HC Deb 06 June 1898 vol 58 cc724-41

I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name— That for the remainder of the Session Government business do have precedence on Tuesday and Wednesday (except on Wednesdays, the 8th and 15th of June), and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to all the days of the week. In moving this it will be observed by the House that the Motion excludes the two following Wednesdays; that is in order that those private Members who have been successful in making progress with their own Bills shall have a chance of getting them through this House, and possibly of passing them, into law. But as regards Tuesdays I think that the House will possibly feel that it is for the general convenience that Tuesdays shall be assigned for the discussion of Government Measures. I am not in a position to make, and I do not suppose I shall be expected to make, any forecast of the Government work which still has to be got through before the Session terminates; but this assurance I may give to the House: that no Bill not yet introduced which seems likely to deal with grave or serious controversial matters will be pressed upon it. There are Bills to be introduced which I hope will be passed, such as the Measure which has been debated on both sides of the House—I mean the Teachers' Superannuation Bill —but other Measures which we may think it desirable to introduce, and to bring before the attention of the House in a competent shape, will not be proceeded with if it should appear likely that they will be the cause of provoking any embittered Parliamentary controversy. I hope that this general statement will be sufficient to reassure the Members of the House as to the length of time that they will be kept sitting. If we are to rise at a date not later than the date at which we rose last year I think it will be for the general convenience and advantage that Tuesdays and Wednesdays should be taken for the purposes of Government discussion.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

The right honourable Gentleman has, as I think will be admitted, acted strictly in accordance with precedent in making this Motion to-day, but I think it has been customary on previous occasions for the Minister making such a Motion to give us more information than the right honourable Gentleman has seen his way to doing on the present occasion. At this period of the Session I think it is reasonable that the House should have some definite declaration from the Leader of the House as to the Measures which are going to be proceeded with and the Measures that are going to be dropped. The right honourable Gentleman has given us no notion whatever as to the Bills which are to be abandoned, and yet, at the present time, I think I am correct in saving that there are no fewer than 18 Bills supported by the Government before the House, and, as I am reminded, most of them are very important Bills indeed. Therefore, Sir, surely it is not only in the interests of the House generally, but it is in the interests of the Government itself, in order to facilitate the progress of their own Bills, that they should tell the House which Bills are to be proceeded with and which are to be abandoned. For instance, what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bill for the creation of municipalities in London?


That is not yet introduced.


The right honourable Gentleman says it is not yet introduced. But is it going to be introduced? That is surely a point upon which, we are entitled to get some information. It is a point upon which a most important election in London turned. It is a subject to which the Prime Minister himself attached the greatest importance, and all the leading Members of the Administration told us that this was one of the great reforms they were going to bring forward in the interests of the people of London. Has that Bill been abandoned? I hope that before this Debate closes to-day the right honourable Gentleman will give us a little information upon that point. Then there is the Bill known as the Aliens Bill. I should very much like to know what the intentions of the Government are with regard to that Bill. We all remember when the present Government was in Opposition how active the present Prime Minister was in introducing a Measure dealing with this question. He gave the country the impression that at the very first opportunity he would bring forward this Bill. I would seriously advise the Government, in the interests of the business of the House generally, that they should indicate that that Bill is abandoned. Then there is the Benefices Bill. The right honourable Gentleman knows perfectly well that that Bill will be opposed very strongly from this side of the House, and I think we are entitled to know what are the intentions of the Government with regard to that Bill. I would further remind the right honourable. Gentleman that in the Queen's Speech there were mentioned a very large number of Bills of which we have heard absolutely nothing at the present time. I must say that the Speech of Her Majesty at the commencement of the Session did not hold forth so many promises as we have been accustomed to, but, short as the Speech was, it continued a very large number of Bills which have not yet been mentioned to the House. Are any of those Bills to be forthcoming, including as they do 8 or 10 Bills which we were told it was the intention of the Government to carry into law? Before I sit down I should like to ask also whether we are going to have any of this labour legislation, of which we heard so much at the General Election, but of which we have heard so little since? I do not see the honourable Member for West Birmingham here. I hoped he would have been, so that he could have told us about old age pensions, because we are all anxious to know when the agricultural labourer is to get old age pensions. The Committee has been sitting some time upon that subject, and we should like to know whether it intended to make a Report, and, if so, when that Report is to be presented to the House, and when it is presented if it is to be acted upon, or whether the question is to be indefinitely shelved. Here we are practically at the end of the Session, and another year has gone by without any one Bill of importance in the interests of labour, of which the Government were such staunch supporters at the time of the General Election. I hope that before this Debate closes the right honourable Gentleman will give us a little more information, first about the Bills which I have mentioned, and secondly whether or not it is the intention of the Government to ask the House to sit until the Bills have been passed, and thirdly, whether he will toll us the names of the Bills which it is intended to abandon?

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R.,) Holderness

I cannot but regret that greater efforts have not been made by the Government to bring the House of Commons back to the better condition it was in when I first entered it. Its condition then was much better, because private Members were tolerably secure in having opportunities of suggesting Resolutions to the House, and for initiating legislation—opportunities which have been substantially altogether lost during the last few years. I know it is said that the pressure of the Government business is so great that the Government must take the time of the private Members. But I do not believe that the House of Commons benefits so much by passing legislation suggested by the Government as it benefits by private Members having opportunities for initiating legislation or submitting Resolutions. It strikes me that by doing as we are now doing we materially deteriorate the character of the House. This is a very favourable opportunity for expressing the hope that next Session my right honourable Friend will see his way to endeavour to restore some of the independence of the House of Commons, which successive Governments for the last few years have been so anxious to take away. I am quite convinced that many Members, when this Parliament assembled, expected that our older privileges would be restored, and I am equally convinced that those Members deeply regret that that has not been done. Personally I do not think that business has been working quite so satisfactorily as was anticipated, and I therefore venture again to express the hope that during the next Session of Parliament something will be done in the way of reverting to the older, and, in my opinion, better state of things.

* SIR W. HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

The right honourable) Gentle- man has mentioned one Bill which I hope he will proceed with, which is the Schoolmasters' Superannuation Bill, because I know there is a desire on both sides of the House that a Measure of that kind should be passed into law. I am myself very much inclined to support the interrogatories of my honourable Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy with reference to certain Measures the future of which this House will be glad to hear something of. There is another Bill which he did not mention, which is looked upon with the greatest interest on both sides of the House, and that is the Measure promised in the Queen's Speech with reference to the Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act. We know that two years ago one Measure was passed having reference to the agricultural interest, but the Report of the Agricultural Commission dealt largely with the recommendation, in the interests of the tenant farmers of England, of an Amendment to the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and I am sure that on this side of the House there is a very general desire to see a Measure of that kind introduced, and I have no doubt the same desire also exists amongst honourable Members opposite. I must ask one question about the Indian Loan Bill, which has been mentioned as being brought forward to-morrow. There is an impression that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India held out some indication that he would bring in the Indian Budget to-morrow, but I do not think that will be a convenient course to adopt, because Members of this House, as the noble Lord is aware, have been in the habit of putting down Notices of Motions on matters which they desire to discuss upon the Indian Budget; therefore I should be glad to hear that it is not intended to introduce the Indian Budget to-morrow.


I propose to introduce the Indian Loan Bill to-morrow, and in doing so it will be necessary for me to state generally the condition of Indian finance. I propose, however, to move the usual Resolution, independent of this loan, in connection with Indian finance, and that will give honourable Gentlemen an opportunity of raising any question they think fit upon finance, or in connection with the Government of India generally. To-morrow the discussion will be purely financial, but subsequently, towards the end of the Session, I shall move the usual Resolution, which will give honourable Members an opportunity, as I have already stated, of discussing Indian affairs generally.

* MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

The First Lord of the Treasury, in moving this Motion, used these words: "that no Bill not as yet introduced into this House which is of a controversial character, and which would be likely to be seriously resisted in any part of the House, would be pressed through the present Session." That, I think, is perfectly clear, but I should like to know whether that applies to the very important Bills which have been introduced in another place, and which have not yet reached this House. I refer more particularly to two Bills to which I attach great importance. One is the Companies Bill, which is a Bill of great value to the commercial interests of this country, and the other is the Bill relating to the University of London, which I think would be a most important contribution of this Session to the educational requirements of this country. I know that there are honourable Members on this side of the House who are not supporters of this Bill: but I am a supporter of it, and I should be very glad to see it passed through the House of Lords and brought forward in this House during the present Session. I do not wish to take this very easy opportunity of referring to the claims naturally made by all Governments upon the time of private Members. I think now that the time of private Members should be given to the Government, but I do think that this is a proper opportunity upon which to criticise the use that the Government have made of their time. For instance, I think we ought to have some assurance that one Bill in which we take great interest, and which has been warmly supported by many Members—the Prisons Bill—should certainly be pressed through, with the modification made in the Grand Committee. I would venture to suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury that, after all, we consider in this House too often the claims of the loud-mouthed partisans of various political sections in the United Kingdom, who demand great political and constitutional reforms, and that in the arrangement of the time of the House this Ministry and other Ministries do not exercise sufficient discretion, in allowing a reasonable portion of time for carrying social legislation, and thus minor Bills, which are of great importance to many interests of the country, and which largely affect the life of multitudes of people in this country, whose wants and feelings are not voiced here, are lost. Now, there are two Bills on the Paper to-day, to which many persons with whom I am connected attach very great importance, and which seem to me to be Bills which might very well be pressed forward by the Government during the present Session. I venture to hope that progress may be made with them to-night. One is a Bill dealing with habitual inebriates. That is a very important Measure, and is a type of those Measures which ought not to be postponed from year to year, for the purpose of larger and merely political Measures. I venture to make this suggestion to the Government, that it would be well to provide room for legislation of this nature, which affects interests not of a partisan nature, but which are of vital interest, and attract the serious attention of large sections of the community. There is another Bill which is also connected with the Home Office, which I, personally, should be glad to see pressed forward, and that is the Vagrancy Act Amendment Bill; a Bill to which, of course, I cannot allude on the present occasion, but which is a Bill that I know to be of great interest to many people. I will now turn to another topic, in which many Members on both sides of the House feel that they have a right to offer criticism, and that criticism also rests on the announcement made by the First Lord of the Treasury that he will not proceed with any Bill not as yet introduced which is of a controversial character. I think we have reason to complain of the non-introduction of the two Bills promised at the beginning of the Session, and in two previous Sessions, the one the Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the other dealing with the prevention of the adulteration of food products. On no question affect- ing agricultural interests has there been such a consensus of opinion of representative bodies connected with, agriculture as upon these two questions. We have had Commissions and Committees reporting in favour of these Bills, and we have had important deputations to the President of the Local Government Board, representing every section of every part of the community, pressing these matters upon the attention of the Government. I think we have a right to complain of the gross neglect which the present Government has shown to the interests of agriculture where the tenant was concerned. As soon as the Government had managed to appropriate the great surplus left to them, in the interests of the landlords in 1896, directly it came to a question of assisting the working agriculturists these reforms have been persistently and deliberately shelved and put on one side. I think we lave a right, speaking on behalf of the working agriculturist, to complain of the one-sided policy which has been adopted by the Government in this respect.

* SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

I am afraid it is not much use to protest against this infringement of the rights of private Members, but I think the House will do very well to consider the question raised by my honourable Friend just now. I cannot say that I consider that the time of the House has been so well spent up to this moment that it would not have been better spent if more time had been left to private Members. With that protest, and also with an expression of regret that the present Government should have been earlier than any other Government has been, I think, to absorb the whole time of the House, I will pass to a subject upon which I wish to say a word, and that is upon the question raised by the honourable Member for Kirkcaldy upon the subject of the Municipality of London Bill. I am quite aware that it would be hopeless to try and pass that Bill this Session; but I certainly do hope that the Government will introduce it, and not be intimidated by the results of the recent London County Council elections from doing their very utmost to pass it next Session, if it cannot be passed this Session. I venture to hope that the Bill will be a thorough Bill. I believe that the Government have much more to gain by courage in these matters than by trying to soothe the Opposition, who, after all, never will be really soothed, and who will only turn the weaknesses of the Government and their failures, which are the result of weakness, into an attack upon the Ministry. This experience has already befallen the Government in nearly every phase of their foreign policy. With that expression of opinion I will resume my seat.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham, Mansfield)

I hope that the Government, in arranging the business of the Session, will take care that time is afforded for the discussion of the English Education Vote. There is a natural desire to ascertain the result this year of recent legislation. Some of us have endeavoured to extract information from time to time from the Minister of Education with regard to those results, but we have not been, particularly successful. The Education Vote will afford us the opportunity we desire, but that will not be of much use if it is brought on on one of the last nights of the Session. I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will consider that this is a subject well worth his consideration.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I think really we ought to protest against the habitual policy of all Governments, and particularly of the present Government, of flourishing a vast number of Bills at the commencement of the Session, pluming themselves upon being most energetic and business-like men, and then not passing one-quarter, or even one-tenth, of them. Why cannot they cut their coats according to their cloth? I have just been making a calculation of the number of days which the Government has at its disposal. Limiting the Navy Estimates up to the middle of the first week in August, when I suppose we shall be looking for the end of the Session, there are 26 days. Taking very Moderate estimates, the Irish Local Government Bill will require four days or discussion. The finance matters will take two days, Indian finance one day, the Prisons Bill, which I suppose it is intended to pass, two days, the Merchant Shipping Bill one day. Then I will allow for the surprises which the Government may spring upon us for two Motions for the adjournment of the House. That makes 12 days gone out of 26, so that there will remain only 14 days. Now, eliminating the three Bills I have mentioned, there are 17 important Bills to pass. But, in addition to those, I have heard suggestions made by many honourable Friends around me in favour of proceeding with this Bill and that which they consider to be most valuable; so that it seems to me that there must be at least other important Bills which will take one or two days for discussion. We have heard a great deal about the London Municipalities Bill. Is that going to be brought forward? Then there is the Vaccination Bill, in which my constituents are interested. Is that to be proceeded with? Further, there is another Bill which will take a great deal of time, because it has created a great deal of feeling, the Dog Muzzling Bill. Is that to be proceeded with? Surely we cannot be asked to distribute our minds over about 30 Bills in order to arm ourselves with arguments for or against them. I think we are entitled to know whether they are to be brought on or not. I do not ask the right honourable Gentleman to absolutely pledge himself to every particular Bill, but he must know some that he intends to sacrifice and some that he is going to press forward. It is only fair, as a quid pro quo for our consenting to the whole time of private Members being taken so early in the Session, that we should be furnished with this necessary information.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon) Boroughs

I should like to know whether it is intended to bring in the Land Commissioners (Names) Bill. That Bill has not been mentioned at all in the course of this discussion, although it has always hitherto been introduced the first Session of every now Parliament, and it is rather an important Bill. These Land Commissioners appoint the Income Tax Commissioners, and there is a good deal of complaint in the country that the Land Commissioners have not been appointed for the last three years. In fact, it is rather curious that this Con- stitutional Parliament has departed more often from Constitutional methods than any Parliament that has preceded it. This is the very first Parliament in which the Land Commissioners (Names) Bill has been postponed for three Sessions, and we have, as yet, not heard a word about it. This is a matter of urgent importance, because these Land Commissioners —as I have said—appoint the Income Tax Commissioners. Only the other day there was a case in Birmingham where a gentleman bad his goods distrained on because he objected to the Income Tax Commissioners. There is a good deal of complaint throughout the country with regard to the way in which these Commissioners are appointed, and it is of the very greatest practical importance that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of discussing this Bill, and of putting it into a practical shape, and I urge upon the First Lord of the Treasury that he should find time this year for this necessary Bill to be carried through. With regard to the Benefices Bill, I should like to say one word. It is not that there is so much opposition to what is known as Church Reform on this side of the House, but there is a great deal of opposition to the method which the Government has adopted, and I ask the Government for some information with regard to the time which they propose to allocate to the Bill. I should like to point out that it will be a Bill that will be very elaborately discussed on this side of the House, and I should very much like to know what the Government propose to do with regard to it.

MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

What is the right honourable Gentleman going to do with reference to the Agricultural Holdings Bill? A considerable amount of interest is taken on this question. We have had the Bill before the House. It was discussed the whole of one Wednesday, and a part of another Wednesday, and the argument on each occasion was that Wales, in regard to this matter, must be treated in the same way as England. We are very anxious to know what it is the Government are going to do to redeem the pledge given to the House and the country in the Queen's Speech upon the question. There is just one other question, and that is with regard to the Indian Press Law Bill. I do not know whether I rightly understood the noble Lord to say that it will be impossible to discuss this question and other questions relating to the administration of India, apart from financial questions, until the end of the Session. If that is the case, it will, I think, hardly be a fair opportunity for discussing the prospects of the Indian Press Law. This is a matter of enormous importance to India, and considerable interest is taken in it in England, and I hope that the Government will act fairly and considerately to those who take an interest in this matter by giving a day for its discussion. With regard to the Education Vote, I would second the appeal made by my honourable Friend the Member for Nottingham that the House should have a full opportunity for discussing this question. The fact of the matter is that the new rule in Supply has not worked at all in some respects. Large masses of administrative work, which the House ought to consider, and which under the old system ought to be considered, is now dismissed under the new closure procedure. There are questions which have not been discussed for throe years in this House, questions affecting important matters of administration. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman with regard to this question, at all events, in which great interest is taken throughout the country, that he will give the Committee of the House the fullest possible opportunity of discussing the educational policy of the country.

SIR A. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)

Appeals have been made with reference to various Bills and Votes, but there is one Vote more important than any other, and that is the Vote dealing with the shipbuilding vote of the Admiralty. The shipbuilding policy of this country can only be properly and adequately discussed on Vote 8, which deals with something like seven or eight millions of money, and I hope that my right honourable Friend will take such measures as will bring that Vote on for discussion at a very early day, and not allow it to be deferred till late in the Session.

DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman one question with regard to Scotland? What are the intentions of the Government with regard to the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill? We have heard a great deal about it, and I have received a great mass of literature which leads me to suppose that some fair share of interest is felt in Scotland upon this question. Do the Government intend to carry on the Bill or to drop it? and what class of tribunal will it be referred to if it is to be proceeded with? Is the Committee to consist of a limited number of Scotch Members, or is the House to be fully represented on that Committee?


I may, perhaps, begin by replying to the rather extensive number of questions which have been put to me by dealing with the one which has just been submitted by the honourable Member for Aberdeenshire. He asks the Government what are their intentions with regard to the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill. Our intentions really are very fully expressed upon the Order Paper of the House. We desire, in accordance with the generally-expressed wishes of the Scotch Members, to refer that Bill to a Select Committee. The Motion so referring it has been down on the Paper for three weeks at the least, and has been persistently blocked by one of the colleagues of the honourable Gentleman himself. I hope, however, that the opposition to the reference to a Committee will shortly be overcome, and that that Bill may be referred before a Select Committee with a view to legislation at a very early moment. As regards the appeal made by my right honourable Friend behind me and by other gentlemen with reference to Supply, I can only say what I have often said before— that in allocating the Fridays at our disposal between the various votes we have no other object than that of meeting the general wishes of honourable Gentlemen in all parts of the House. But when the Member for Flintshire tolls us that under the new system there is much smaller opportunity given to private Members to discuss the policy of the Government, it gives a striking illustration of how weak Parliamentary memories are. If the honourable Member for Flintshire will cast back his mind to his own early experience in this House, he will, perhaps, recollect that the system then in vogue was to have an odd day here and there given to Supply, to have two or three nights given to the Vote on Account, and shove away—for no other expression adequately meets the case—all other discussions on Supply, till they had to be dealt with by a practically exhausted House in the last period of the Session. The critics of the Government to-night may be divided into two classes—those who think we ought to have brought in a great many more Bills than we have done, among which class is the right honourable Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, and those who think that the number of Bills which we have already brought in is too great, and that the time at our disposal will hardly be adequate to discuss them all. The two honourable Gentlemen sitting next each other, both distinguished representatives of Wales, should really agree a little between themselves as to what they want the Government to do. The honourable. Member for Carnarvon tells us that for his part a Bill which up to this Parliament has always been passed sub silentio—namely, the Land Tax Commissioners (Names) Bill—is, if pressed, going to be discussed by him at great length.


I never said so; I simply pressed that it should be passed.


He proposes that it should be remodelled at his instance. When the honourable Gentleman talks of remodelling an Act of Parliament I may remind him that the process, however important and valuable from a legislative point of view, is one that invariably consumes time. He further gave the Government fair warning that one of the Bills which has already passed the first and second readings and gone to Grand Committee, is to be met by him and his friends with elaborate discussion. I think if that is his view with regard to Bills which have either been wholly uncontroversial up to the present time, or have almost reached their final stage in this House, it is rather absurd of the colleague sitting next him to ask that the Government, in addition to these Measures, shall introduce the question of agricultural reform, which, however it may be drafted, must, and ought to have a large amount of Parliamentary time devoted to it. I have been asked many questions by the honourable Member for Aberdeenshire about Bills which are either before the House or to come before it. I do not think I can go beyond the general outline which I have already given. As to the Aliens Bill, that is not a Government Bill. The Companies Bill, which has been mentioned, is one which I believe, as far as I have heard, is not likely to come down to this House in the course of this Session at all. With regard to the Prisons Bill, I have every hope that that Measure may be passed before the end of the present Session, but certainly I should not like to give an absolute pledge on the subject. Two of my honourable Friends on this side of the House have mourned the diminished privileges of private Members. I have not a word to say against private Members, nor am I going to conceal the fact that on some points I view with regret that some of their ancient privileges have been diminished; but I believe there is no body of men who would view the diminution of those privileges with more satisfaction than the great bulk of the private Members themselves. I do not believe the majority of the Members of the House think that on the whole, with our modern methods of procedure, it is possible for private Members to deal with legislation on a very large scale. Valuable work of a non-controversial character they have done, and they are doing, but I do not believe it possible that they should do important or valuable work in the domain of elaborate or controversial legislation. So far as resolutions are concerned, I believe that the first ventilation of many important Measures has been by private Members on Tuesdays or on Fridays, and I think what has borne good fruit in the past may bear good fruit in the future. But I do not think my honourable Friend will consider I am stepping beyond the bounds of controversy when I say that on five-sixths, I think, of the Tuesdays allocated to them in the course of the present Session private Members have shown their appreciation of the privileges by counting the House out.


I think my right honourable Friend will admit that that is entirely due to the fact that private Members have not the least notion when their time will be taken from them.


No Sir; I cannot accept that solution. I think the easily explained desires for a dinner and for leisure are quite sufficient to account for the fact that it so often happens that at about eight o'clock on private Members' nights it is found that the requisite number of private Members are not here to deal with the questions in which they are interested. I do not know that there is anything else.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Montrose)

The London Bill.


I believe I promised my honourable Friend the Member for the Strand Division that I would give him a definite answer to his question immediately after Whitsuntide, but I believe that the question is down for

to-morrow, and it is not really relevant at the present moment.


There is the London University Bill.


I hope the London University Bill will be passed. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy reproached the Government for having promised, I think he said, 12 Bills, and for being likely to pass a comparatively small fraction of them. When we framed the Queen's Speech we had before us a long series of examples of the difference between the hopes with which the Government begins the Session and the actual performance of Parliament at the end of the Session, and we were careful to distinguish in that Speech between the Bills which there was a fair hope of passing and the Bills which it was not probable would be pressed if time would not permit. I do not think there is another question.


The London Bill!


At least, I do not appear to have made a note of any, and I hope the House may now, without Division, permit the Government to obtain the privileges for which they have asked.

The House divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 68. (Division List, No. 123.)

Aird, John Blundell, Colonel Henry Colston, C. E. H. Athole
Allsopp, Hon. George Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)
Arnold, Alfred Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bowles, Capt.H.F.(Middlesex) Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.
Asquith, Et. Hn. Herbert Hy. Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Cranborne, Viscount
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brassey, Albert Cripps, Charles Alfred
Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Brookfield, A. Montagu Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Balcarres, Lord Brown, Alexander H. Curzon.Rt.Hn.GN(Lanc.SW)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch) Brymer, William Ernest Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)
Banbury, Frederick George Bullard, Sir Harry Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Butcher, John George Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-
Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts) Buxton, Sydney Charles Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon
Barry, Francis T. (Windsor) Carlile, William Walter Dorington, Sir J. Edward
Bartley, George C. T. Cecil, Lord Hugh Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Barton Dunbar Plunket Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W. Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.
Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol) Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm.) Drage, Geoffrey
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Bethell, Commander Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Charrington, Spencer Edwards, Gen. Sir J. Bevan
Biddulph, Michael Coddington, Sir William Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Bigwood, James Cohen, Benjamin Louis Fardell, Sir T. George
Bill, Charles Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Finch, George H.
Finlay, Sir Robert B. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Renshaw, Charles Bine
Fisher, William Hayes Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry) Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Fison, Frederick William Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- Loder, Gerald Walter E. Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Robertson, Herbt (Hackney)
Flannery, Fortescue Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Royds. Clement Molyneux
Flower, Ernest Lowe, Francis Wiliam Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)
Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B. Lowles, John Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Fowler, Rt. Hn.SirH.(Wol'tn) Loyd, Archie Kirkman Rutherford, John
Fry, Lewis Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John Samuel, H. H. (Limehouse)
Galloway, William Johnson Macartney, W. G. Ellison Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Garfit, William McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W)
Giles, Charles Tyrell McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Goldsworthy, Major-General MaCalmont, Mj.Gn. (Ant'mN) Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrw)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward McIver, Sir Lewis Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's) Malcolm, Ian Smith, Abel H. (Christch.)
Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex) Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J. Stanley, Lord (Lanes)
Graham, Henry Robert Marks, Harry H. Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Martin, Richard Biddulph Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs) Melville Beresford Valentine Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)
Greville, Captain Mildmay, Francis Bingham Tollemache, Henry James
Gunter, Colonel Milton, Viscount Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.
Haldane, Richard Burdon Milward, Colonel Victor Usborne, Thomas
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Valentia, Viscount
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. More, Robert Jasper Verney, Hon. Richard G.
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Rbt. Wm. Morrell, George Herbert Wanklyn, James Leslie
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Morton. A. H. A. Deptford) Ward, Hon. Rbt. A. (Crewe)
Hardy, Laurence Mount, William George Warr, Augustus Frederick
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Heath, James Murdoch, Charles Townshend Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Helder, Augustus Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter Murray. Col. W. (Bath) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down) Myers, William Henry Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-L.)
Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Holland, Hon. Lionel R. O'Kelly, James Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Howard, Joseph O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Pease Arthur (Darlington) Young. Commndr (Berks, E.)
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Penn, John Younger, William
Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur Yoxall, James Henry
Johnstone, John H. (Sussex) Plankett, Rt. Hon. H. C.
Kenyon, James Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Kenyon, Slaney, Col. Wm. Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
King, Sir Henry Seymour Purvis, Robert Sir William Walrond and
Lafone, Alfred Rankin, James Mr. Anstruther.
Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall) Rasch Major Frederic Carne
Allan, William (Gateshead) Harwood, George Philipps, John Wynford
Asher, Alexander Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Scale- Pirie, Duncan V.
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Hogan, John Francis Reid, Sir Robert T.
Austin, M. (Limerick. W.) Horniman, Frederick John Rickett, J. Compton
Barlow, John Emmott Jacoby, James Alfred Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Billson, Alfred Jameson, Major J. Eustace Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Jones, David B. (Swansea) Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry)
Burns, John Labouchere, Henry Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Caldwell, James Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Souttar, Robinson
Cameron. Sir Chas. (Glasgow) Leng, Sir John Steadman, William Charles
Channing, Francis Allston Lewis, John Herbert Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness) Logan, John William Tanner, Charles Kearns
Clough, Walter Owen McEwan, William Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Crilly, Daniel M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Crombie, John William McKenna, Reginald Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles McLaren, Charles Benjamin Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Doogan, P. C. Maddison, Fred. Wayman, Thomas
Doughty, George Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Wedderburn, Sir William
Duckworth, James Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Evans, Sam. T. (Glamorgan) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Williams, John Carvell (Notts)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthn)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Nussey, Thomas Willans TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gold, Charles O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow. W) Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Lloyd-
Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.) George.