§ (SECOND READING.)
§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Solicitor-General.)
§ MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid)I am somewhat surprised that the Solicitor-General, who is in charge of this Bill, has not given us any information at all as to why it should be accepted. Generally speaking, the policy of the Bill is to give further facilities to landlords for the purpose of making improvements upon their estates. It this were a Bill which would have the effect of bringing into cultivation land not already improved, there might be a great deal to be said in favour of it. But we know from published Returns that the principal cases in which owners of estates have gone to the Commissioners under the old Act were not for the sake of bringing land into cultivation at all, but chiefly for the benefit of the land which is still in the hands of the owners of the estates. It appears from tables supplied from the Board of Agriculture that the expenditure for mansion-houses during the period of depression between 1879 and 1894 was no less than £430,737; whereas during that period only £377,920 was borrowed and charged under the Act for the erection of labourers' cottages. It was the policy of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, to enable landowners who might be limited owners of their estates to borrow money upon favourable terms, not for the purpose of increasing the mansion-houses, but of making improvements in favour of their tenants, and particularly for the erection of labourers' cottages. The expenditure 1480 upon farm buildings during that same period was £1,831,718, and for drainage £1,047,274. It cannot be said that the expenditure for farm buildings and drainage was as much in excess of that in connection with mansion-houses as was intended by the Act of 1864. Take the year 1890, which is a fair sample. The amount spent on mansion-houses was nearly £80,000, whereas the expenditure on labourers' cottages was only £8,000, or merely one-tenth. While forfarm buildings the amount was £67,000, or £10,000 less than the expenditure on mansion-houses. These figures show what has been the chief use of the Act of 1864. If it could be shown to the House that the object of giving yet more favourable terms to the landowners was to bring more land into cultivation, to give compensation to tenants for the improvements they effected on the lands, and to provide labourers' cottages, the House might, in these days of agricultural depression, listen to such a case. But what case can possibly be made out for giving further facilities to landowners to borrow money on favourable terms, and to extend the period for repayment from twenty-five years to forty, as is now proposed? It is true that under Clause 1 it is only intended that the extension should be in respect of future advances, but under a subsequent sub-section, where advances have been made "either before or after the passing of the Act," the period may be extended. After the figures which I have given I think the House is entitled to ask what case has been made out for extending the period of the repayment of these loans. I hope it will not be said that this is a non-controversial measure. I think I have indicated some reasons why the Bill should not be given a Second Reading without some explanation, and I beg to move "That the Bill be read a second time this day three months."
§ MR. A. C. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)I beg to second that.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,) Liver-1481 pool, West Derby As the hon. Member takes some objection to this Bill, it cannot be described as being non-controversial, although I had hoped it might be. As to the criticism of the hon. Member, he will see that there is a distinction between the power granted in Sub-section 4 and that in the preceding sub-section of the clause. Everybody who has watched the history of the expenditure of money upon landed estates knows that there is no form of expenditure more precarious or so little likely to give a return to the owners as that which takes the form of tree cultivation. The reason for the extension of the period for the repayment of loans already contracted is that if the trees planted survive the first seven years they have got through the most critical time, and there is then every reasonable probability that the enterprise will be successful. The expense attendant upon this particular form of cultivation is very great, and everyone who has studied the question will agree that everything which is reasonable and fair and just ought to be done to encourage landowners to develop those portions of their estates which are suitable for nothing else by devoting them to tree planting. I do not know what the hon. Member calls "favourable terms," but anyone who has experience knows that the charge becomes a very heavy one indeed, awl it can really only be undertaken from a feeling of patriotism told a desire to develop the estate in order that the future generation rather than the present may benefit by it.
§ MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)Can the right hon. Gentleman say what amount has been expended on trees and woods during the last thirty-five years?
§ MR. LONGI cannot state that without reference. I should think it would probably be very small. I cannot conceive anybody embarking upon any expenditure of that kind under conditions such as now exist. It is because we want to encourage expenditure under that head that we ask the House to give these further powers. With reference to the earlier part of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that a large amount has been expended on mansion-houses. I do not know that that expenditure is one which deserves the condemnation of the House. It is paid for by the tenants for life 1482 and their successors, and I should certainly have been under the impression that anything the House could reasonably do which threw all the responsibility upon the tenant for life and his successor would have, as one result, the encouragement of people to live on their own properties, and spend their money in the development of those properties. This is surely an object the House would further rather than retard. Yet to judge from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, that is an expenditure which ought not to be encouraged. Everyone knows that the limited owner of an estate has the greatest difficulty in finding capital for the permanent development of the estate. The buildings of labourers' cottages is an undertaking which I defy the ordinary tenant for life to embark upon unless he can get money upon reasonable terms such as are here proposed. In regard to the extension of the period of repayment, the whole thing is in the discretion of the Board of Agriculture, and the whole policy of the Board has been to act in these matters with the utmost regard for the future generation, rather than to encourage tenants for life to embark on reckless expenditure by giving them too easy terms. The object has always been to see that the tenant for life is not allowed to indulge in expenditure without safeguarding the position of the "remainderman." But unless the facilities enjoyed by tenants for life for obtaining money for these purposes are improved, undoubtedly there will not be the development which we desire to see. The remaining provisions are very simple, and it is not necessary for me to occupy the attention of the House any longer in regard to the Bill, to which I hope the House will, without long debate, give their assent.
§ MR. LEWISWe on this side of the House are equally solicitous with hon. Gentlemen opposite that everything that can fairly be done for the development of land told landed property and buildings on landed property should be done, but I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had addressed himself to the remarkable figures which were quoted by my hon. friend, which showed low the money had been expended by landowners. Would it tint be possible in some way to encourage landowners to expend their money on the improvement of the 1483 labourers' cottages on their estates? Surely when the Government undertake a work of this character they ought to do it in such a way and upon such conditions and terms as would induce landowners to improve the labourers' cottages upon their estates. We have to remember that for every single mansion-house there are probably one hundred labourers' cottages. I quite agree that whatever can be done to encourage the afforesting of this country ought to be done. I only wish it were possible for the Woods and Forests Department to do a great deal more in this direction. When we look at what has been done in Belgium, for instance, where in the course of twenty or thirty years large tracts of land which were once waste land have been planted with trees, and are now covered with profitable forests; and when we remember what many landowners with an eye to the future are doing in many parts of this country, I am sure there is nobody who would object to placing it within the power of the comparatively impecunious landowner to plant his land with trees wherever that may be necessary. Such planting not only beautifies the country, but in course of time it increases the wealth of the country. To that part of the Bill I personally should not care to offer any objection whatever. It seems to be a very good and profitable provision, provided it is carried on in a proper manner and the Board of Agriculture exercises a wise discretion. But I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman that, after all, the important question raised by my hon. friend ought to be faced by the Government. Certainly the responsibility of meeting the point lies upon the Government, and I hope they will do their best to induce landowners to improve the small property upon their estates. There are many persons who have not got the means to improve the land, and we ought to make the terms as easy as possible in that direction. When we consider the condition of labourers' cottages throughout the country we must feel that the existing state of the law is certainly not what it ought to be, and this Bill does not improve things in that respect. I appeal to the Government while they have the opportunity to make a necessary change of this character. I think that a short discussion upon the Second Reading of this Bill will not be without value if it directs attention to 1484 this particular question, in the hope that when the measure reaches the Committee stage the Government will be able to introduce such Amendments as will carry out this great and beneficial reform, which does not affect merely a few landowners, but affects the life, the health, and the comfort of a vast number of people in this country.
§ MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, Basingstoke)With regard to what has been said about mansion houses, I desire to point out that the money expended upon them provides a great deal of employment, and is consequently of great benefit to a country district. Although I am very much in favour of advancing money to enable owners to build better cottages, I am glad to say that better cottages are already being built. It is a great advantage, nevertheless, to the poor part of the country population to have these large houses in their midst. I am very much in favour of this Bill, because I believe it will tend not only to the good of the owners of these estates, but it will encourage a life-tenant to develop his estate, and this will be to the benefit of his poorer neighbours.
§ SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)I should like to say that I quite agree with my right hon. friend with regard to the advantage of developing many of the estates throughout the country, and I think any Bill which provides means by which landowners may go in for work of that kind will not be only useful in the improvement of their estates, but will also be useful in improving the general condition of the country and the working class population. I am disappointed, however, that a Bill which proposes to give much easier terms should make no provision for what is after all the crying scandal of our time, and that is the better housing of the poor in the rural districts. No effort is made in this Bill to secure any improvement in labourers' cottages. We have had in London repeatedly evidence that people cannot find homes in which to dwell in decency and comfort, and the same remark applies to rural districts. There are many labourers in the country who have had to go to the workhouse because they could not find a house——
§ MR. LONGI think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension, for this Bill does not propose to lend money to landowners.
§ SIR WALTER FOSTERI shall be glad to meet the superficial criticism of my right hon. friend. At all events, the money of the public will go to these landowners, who will be included in the longer period for repayment. One thing that is necessary for the agricultural interests of the country is that all classes should benefit by a provision of this kind, and I want that class to benefit which has been steadily drifting from the country into the towns simply for the want of decent housing accommodation, and it would be easy for the right lion. Gentleman to introduce some provision which would direct the operation of this Bill into the channel to which I allude. Not long ago I had a census taken of a large portion of rural England in regard to the condition of the poor, and in 1884 a Commission on the housing problem brought forward evidence as to the necessity for an improvement. Returns which have been recently made in the villages of rural England show that 25 per cent, of the cottages there are unfit for human habitation, and that is a condition of things which must necessarily tend to depopulate the rural districts. Such a state of things drives the men away from the villages, and in a Bill like this an opportunity is afforded to make some provision which would not only be good for the landowner, but would also be good for the population, and would also lessen competition in the labour market in towns, and prevent the exodus of the population from the rural districts, where people cannot at present bring up their families in decency and comfort. Almost daily in the rural districts houses are being pulled down because they have been condemned by the sanitary authority, and many of them are allowed to remain simply because if they are pulled down others will not be put up in their places. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Board of Agriculture to seize this opportunity of bringing in some scheme by means of which some of this money should be utilised for the purpose of providing better housing accommodation for the rural poor. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have ingenuity enough to insert some words in the Bill 1486 which will carry out the reform to which I have alluded.
§ * MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)I should like to know how this Bill will operate in the Highlands of Scotland or in the Island of Lewis, which belongs to one individual. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down are very appropriate, and I agree that some provision should be made to prevent this money being spent solely for the benefit of the landlords. Surely it should be expended in the interests of the people. There are two million acres of land in the Highlands of Scotland suitable for agricultural and grazing purposes, the development of which would keep the population on the soil instead of allowing the land to lie idle or be used for the purposes of sport. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take the advice given by the last speaker and make some arrangement whereby the working classes will be benefited as well as the landlords.
§ DR. CLARKI have again to congratulate the Minister for Agriculture upon having withdrawn a Bill which was intended to do something for the benefit of agriculture.
§ MR. LONGI have not withdrawn any such Bill. Objection was taken to the measure from the opposite side of the House.
§ DR. CLARKWe have had a pledge year after year in the Queen's Speech that something would be done to benefit agriculture, and I again congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture upon pitching over the tenant-farmers for the benefit of the landowners.
§ * MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)I have been very much taken by surprise by the attempt which has been made to rush this Bill at this late hour through the House. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite smile, but I apprehend that very few of the Members present in the House have the least idea of what this Bill proposes to amend. It is not by any means an easy pleasure to understand, and I think my hon. friends opposite will see that when I tell them that the principle to which this Bill refers, and with which it deals, is that contained in the Improve- 1487 ment of Land Act of 1864, which applies to every part of the Empire, and which contains no less than ninety-one sections. That is not an Act of Parliament which ought to be dealt with in a hasty manner, and, as an Irish Member, all I require is to be allowed sufficient time to understand what the nature of the legislation is that is going on from time to time. This Bill has been brought in without a word of explanation, and I doubt whether any Member present heard the explanation which was given when the First Reading was taken. Certainly no explanation was given to-night upon the Second Reading, and the only information I have as to the object of the Bill is what I have been able to gather from the memorandum, which states that the object of the measure is to extend the period for the repayment of charges made under the Land Act from twenty-five years to forty years. I would remind hon. Members of what occurred last week, when an appeal was made from the Irish benches to get an extension of the time for the repayment of loans for the purchase of glebe lands. A strong appeal was then made by the Irish Members to have that measure of justice done to Ireland. It was then pointed out that interest on money was now lower than it was in 1870, when these loans were advanced for the purchase of these glebe lands in Ireland, and all we asked for was that the period for repayment should be extended from thirty-five to fifty years. On that occasion it was demonstrated that no loss would be sustained by the Exchequer, but we were nevertheless met by a non possumus from which there was no appeal. It is rather remarkable that the first clause of this Bill seeks to do the very same thing for the landowners of England which was refused to Ireland, and I ask if that is reasonable. That is not equal justice to both parts of the country. Why should this concession be refused to Ireland while it is given to the landowners of England by this Bill without any explanation whatever? I say that Legislation of this sort is calculated to shake one's confidence in the Imperial legislature for doing equal justice to every part of the kingdom. This Bill applies to Ireland, and yet no indication has been given to the Irish Members that this Bill would be taken up to-night, and legislation is now being sought for the purpose of enabling landlords who have spent 1488 large sums on the improvement of their mansion-houses and very small sums on the building of labourers' cottages to have tins concession made to them, and to have the time for the repayment of their advances extended. I intend to support the hon. Member who has moved that this Bill be read this day three months, and I do so for the purpose of giving the Members from Ireland and myself an opportunity of studying this Bill and seeing how far the interests of Ireland are affected by a Bill which I confess candidly and honestly I have not had an opportunity of mastering the details of. I shall therefore support my hon. and learned friend if he goes to a division, and I trust that my hon. friends below the gangway will also support this motion.
§ * MR. LOYD (Berkshire, Abingdon)The impression which has been given by the remarks which have been made by gentlemen opposite is that this Bill has been brought in solely in the interests of the landowners. It is suggested that the Government have been remiss in not providing that tile Facilities for loans should extend to purposes from which the labourers might benefit in respect of their cottage accommodation. But Sub-section 3 of the first clause of this Bill affords facilities for advancing money "for the execution of all or any of the improvements mentioned in Section 9 of the principal Act." The principal Act is the Act of 1864, and number 8 of the 12 improvements mentioned in the 9th Section is:—
The erection of labourers' cottages, farm houses and other buildings[...] and the improvement of and addition to labourers' cottages, farm houses, etc. [...] so as such improvements and additions be of a permanent nature.Therefore this Bill does refer to the improvement of the condition of labourers' cottages, an object which both sides of this House are, I am sure, equally desirous to promote.
§ MR. HEDDERWICKI think it is almost impossible for anyone who reads over tins Bill to comprehend precisely what it refers to at all. From the first clause to the last it is full of cross references, and unless one were to have before him all the numerous Acts which are referred to it would be absolutely impossible to understand the real objects of tins measure. It has been said that this Act is not likely to do anything to im- 1489 prove the labourers' cottages or the condition of the poor population in the rural districts. The hon. Gentleman opposite has pointed out a section in the Act of 1864 in which he says the erection of labourers' cottages is actually referred to. But what has been the effect of that provision? I do not believe that any cottages have ever been built under the provisions of the Act which has been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member opposite; neither do I believe that any farm buildings have been improved in consequence of its operation. I should like to know of any instances where labourers' cottages have been built under that Act.
§ MR. HEDDERWICKThere appear to have been some cottages built on the right hon. Gentleman's estate, but those cottages, while nominally built in the interests of the poor labourers, are really built in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's estate. In most cases where cottages have been built under this Act they have been built as improvements upon the estate. I contend that this Bill has not in any way been devised in the interests of the poor labourers, and for these reasons I shall support my hon. friend.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 220.)
1491| AYES. | ||
| Arrol, Sir William | Godson, Sir Augustus F. | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Mount, William George |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon | Mount, Philip A. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r | Goschen, Rt Hn. G.J. (St Georg's | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld. W. (Leeds | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Gretton, John | Newdigate, F. Alexander |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.-(Bristol | Gull, Sir Cameron | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. | Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Bethell, Commander | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Pollock, Harry Frederick |
| Bigwood, James | Helder, Augustus | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Brassey, Albert | Henderson, Alexander | Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw. |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter | Purvis, Robert |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol) | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Cawley, Frederick | Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm. | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H.A.E. | Jolliffe, Hon. H. George | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Kemp, George | Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Kenyon, James | Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire |
| Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready | Keswick, William | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole | Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn. | Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Stock, James Henry |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glas'w | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cornwallis Fiennes S. W. | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpl. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E. (Kent) |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. |
| Curzon, Viscount | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Denny, Colonel | Macartney, W. G. Ellison | Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm. |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Macdona, John Cumming | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Maclure, Sir John William | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath |
| Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | M'Killop, James | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Malcolm, Ian | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Milward, Colonel Victor | |
| Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Monckton, Edward Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Garfit, William | Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.) | Sir William Walrond and |
| Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Mr. Anstruther. |
| Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W.(Newc.-under-Lyme) | Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.) | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon, Herbert H. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Bilson, Alfred | Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- | Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hemphil, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Burt, Thomas | Horniman, Frederick John | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Caldwell, James | Kilbride, Denis | Steadman, William Charles |
| Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton | Lloyd-George, David | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh. | Macaleese, Daniel | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Colville, John | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Weir, James Galloway |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Moss, Samuel | Williams. J. Carvell (Notts). |
| Davitt, Michael | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Dewar, Arthur | O'Connor J. (Wicklow, W.) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Dillon, John | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Olroyd, Mark | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Doogan P. C. | Price, Robert John | Mr. Evans and Mr.Hedder |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Randell, David | wick. |
Bill read a second time.
MR. SAMUELEVANSI object entirely to that proposal being made without any notice having been given. The Bill ought to be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House. It was not expected that the Bill would be reached to-night, and I think as a general rule we have a right to protest
§ against a Bill being sent to a Standing Committee without any indication being given that that course would be adopted. If the Government proposes to go on with the motion I shall ask the House to divide.
§
Motion made and Question put—
That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."—(Mr. Walter Long.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 143;Noes, 44. (Division List No. 221.)
1493| AYES. | ||
| Arrol, Sir William | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) |
| Balcarres, James (Walworth) | Fellowes Hon. Ailwyn Edwd. | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie |
| Balcarres, Lord | Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Man.) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Loden, Gerald Walter Erskine |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon.G.W.(Leeds) | Fisher, William Hayes | Long, Rt. Hon, W. (Liverpool) |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Garfit, William | Loyd, Archie Kirkman |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. | Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St.Albans) | Lucas-Shadwell, William |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol | Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Littelton, Hon. Alfred |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | Macartney, W. G. Ellison |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Goldsworthy, Major-General | Macdona, John Cumming |
| Bethell, Commander | Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Maclure, Sir John William |
| Bigwood, James | Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Goschen Rt. Hn. G.J. (St. Geo's | M'Killop, James |
| Brassey, Albert | Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Malcolm, Ian |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Gretton, John | Milward, Colonel Victor |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Monckton, Edward Philip |
| Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Gull, Sir Cameron | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo. | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) |
| Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm. | Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh |
| Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry | Hanson, Sir Reginald | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Helder, Augustus | Mount, William George |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Henderson, Alexander | Muntz, Philip A. |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole | Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) | Hornhy, Sir William Henry | Pease, Herb'rt Pike (Dalington |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Jebb, Richard Claverhouse | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Pilkington, R.(Lancs., Newton |
| Cox, lwrin Edward Bainbridge | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Johnston, William (Belfast) | Pollock, Harry Frederick |
| Cross, Herb.Shepherd (Bolton) | Jolliffe, Hon. H. George | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Kemp, George | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edwd. |
| Curzon, Viscount | Kenyon, James | Purvis, Robert |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Keswick, William | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne |
| Denny, Colonel | King, Sir Henry Seymour | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Lawrence, Sir E. D.-(Corn.) | Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l |
| Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson | Thornton. Percy M. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Round, James | Tollemache, Henry James | Wilson- Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) | Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath |
| Seely, Charles Hilton | Valentia, Viscount | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart- |
| Sharpe, William Edward T. | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E. (Kent) | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) | Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. | Young, Commander (Berks,E. |
| Sidebottom, William (Derbysh | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L. | |
| Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) | TELLER FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Stanley Lord (Lanes.) | Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.) | |
| Stock, James Henry | Willox, Sir John Archibald | |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, W.(Newc.-under-Lyme) | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Scale- | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Burt, Thomas | Hemphill, Rt.Hon Charles H. | Shaw, Thomas (Hawich B.) |
| Caldwell, James | Horniman, Frederick John | Sinclair, Capt.J. (Forfarshire) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Clark, Dr G.B. (Caithness-sh. | Kilbride, Denis | Steadman, William Charles |
| Colville, John | Lloyd-George, David | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Macaleese, Daniel | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr |
| Davitt, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Weir, James Galloway |
| Davitt, Michael | Moss, Samuel | Williams, John Carvell (Notts) |
| Dewar, Arthur | Nussey, Thomas Willans, | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Dillon, John | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | |
| Donelan, Captain A. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Doogan, P C. | Oldroyd, Mark | Mr. Evans and Mr. Channing. |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Price, Robert John |
Resolution agreed to.
§ Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.