the matter must be left to the House. I have been frequently consulted by Members privately as to what they ought to do, and my advice was always given against their voting if they had any doubt. I said: If you do vote you run the risk of subsequent disallowance, and speaking, not ex cathédra, but as a Member of the House myself, I should say, if you have any doubt upon the question, I should abstain from voting. And so should all the directors on the Treasury Bench abstain from voting when points to their own interests are at stake. Let them be warned by the past experience of the honourable Baronet who is the Member for Manchester, who displayed the better part of valour, and out he walked. There is another question to Mr. Speaker Peel perhaps you will allow me to quote. I have gone through every word of this Report. Lord Peel was asked how it came to pass that a Member could vote on the floor of this House and would be debarred from voting upstairs on the Committee, and this is what Mr. Speaker Peel says— Of course, logically, it is difficult to say, if a Member is excluded from serving on a Private Bill Committee because of his personal interest, why he should not be precluded from voting in the House on a matter in which he has a personal and pecuniary interest. It is not, perhaps, a very logical reason to give, but he is supposed to divest himself of his character as a representative when he sits upon a Private Bill Committee and acts there in a judicial capacity; in the House his representative character returns to him and he acts as a Member of the House speaking on the subject as it affects not only individual interests but as it affects the general interests of the community at large. That is the only explanation I can give of the seeming discrepancy between the exclusion of a Member as regards Private Bill Committees and his comparative freedom when he deals as a Member of the House with the same subject. I say that the right honourable Gentleman did not fulfil those conditions. He is simply putting money into the pockets of the company of which he is a director. I feel obliged to the House for hearing me. I say, first, the right honourable Gentleman was a director of the company, then he is a shareholder of the company, and then, because he is a Member of this House, he has voted for the interest of the company; and, above all, he is a Member of the Government, who have control of the public funds. I say to act thus they could go down to the city if they chose, but I say that Members on the Treasury Bench should be above suspicion.

THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. G. E. MACARTNEY,) Antrim S.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the arguments laid before the House by the honourable Gentleman who has moved, and the honourable and learned Gentleman who has seconded this Motion. If they are worthy of the consideration of the House I have no doubt that the House will consider them. I rise simply for the purpose of, as briefly as possible, stating to the House the reasons why I consider I was fully justified in giving the vote on the particular occasion in question. In the first place, as far as I am aware, there is no Order or Rule of this House, which prohibits a Member of this House, though he may be a railway director from voting in relation to a Bill connected with a railway of which he is a director. On the contrary, for upwards of 60 years this House has uniformly declined to disallow a vote given under such circumstances, though on three or four occasions these votes have been challenged. The question, therefore, which remained for me to consider was whether I had, in relation to this Bill, such a "direct, personal, and pecuniary interest of a private and particular, and not of a public and general nature," as could be supposed to influence me in voting one way or the other. Mr. Speaker, I can best describe my interest in connection with the London and North Western Railway Company by quoting the words used by Mr. Gladstone in the Debate raised on the propriety of certain honourable Members' votes in connection with the Mombasa grant. Mr. Gladstone, alluding to the vote given on a previous occasion by the present Lord Rathmore—who was then a Member of this House, who sat on the Front Bench, and who was a director of the London and North Western Railway—on an omnibus Bill of the North Western Company, thus expressed himself— I think that vote was, on the whole, wisely and properly allowed. What was the purpose of that Bill? The North-Western Company is engaged in a gigantic undertaking, in which it endeavours, by affording advantages and facilities to the public, to earn profits for itself; and the Bill was an extension and improvement of the means by which it was to carry on that beneficial and extensive business. It is quite plain, I think, that if the interest of the right honourable Member for Dublin University were concerned in that Bill in such a way that some infinitesimal faction of profit might possibly accrue to himself, it was a profit immensely remote, a profit absolutely unecrtain, and a profit which, if it were obtained, would be obtained in common with a body of shareholders—I know not how many, but I think probably numbered by hundreds of thousands. Well, Sir, that is precisely the position which I occupy, except that, with the best intentions in the world, I have been unable to arrive at any, even the most infinitesimal, estimate of how I could be affected by the passage or non-passage of this Bill. As regards my position as director, I think all Members of this House will recognise at once that it cannot be affected in a pecuniary manner by the passage or non-passage of this Bill. I feel, therefore, that, having regard to that sensibility which every Member of the House feels in questions of this sort, I was perfectly free to vote in favour of the Bill. If I had any interests at all in connection with the passage of the Bill, and especially in regard to the clause which was objected

to by honourable Members opposite—the clause relating to the promotion of communication by steam-packet service between the United Kingdom and Ireland—my interests were infinitely greater on account of Ireland, than on account of possible profit to the London and North Western Railway Company. I believe that the general interests of Ireland, and especially of that part in which I live and in which I am entirely bound up have been greatly served by the communication established by the London and North Western Railway Company. These were the reasons which led me to vote. I believe that they are sanctioned by the practice of the House, and I believe that in so voting I have not in any way violated the sense of responsibility or the honour of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the vote of Mr. Macartney be disallowed."—(Mr. Field.)

The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 209.

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Hammond, John (Carlow) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Hayden, John Patrick Owen, Thomas
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Hazell, Walter Parnell, John Howard
Beresford, Lord Charles Healy, Maurice (Cork) Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Billson, Alfred Healy, Thomas J. (Wexford) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Birrell, Augustine Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Blake, Edward Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Redmond, William (Clare)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. Robson, William Snowdon
Brigg, John Hogan, James Francis Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Brookfield, A. Montagu Holburn, J. G. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson Jacoby, James Alfred Shee, James John
Burt, Thomas Jameson, Major J. Eustace Souttar, Robinson
Caldwell, James Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Carew, James Laurence Jordan, Jeremiah Steadman, William Charles
Channing, Francis Allston Kearley, Hudson E. Stevenson Francis S.
Clancy, John Joseph Kilbride, Denis Strachey, Edward
Clough, Walter Owen Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Collery, Bernard Knox, Edmund F. Vesey Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lambert, George Tanner, Charles Kearns
Crean, Eugene Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Tully, Jasper
Crilly, Daniel Leng, Sir John Walton Joseph (Barnsley)
Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal) Logan, John William Weir, James Galloway
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lough, Thomas Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Daly, James Macaleese, Daniel
Davitt, Michael McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'s Co.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles McCartan, Michael Wilson, John (Grovan)
Dillon, John McDermott, Patrick Wilson, J. W. (Worc., N.)
Doogan, P. C. M'Ghee, Richard Wilson J. H. (Middlesbro')
Duckworth, James M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, E.) Woodall, William
Engledew, Charles John McLeod, John Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'ld)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Mandeville, J. Francis Woods, Samuel
Farrell, Jas. P. (Cavan, W.) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Fenwick, Charles Morris, Samuel TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Ffrench, Peter Norton, Capt. Cecil William Mr. Field and Mr. Mac-
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Nussey, Thomas Willans Neill.
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Milner, Sir Frederick George
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Galloway, William Johnson Monk, Charles James
Anstruther, H. T. Garfit, William More, Robert Jasper
Arnold, Alfred Gedge, Sydney Morrell, George Herbert
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Gibbons, J. Lloyd Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Arrol, Sir William Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.) Mount, William George
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Giles, Charles Tyrrell Murdoch, Charles Townshend
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gilliat, John Saunders Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth Goldsworthy, Major-General Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Gordon, Hon. John Edward Myers, William Henry
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Nicholson, William Graham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo.'s) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Banbury, Frederick George Goschen, George J. (Sussex) O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Gourley, Sir E. Temperley Parkes, Ebenezer
Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith- Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)
Barry, F. Tress (Windsor) Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Pierpoint, Robert
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Gretton, John Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.
Bethell, Commander Hall, Sir Charles Pollock, Harry Frederick
Bond, Edward Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Haslett, Sir James Horner Pryce-Jones, Edward
Brown, Alexander H. Hatch, Ernest Frederick G. Purvis, Robert
Bullard, Sir Harry Heath, James Pym, C. Guy
Butcher, John George Helder, Augustus Rentoul, James Alexander
Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow) Hickman, Sir Alfred Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampst'd) Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Cayzer, Sir Charles Wm. Hobhouse, Henry Round, James
Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Hornby, William Henry Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Howard, Joseph Saunderson, Col. E. James
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc.) Howell, William Tudor Savory, Sir Joseph
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Charrington, Spencer Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. L. Seely, Charles Hilton
Clare, Octavius Leigh Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Johnston, William (Belfast) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Joicey, Sir James Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Skewes-Cox, Robert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Kemp, George Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)
Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Kenrick, William Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Colston, C. E. H. Athole Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'T.
Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Knowles, Lees Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cornwallis, F. Stanley W. Lafone, Alfred Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) Thorburn, Walter
Cox, Robert Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dalkeith, Earl of Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Valentia, Viscount
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Verney, Hon. Richard G.
Denny, Colonel Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'ns'a) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Loder, Gerald Walter E. Walrond, Sir William Hood
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Doxford, William Theodore Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Waring, Col. Thomas
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Warr, Augustus Frederick
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart Lowe, Francis William Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Evershed, Sydney Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight)
Fardell, Sir T. George Loyd, Archie Kirkman Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Lucas-Shadwell, William Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) Macdona, John Cumming Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Maclure, Sir John William Willox, Sir John Archibald
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne McCalmont, Mj-Gn (Ant'm, N.) Wills, Sir William Henry
Fisher, William Hayes McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.) Wodeouse, E. R. (Bath)
Fison, Frederick William McEwan, William Wylie, Alexander
FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- McIver, Sir Lewis Wyndham, George
Flannery, Fortescue McKillop, James Young, Com. (Berks, E.)
Flower, Ernest McLaren, Charles Benjamin
Folkestone, Viscount Malcolm, Ian TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Forster, Henry William Marks, Henry Hananel Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr.
Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Muntz.
Forward to