HC Deb 13 March 1899 vol 68 cc642-59

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.) in the Chair.]

(In the Committee.)

Motion made, and Question proposed— That 110,640 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1900, including 18,505 Royal Marines.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That 106,640 men and boys be employed for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouhere.)

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

Mr. O'Connor, I regret that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here. I regret it on the general ground that I understand he is not well, and on the particular ground that I have a great belief in the right honourable Gentleman as a financier, and I think I should be able to convert him, were he here, into a doctrine of very different expenditure in regard to the Navy. Now, Sir, in 1850 Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister. At that time a Resolution was brought in the House and passed to the following effect— That he has maintained the honour and dignity of the country in times of unexampled difficulty. Lord Russell spoke in that Debate, which was the Pacific Debate, and he said that Lord Palmerston was not a Minister of Austria, or France, or Russia, but that he was Minister of England. And the only reason Sir R. Peel said that he would not vote in favour of the Resolution was that he considered it would be some slur, if he did so, on Lord Aberdeen, who had been Sir Robert Peel's Foreign Secretary, and, therefore, he declined to vote for it. I mention this in order to show that Lord Palmerston was what would be called at the present time an exceedingly strong Jingo. What was the amount of our expenditure upon armaments in the year 1850? The Army cost £8,600,000; the Navy, £6,900,000; the total was £15,500,000. Sir, at that time the Navy had calls upon it precisely as large as at the present time. We considered that we were defended against all probable- ties of invasion, that we were safe in regard to our carrying trade, that we could maintain our communications with our Colonies and India—and, moreover, a very large amount of this £6,000,000 was spent upon the Slave Squadron, which the abolition of slavery at present on the high sea has rendered unnecessary. By 1884 the Navy had run up to £10,000,000. In the years before 1884 the average cost of the Navy was from £8,000,000 to £9,000,000 and £10,000,000. In 1884 there was a naval craze, for these naval crazes are recurring crazes, and in 1887 the cost of the Navy had gone up from this £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 to £13,200,000. Well, Sir, the present First Lord of the Admiralty was then in the Ministry, and he expressed his views upon the matter. He said— I have reason to hope"— this was in 1887, after the rise from £10,000,000 to £13,000,000 in three years— I have reason to hope that the time is not far distant when the Naval Estimates will not require to be swollen by exceptional items such as those which have fallen so heavily upon the taxpayers during the last two or three years. Sir, this anticipation has not been verified. At that time there were alarmists, just as there are at the present time, and from 1887 to 1894 the Navy averaged £15,000,000 sterling. Since 1894 it has gone up by leaps and bounds, and we are now spending—taking the Estimates for the coming year, and including the naval works which we arc called upon to provide—£28,000,000 upon the Navy, an increase over 1895— I am only taking so late as 1895—of £7,500,000, and an increase upon the past year, when we complained that we thought the Naval Estimates were unduly swollen, of £2,816,000. Taking the Supplementary Estimates which, no doubt, will be proposed, I do not question that the Navy next year will cost us £29,000,000. Sir, the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty did not, as he did in 1887, express the hope or the belief that the cost of the Navy would go down. On the contrary, he hinted—and I think he was perfectly right, in the present policy that he has adopted—that the cost of the Navy would go up. Now, Sir, what is the main plea upon which this portentous and enormous increase is justified? The right honourable Gentleman now the Secretary for India, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, said that we must be on an equality with any two Powers. We have gone very far beyond that at the present time. But we are very often told that one of the reasons why we ought to expend money is because France and Russia are expending money, and at least we ought to be on an equality with France and Russia combined. I wonder if honourable Gentlemen on either of these two Benches have ever taken the trouble to look into the real cost of the navies of France and Russia. In 1884 the cost of the French navy was £7,500,000. At the present time it is £12,000,000. The cost of the Russian navy in 1884 was £3,500,000. The cost at the present time is £7,000,000. That is to say, whilst since 1884 we have increased the expenditure on our Navy by £18,000,000, the united increase of the navies of France and Russia has only been £8,000,000.


Will the honourable Member give us the percentage?


I do not know what the honourable Member means. I seldom do know what he means. It was argued at the commencement of this naval craze that we had been obliged to increase our Navy owing to the increase on the part of Russia, but, as a matter of fact, their increases have been due to our increases. We are putting the cart before the horse when we say that our increases have been due to theirs. I was looking recently at the "Navy Annual" of Lord Brassey, in which he gives a relative statement of. the number of ships that have been built by France and this country. Anyone who studies that statement will see that invariably our increase has preceded the increase on the part of France. Take any two or three years, and you will see that that is so. You will see that the increases in the navies of France and Russia have been entirely due to our increases and not vice versa. With regard to the recent contemplated increase by Russia, on which the First Lord of the Admiralty dwelt so long, that has followed the very great increase which has taken place during the past four years in our Navy, and it must be remembered that the increase is not necessarily in any sort of way against us. Russia in the last year or two has obtained a port on the Pacific. Russia is faced by Japan, which has become a great naval Power, and it is easy to understand that under these circumstances Russia considers it necessary to have a certain number of ships in that quarter of the world able to cope with Japan, and to prevent Japan entirely having her own way. When we come to the men, the relations between the two countries are still more remarkable. In France, since 1884, the number has been 38,000, and that number has remained stationary. In 1888 Russia had 29,000 men, and now she has 37,100. In 1889 we had 64,405 men, and in the coming year we shall have 110,000 men. It must be remembered, too, that the Reserve force, which amounts to 37,000 men, is not included in Vote A. Not more than 2,000 of these are employed in the Navy, and therefore we always have this Reserve force to fall back upon in addition to the sailors we have in active service. The increase in regard to men of France and Russia since 1888 has been 8,000, while our increase has been 45,000. In order that the Committee may clearly realise what the increase has been since we have had the honour of having the present First Lord of the Admiralty in office, I may point out that our increase in ships since 1895, taking the ships employed on our Foreign Squadron, and in the Channel Squadron, has been 50 per cent., and our increase in tonnage has been 100 per cent. Last year there was an increase of about 5,000 men to the Navy, but taking the last few years the average increase has been about 4,000. At present we are asked to vote a further increase of 4,000. Now, the Committee must remember that the real cost of the Navy consists to a very great extent in the payments to the men, and the expense of feeding them, and so on, and eventually pensioning them. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty admits himself at the present time that we are not seeking to be superior to any two Powers, because one. of the pleas put forward by him for the increase he asks us to allow was that the six Great Powers are now building a very large tonnage of ships. What does this amount to? It conies to this, that we are competing in men and ships against the entire world. To-day it will be Russia which will build ships, to-morrow it may be France, the next day Japan, and then the United States, and we are actually engaged in the impossible task of seeking to outbuild the entire world. (Cheers.) Honourable Members, in cheering this statement, are giving themselves away and confirming me in my opinion. I say that is an impossible task, and one which spells ruin. It is very often said that we are richer than any other nation. As a matter of fact, we are not richer than the United States. We are not richer than France and Russia combined. As the Leader of the Opposition very well said the other day, we go about jingling our money in the faces of other people and defying them. I call this policy of swagger a most foolish and insane policy. The navy of each Power is not excessive for the requirements of that Power, but when you take the navies of all the six Powers naturally they are larger than our own Navy, and yet, because these Powers build ships in accordance with their own requirements, we are called upon to out build them. I should like to know why it is that we are asked to play this insane game of "beggar-my-neighbour" against the world. One of the reasons for this -policy is the protection of our carrying trade. We are really under the impression that we can carry it on in war as in peace, if we have a sufficiently large Navy. I contend that that is perfectly impossible, and has never occurred under any circumstances in the world's history when two Powers have been at war. The vast proportion of the carrying trade is carried by neutrals and not by belligerents. We are told that we are only paying a modest little insurance to insure the carrying trade against injury, but what are the facts? In the last 25 years the insurance has gone up 100 per cent., while our imports and exports have only gone up 50 per cent. Then it is said that if we have not the mastery of the sea we should be starved, but Lord Wolseley, who is a practical man of war, has said, speaking at the Royal United Service Institute in 1896, that it is absolutely impossible to cut this country off from the supplies of wheat it requires, even if the Fleets of the entire world were to endeavour to do so. On that point the expert opinion of Lord Wolseley is good enough for me. It is further said that it is absolutely necessary to keep up communication between our Colonies and this country, and between this country and the East. Undoubtedly that is so, but no one will tell me that in order to effect that it is necessary to have such an enormous Fleet as we have at the present time. All these are mere pleas and excuses in order to have a large Navy. The real object is to obtain absolute supremacy over the sea, and to annex to the British Empire the entire oceans of the world. We seem to have the idea that the sea belongs absolutely to us. Foreign countries have colonies, and I presume they are anxious to maintain communication with the colonies, and that their trade, though it may be smaller than ours, should not be put an end to; yet they hold their trade and their colonics entirely at our good will. Europe at the present moment is a great factory, and sells its goods to all the nations of the earth; and I ask the Committee, is it likely that all the nations will agree to this doctrine of our being absolute masters of the sea? I ask whether we should agree to it if it were put forward by France, Russia, or Germany; We have always shown ourselves against the domination of any one Power. Half the wars in which we have been engaged have been to maintain a balance of power, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in addressing a meeting on Saturday last, said that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to maintain a balance of power. It is not a balance of power when you are absolute masters of the world. We warred with Spain to prevent her having absolute mastery of the sea; we warred with France because we did not wish France to be dominant, and we were for a time at war with Napoleon. But what was the dream of Napoleon compared with the dream of Her Majesty's Government? Napoleon simply wanted to be master in Europe, and the countries united against him and put an end to his object; but at the present time we want to be masters, not only in Europe, but over the whole world. We appear to be under the impression that foreign Powers are almost criminal if they protest against this doctrine. I do not think it likely the Government will obtain the assent of the Powers at the Disarmament Conference to the condition announced by the First Lord of the Treasury, because such assent would amount to a recognition and admission of the existing state of things which give us the mastery of the ocean. The right honourable Gentleman alluded to what had recently happened in regard to Fashoda, The country, indeed, was calm about Fashoda, not. for the reason alleged by the First Lord of the Treasury—the preparedness of the Navy—but because the country was perfectly convinced that when it came to the real point two great civilised nations were not going to war over a miserable, swampy bog somewhere in the middle of Africa. The right honourable Gentleman illustrated the advantages of these large Estimates by saying that there was no fall in securities. Timorous capital is at the bottom of all this, and the country is called upon to pay this enormous sum for precautions in order that these people may not lose any of their money. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said, practically, that it was a good thing for the country to have a war expenditure in time of peace. As my honourable Friend behind me said just now, Sir Robert Peel always combatted that view. There were alarmists in those days, and Sir Robert Peel always repudiated the doctrine that if you wish peace you must prepare for war. He did not allow himself, like the present Government, to be led away by jingoes. Again, what did Mr. Gladstone do? He despised all these taunts, and simply took off taxes, which is far better than to swell Naval and Army Estimates. Great armaments tend to war and pro duce the military spirit. What caused the trouble with reference to Fabhoda? It was caused by our declining discussion and arbitration, and insisting upon an ultimatum. The incident of Fashoda must be an object lesson to the world as to the use we make of our naval supremacy in telling other Powers that they must accept the law as it is imposed upon them. It will be said, are we to accept the possible risks of combinations of great naval Powers against us? I say we are to accept those risks.-most unquestionably. We always have and, what is more, all nations have. Take the case of the Continental Powers of Europe. Each Continental Power has a large army, but, supposing each country were to say that, although they had an army equal to any one Power, yet they might be attacked by two or three Powers, and it was, therefore, necessary to have an army sufficiently large to compete with the combined armies of two or three Powers, what would be the result? Why, neither country would get an advantage over the other. This is precisely what we are doing in regard to our naval armaments. I confess I am surprised that a man of the financial intelligence and ability of the First Lord of the Admiralty can ever lend himself to carry out a scheme which is in itself absurd ridiculous, and ruinous. In 1871 the right honourable Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty held the same appointment in the Government of that day, and it certainly must surprise him to think that the expenditure of the Navy has been doubled since then. What would the right honourable Gentleman have said if anyone had told him then that the day would come when, instead of sitting as the colleague of Mr. Gladstone on the Liberal Front Bench, he would sit as a Minister on the Conservative Front Bench, and would propose Estimates amounting to £29,000,000? In the words of a Hebrew king when taunted he would have replied, "Is thy servant a dog that he should do these things"? The Navy, I admit, is popular. I myself am in favour of a good strong Navy, but when we have these perpetual increases, and when we are told that millions more must be added, I think the time has arrived when we who represent the taxpayers of this country should raise our voice in protest, all the more as the principle on which these increases are based must in the nature of things lead to further increases. Honourable Members on this side have protested outside the House against the enormous cost of armaments. Surely we ought not to protest outside only, but ought to fight the question inside. If we do not oppose this expenditure now we shall be told, when the Budget is brought forward, that we voted for this expenditure, and that as money does not fall from Heaven we must pay for it out of our own pockets. We do not wish for a reduction of home expenditure. We rather desire that it should be increased. We want sums to be voted for pensions, and in many ways for the betterment of the condition of the working classes. The Education Vote has gone up by £7,000,000. No doubt we object to the incidence in regard to the collection of the Education Rate, but I do not think there is one honourable Member who would rise in his place in this House and say that he desires the sum total expended on education to be reduced. The Telegraphs and the Post Office have caused a further large expenditure, but we would rather see that increased than decreased, because a large portion of the increase has been due to fair salaries being paid to working men. We are now asked for a further increase of expenditure on armaments, and it is perfectly well known that we have come to the end of our tether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has seized everything he can lay his hands on, and is going to ask the House for further taxes for increased expenditure on the Navy. I, for my part, am a logical person. I have always been against increases in the Army and the Navy, and have voted against them whether my vote was popular or not. When the Army Estimates came on this year I moved a reduction; when the Uganda Vote came up I voted for a reduction; when the Vote came up with regard to the West Coast of Africa I voted against it. No one can say, therefore, that I am not logical, and I intend to be logical now. I am not asking the House to vote for a reduction in the enormous Estimates of the present year. I am simply asking them to say that the expenditure of this year is sufficient for our requirements, that we want the money for other matters, and to vote against the increased expenditure proposed for the coming year. In 1895 Mr. Gladstone wrote a letter protesting against the expenditure on the Navy and the Army, and urging that every man who had the true interests of the country at heart should do his best to effect a reduction in the amount. What did the Estimates amount to then? The total was £17,000,000 in that year: now it has gone up to £28,000,000. Surely if we believe in the principles laid down by Mr. Gladstone, if we admire Mr. Gladstone as one of the greatest Ministers and financiers of the age, we ought, when the expenditure has risen in four years to so great an amount, to declare by our votes that we will not sanction the proposed further increase, and will not go one farthing beyond the expenditure of the present year. I beg to move the reduction standing in my name. In order to make round figures I will move the reduction of Vote A by £4,000.


I rise for the purpose of supporting the reduction moved by the honourable Member for Northampton. I share to the fullest degree the views he has expressed, and I entirely agree that it will be idle for us to oppose, as I trust we shall oppose, any proposal for increased taxation, unless we vote against the Estimates on which the increase of taxation will be based. I listened with very great interest to the speech which was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty when he was unfolding the naval programme, and he used one very extraordinary expression, which I confess I could not thoroughly understand. Although he admitted that these Estimates were gigantic, he said the Government were only carrying out what they believed, and knew, to be the mandate of the British nation. He then went on to explain what he conceived to be the mandate of the British nation, but he did not make his meaning clear. He said these Estimates were based upon a careful survey of the shipbuilding programme of six Great Powers. I recollect when this mad campaign commenced of building in avowed competition with certain Foreign Powers, that the formula which we heard laid down over and over again ad nauseam was that the safety of England depended upon keeping the Navy up to a standard superior to any possible combination between two Great Powers. That was what we then understood to be the mandate of the Conservative Government and of those who went in for the recent great increases in the British fleet. Then I noticed in succeeding years that certain individuals, not the responsible Ministers, began to talk about the necessity of being equal to the possible combiation of three Great Powers. But this year the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his statement, declared, for the first time, that he had in view the policy of six Great Powers. I asked the right honourable Gentleman to mention the names of the six Powers whose naval programme he had taken into consideration when framing the Estimates. The first Power he mentioned was the United States. What, then, has become of the Anglo-American alliance? The second Power he mentioned was Japan, and we are, forsooth, in this wild career, now brought to this position, that we are called upon to base the shipbuilding programme of this country on the naval programme of the United States of America, Japan, and the four great European naval countries. That, to my mind, is the language of insanity, and when I hear, for the first time in the House of Commons, a responsible Minister deliberately allude to the shipbuilding of the United States as an element which must be seriously taken into consideration in framing the Naval Estimates of this country, I cannot help expressing the greatest astonishment. I think the day will come when British statesmen will regret that they have ever induced the United States to enter into the mad policy of competing armaments, for the United States have the resources to equip in a few years, if they chose, a navy far superior to the Navy of this country. The First Lord of the Admiralty was extremely emphatic in saying that England was in no way to blame for these increases which were forced upon us by the action of other Great Powers. Well, Sir, that is not the result of my observations. It is far more true to say that the increases of Russia and France were forced upon them by the increase of this country. This enormous development of naval armaments had its origin in Great Britain, and when the statement of the honourable Member for Northampton, that England now claimed to be the mistress of the sea as against the whole world, is loudly cheered in the House of Commons, I think that shows that a species of madness has taken hold of honourable Members on the other side of this House. I cannot conceive anything more likely to bring misery and suffering on the people of this country than that a challenge of that kind should be thrown out in the face of the world, and that the taxpayers should be intolerably burdened in making good that challenge. It is not only an impossible task, but it is an outrage in view of your expressed desire to take part in the Disarmament Conference: it is an outrage on the whole of civilised humanity that such a spirit should be avowed and openly boasted of in a country that professes to love peace. We are told by the First Lord of the Treasury that these naval armaments have nothing whatever to do with the Foreign Policy of this country. He stated the other day that while he was prepared to admit that the increase in the Army might be accounted for, at least to a large extent, by the seizure of the Soudan and the extension of the Empire in Africa and elsewhere, the naval armaments could in nowise be shown to depend upon the Foreign Policy of this country. That is a doctrine which I think flies in the face of the facts of the situation. Any country which adopts an attitude of aggression towards other nations, any country which places itself in the position which England has taken up in regard to the seizing and grabbing of all the good portions of the earth, and then deliberately throws down a challenge to the rest of the world and declares herself mistress of the sea, cannot say with any truth—and it is idle for any Minister who is a party to such a policy to declare—that the necessity of these enormously increased Estimates has no reference to the Foreign Policy of this country. So long as Ministers responsible for the policy of England adopt an attitude of aggression, and go about the country bragging that England is quite independent of the rest of the world, and means to be mistress of the sea, the inevitable consequence is this terrible increase of expenditure, which I shall be prepared to take every opportunity to oppose. It is a most absurd and preposterous doctrine to say that the more you increase the Army and the Navy the more you take safeguards for peace. That is against the established experience of mankind. It is against all the teaching of history. The universal teaching of history is that large armies and large navies have a tendency to drag nations into war. Therefore, I am convinced that these enormous Votes of money, and these great increases of men for the Army and Navy, are not making for peace, but are making in reality for war. For these reasons I am determined to oppose every single increase in the Estimates of the Army and Navy. If I did not oppose them on the general ground of policy, I should oppose them as an Irish Member, because I think it is useless for us to raise the question of the over-taxation of our country if we do not make an attack on the enormous expenditure on the Navy and Army, from which we obtain no sort of benefit whatever. We have little or no share in your trade, and none of this money is spent in our country. Therefore these Votes are specially Votes which we are bound to oppose, because they increase enormously the difficulty of giving to Ireland that financial relief which, later on, we shall be claiming, and because they are Votes for a Service which does not do one atom of pood for Ireland.


I gather that the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down conceived himself to be making a reply to some statements which he assumed had been made by my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is evident, from the remarks of the honourable Gentleman, that he did not carefully listen to that speech, or else he only imperfectly understood it, because he informed the House that the conclusion he had drawn from my right honourable Friend's statement was that we were now desiring to raise the scale of our naval expenditure so as to meet any six Powers of the world that might be selected: and in especial that we had in view the meeting of the growing naval power of the United States. I do not know whether the honourable Gentleman seriously believes that any such programme was ever issued by my right honourable Friend, or that any Government—either the present Government or any of its predecessors, or any of its conceivable successors—could ever pat out so insane a policy. The honourable Gentleman must know perfectly well that my right honourable Friend deliberately based the policy which he asked the House to accept upon the Accepted principle that the naval power of this country should not be less than that which is necessary to meet two Powers, and not the six Powers to which the honourable Gentleman alluded.


The right honourable Gentleman stated that this programme was based on a careful consideration of the building by the six Great Powers.


Certainly; and what Naval Lord would not carefully consider the naval programme of every Great Power which concerns itself with building fleets? But the honourable Gentleman, if he meant serious criticism, must have known perfectly well that the naval programme proposed by the Government had no such insane object as that which he states, and was not framed on the frantic scale of expenditure which he would suggest Our schemes and our ambitions are far more modest. They are the same schemes and the same ambitions, based on the same principles, as animated ourselves in previous years and our predecessors before we came into office. There arc critics—the right honourable Baronet opposite among them—who think we ought to aim at a. higher standard than to deal with the possible combination of two navies. But, at all events, we, who are far more modest than the right honourable Baronet, have not laid ourselves open to the reproach which the honourable Gentleman, for reasons which I am perfectly unable to conjecture, has thought fit to launch against us. I believe that in this matter there is really no difference of opinion in the House, and I do not think that any Gentleman is prepared to get up in his place and say we ought to arrange our programme upon a scale which would make us unable to meet the combined attack of any two Powers. If that be so, and if I have rightly gauged the opinion of all quarters of the House, including, I may even hope, the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, I trust that this Debate, which is essentially upon that principle, will not be unnecessarily prolonged, and that, if we are agreed upon the minimum, at all events, of what our Navy should be, we should be permitted to proceed to the discussion of details, and that we should be allowed to take a Division on the honourable Gentleman's Motion before we separate to-night.


I do not desire to prolong the Debate. I only wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman if, after this Vote is taken, the discussion will be permitted to be general again?



*MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)

I have always been in favour of maintaining the Navy in the highest state of efficiency, and I have hitherto voted with the Government; but I think matters have now arrived at such a pass when we must cry "Halt!" I do not desire to give a silent vote on this question, and I merely rise to lodge a most emphatic protest against the continued increase in the expenditure on armaments.

Allison, Robert Andrew Kilbride, Denis Whit taker, Thomas Palmer
Barlow. John Emmott Lawson,Sir Wilfrid(Cumbrlnd.) Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Burt, Thomas Macaleese, Daniel Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Caldwell, James Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Charming, Francis Allston Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) TELLERS FOE THE AYESߞ
Donelan, Captain A. Tanner, Charles Kearns Mr. Labouchere and Mr.
Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth) Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) Dillon.
Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H. Weir, James Galloway
Acland-Hood,Cant.Sir Alex.F. Fardell, Sir T. Gecrge Muntz, Philip A.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) -Murray, Rt. HnA. Graham(Bute
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Finch, George H. Myers, William Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Nicholson, William Graham
Baker, Sir John Fisher, William Haves Nicol, Donald Ninian
Balfour, Rt.Hn. A.J.(Manc'r.) Fison, Frederick William Nussey, Thomas Willans
Balfour, Rt HnGeraldW. (Leeds) Folkestone, Viscount Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Banbury, Frederick George Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Parkes, Ebenezer
Bartley", George C. T. Garfit, William Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Gedge, Sydney Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington)
Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H. (Bristol) Goldsworthy, Major-General Penn, John
Beaumont, Wentworth C. P.. Gordon, Hon. John Edward Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Pirie, Duncan V.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bethell, Commander Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bigwood, James Green, Walford D.(Wedn'bry.) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Bill, Charles Gretton, John Purvis, Robert
Blimdell, Colonel Henry Greville, Hon. Ronald Richardson, SirThos.(Hartlep'l)
Bond. Edward Gull, Sir Cameron Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson
Bowles, T.Gibson(King's Lynn) Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hare, Thomas Leigh Royds, Clement Molyneux
Burdett-Coutts, W. Heath, James Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Butche, John George Helder, Augustus Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter Simeon, Sir Barrington
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hill, Sir Edwd. Stock (Bristol) Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore) Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice- Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Charrington, Spencer Johnston, William (Belfast) Stock, James Henry
Clough. Walter Owen Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Strauss, Arthur
Coghill, Douglas Harry Kearley, Hudson E. Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Kemp, George Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Reach Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H. Talbot,Rt.Hn. J.G.(Oxf. Univ.)-
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Kenyon, James Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Colville, John King, Sir Henry Seymour Thornton, Percy M.
Tollemache, Henry James
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lafone, Alfred Ure, Alexander
Cock, Fred Lucas (Lambeth) Lawrence, SirE.Durning-(Corn. Valentia, Viscount
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Curzon, Viscount Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset) Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (L'pool) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)
Davenport, W. Bromley- Loyd, Archie. Kirkman Woodhouse.Sir J.T. (Huddersf 'd
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Macartney, W. G. Ellison Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Macdona, John dimming Wylie, Alexander
Dorington, Sir John Edward Maclure, Sir John William Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Malcolm, Ian Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Middlemore, Jno.Throgmorton
Doxford, William Theodore More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOESߞ
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Sir William Walrond and
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Morrell, George Herbert Mr. Anstruther.

Question put— That 106,610 men and boys be employed for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere)

The Committee divided—Ayes, 19; Noes, 147.—(Division List No. 40.)

Original Question again proposed.

And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress: to sit again this day.