§ 47. "That a sum, not exceeding £275,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
§ 48. "That a sum, not exceeding £204,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Ordnance Factories (the cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
§ Resolutions read a second time.
§ First six Resolutions agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Seventh Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £226,403, be 702 granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc, in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expense of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade.'"
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
drew attention to the amount of £10,000, which was the contribution made by the Government to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. It was an extremely proper sum to contribute in 1865, when the Government paid no rates on Government property; but the Fire Brigade being now under the control of the London County Council, and the Government now paying rates upon its property, the reason for the grant had disappeared. The County Council did not want the money, and he could see no justification for its continuance. It would have to be paid this year, but he hoped the Committee would receive an assurance that it would be discontinued in the future.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,) Preston
pointed out that there always had been contributions by the Government to institutions in London which had never been made in the case of provincial towns. He admitted there was a great deal in what had been said by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and agreed that owing to the payment of rates upon Government property an entirely different position was created. In another year he would give the matter his serious consideration.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions Eight and Nine agreed to.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Tenth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £4,297, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during 703 the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords.'"
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
called attention to the delay in filling up the position of the third or Beading Clerk in the House of Lords. He believed the office had been kept vacant for almost a year, entirely owing to some misunderstanding or some difference of opinion as to who should fill the office up, and who should be the person to be put into it. The Committee of the House of Lords which sat to consider the question of its own offices came to the conclusion that whenever the post became vacant it should be filled up by one of the permanent staff of the House of Lords. The Joint Committee of both Houses, which sat in 1899, received that recommendation, and agreed with it. There was, therefore, a very strong recommendation that that form should be followed, and there were very good reasons for following it; but the office had been vacant for nearly a year, and the common voice of rumour said the recommendation of the two Committees was not to be followed, and that a person entirely outside the staff of the House of Lords was to be appointed to it. He complained that during the year a large amount of work had been thrown upon the other clerks of the House of Lords, and some inconvenience had been suffered by the public owing to the recommendations of the two Committees not being carried out. It was not the proper way to treat the officers of the House of Lords, and unless some explanation was given he should raise the matter upon the Vote early next session.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said that in point of fact the Joint Committee was neither more nor less than a farce. By the interpretation placed upon the terms of reference by the noble Lord who presided over it, the Committee was debarred from discussing any of the questions which the House desired it to discuss. The proceedings of the Committee, which was appointed at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, after prolonged debates, were rendered nugatory by their being prevented from going into questions which it was necessary they should discuss.
§ *MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
agreed with the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, but he could not understand the conclusion which had been arrived at. As they had been able to get along during the year without a third clerk, he thought they might be content with two clerks in future. The hon. Member opposite said that rumour told him that there was some dispute as to who should appoint the clerk. When the clerk was appointed it would be time to make a protest, but so long as he was not appointed it was the gain of his salary to the country, and he hoped the dispute might continue.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
said that two clerks were quite sufficient for the House of Lords. There were only two at the time of the Act of Union. When the Joint Committee sat to consider the question of the officers of the House of Lords he tried hard to object to it, and was ruled out of order at least half a dozen times. He tried to object to it on the ground that it did not contain an Irish Member, and, of course, it was a sham and a farce. It only required to have a Member of the House of Commons upon it who would not accept a pension for life, and he would have told the House of Lords how the work could have been done by two clerks.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
said he thought the House was entitled to have a word or two from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on this subject, as it was mainly through his instrumentality that the Committee was appointed. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the result which the Committee had arrived at. He intended that there should be a searching and thorough inquiry, and there was not. As the right hon. Gentleman had taken the initiative in cutting down the salaries of the staff when the Committee was appointed, and as the Committee were debarred from making the inquiries which were intended, he thought the House was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was going to allow the matter to remain where it was or whether he was going to carry it further. If no satisfactory explanation was given, the House of Commons must use its time-honoured privilege and refuse to vote the Supply.
§ MR. HANBURY
said it would be quite impossible for him to go into the various questions of privilege arising between various authorities of the House of Lords. The Treasury had no control over the Vote, but had simply to explain the details of it. Undoubtedly the Committee were appointed to make a much more searching inquiry than they had been enabled to make, owing to the ruling of the Chair. Subjects were ruled outside the reference which he did not think it was considered would be outside the reference when the Committee were appointed. He was bound to say that he thought it was somewhat unfortunate that the Committee were not able to hold a thorough inquiry and go into a number of subjects which it would have been satisfactory, even from the point of view of the House of Lords, to have had thoroughly ventilated. It was impossible for him to give a pledge that any further inquiry would be made. As to the third clerk, the hon. Member for Carnarvon said with justice that he had raised the question in the last Parliament, and the object he had in view, which had
§ been obtained, was that the salaries of the clerks of the House of Lords should be placed upon the same footing as those of the House of Commons, and, in view of the fact that the salaries of the clerks, which used to be higher in the House of Lords, had now been placed on the same footing in the two Houses, he thought that there should be three clerks at the Table in the House of Lords, as there were in the House of Commons. With regard to the point of patronage which had been raised, he could not speak with any authority, but he understood that there had been some discussion on the subject. The salary of the third or Reading Clerk was in respect of two offices, and he understood that the question in dispute was whether the Reading Clerk should be appointed to two offices or whether they should be divided, and two officials appointed as before.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 128; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 275.)707
|Arnold, Alfred||Denny, Colonel||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie|
|Arrol, Sir William||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lowe, Francis William|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Faber, George Denison||Lowles, John|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lucas-Shadwell, William|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r||Fergusson, RtHnSir J. (Manc'r||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred|
|Balfour, RtHnGeraldW(Leeds||Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Macartney, W. G. Ellison|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Macdona, John Gumming|
|Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir M.H.(Bristol)||Fisher, William Hayes||Maclure, Sir John William|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Bethell, Commander||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||M'Killop, James|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.|
|Bigwood, James||Garfit, William||Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.|
|Bill, Charles||Gedge, Sydney||Melville, Beresford V.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Middlemore, J. Throgmorton|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon||Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.|
|Brassey, Albert||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Monk, Charles James|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)|
|Butcher, John George||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morrison, James A.(Wilts., S)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Gull, Sir Cameron||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Newdigate, Francis Alex.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)||Heath, James||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Hill, Arthur (Down, West)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)||Purvis, Robert|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pym, C. Guy|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Kimber, Henry||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.|
|Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson|
|Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.||Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Curzon, Viscount||Lawson, John Grant (Yorksh.||Rutherford, John|
|Seeley, Charles Hilton||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)|
|Sharpe, William Edward T.||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napiet||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath|
|Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)||Talbot, Rt Hn J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. G. B. Stuart-|
|Simeon, Sir Harrington||Thornton, Percy M.||Wyndham, George|
|Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Smith, James Parker(Lanarks)||Tritton, Charles Ernest||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)||Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Spencer, Ernest||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-L.)|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)|
|Asher, Alexander||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Moss, Samuel|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Harwood, George||Perks, Robert William|
|Birrell, Augustine||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Provand, Andrew Dryburyh|
|Blake, Edward||Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hogan, James Francis||Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.|
|Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur||Jones, David Brynmor(Swans.)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Brigg, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Souttar, Robinson|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Kearley, Hudson E.||Steadman, William Charles|
|Burns, John||Lewis, John Herbert||Strachey, Edward|
|Burt, Thomas||Lloyd-George, David||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Wallace, Robert|
|Caldwell, James||M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)||Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)|
|Cawley, Frederick||M'Kenna, Reginald||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Channiug, Francis Allston||M'Leod, John||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Maddison, Fred.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Dewar, Arthur||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Doogan, P. C.||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Gibson Bowles.|
|Edwards, Owen Morgan||Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Sixteenth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £13,439, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments.'"
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
said, that in regard to this Vote he desired to raise a question with regard to which he would not trouble them in any great detail. It had been raised before, and the House thought he was justified in raising it before. It was this. The North Wales Lunatic Asylum Committee was obliged by the Local Government Beard to obtain a fresh water supply, and in order to obtain that, it was necessary that the level of a certain lake should be raised. In order to raise the level of that lake it became necessary to approach the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for the purpose of 708 acquiring certain lands. The Woods and Forests Department said that in order to make the title perfectly secure it would be necessary to purchase the mineral rights. The committee of the lunatic asylum thereupon entered into negotiations with the Woods and Forests Commissioners. The chairman of the asylum committee called upon the Commissioners and drew their attention to the fact that the mineral rights which were, it was stated, to be acquired were of a perfectly nominal character and were practically valueless to them. In spite of that the Woods and Forests Commissioners fixed the price of the mineral rights at £500. The asylum committee were absolutely staggered at such a price being charged for rights which in their view were entirely valueless, and they wrote to the Commissioners setting forth their reasons for believing the rights to be of no value. No reply had ever been received from the Commissioners,but they did reduce the price from £500 to £444. When he replied to the Secretary to the Treasury on a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman replied that the committee themselves had voluntarily offered £400 for the mineral rights. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman 709 for that reply, because, although it was not accurate, he relied upon wrong information which had been supplied to him. As a matter of fact the North Wales Lunatic Asylum Committee made that offer because they were entirely in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. They wore compelled to buy the mineral rights, and to pay that sum of £444, which he contended was a great injustice to them. The mineral rights, as a matter of fact, were not worth a five pound note, and he himself would have been very sorry to give such a sum for them. He had raised the question for the purpose of pointing out and urging that in negotiations with public bodies the Commissioners ought to remember that the object of acquiring these lands was for the public benefit, and that it was their duty to act generously, honestly, and justly with any local bodies applying to them.
§ MR. HANBURY
said several points had been raised by the hon. Gentleman as to whether the mineral rights were worth the price charged. He could only speak from the information which had been supplied, which was, that £500 had been asked by the vendors, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. In placing a certain value upon these mineral rights, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had acted upon the advice of their valuer. He understood that the valuer put the same price on the mineral rights in this case as was paid in regard to certain other property in an adjoining district. He could not agree that the Commissioners ought to have sold the land to the beard of the lunatic asylum at a lower price than to a private individual. The local ratepayer had no claim to any special concession from the Imperial taxpayer.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was glad that the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs had raised this question again, because it had enabled the Secretary to the Treasury to make a statement as to the attitude of his Department on the question. One point had been made clear by the Secretary to the Treasury—one proposition had been laid down which he found it difficult to assent to, and that was that local ratepayers were not entitled to any consideration at the hands of the Woods and Forests Commissioners. What had happened was this, that one Depart- 710 ment of the Government had compelled a local authority to spend a considerable sum of money in order to increase its water supply. So as to do that, it was necessary to spend money, and another Department of the Government, the Woods and Forests Commissioners, were approached, and they asked a price out of all proportion to the value of the land. He contended that they were not entitled to take advantage of the circumstances in which the local authorities were placed and charge anything they liked. If the Woods and Forests Commissioners had said to the Asylum Board "You are compelled to buy these rights and pay £2,000," they would have had no option but to submit.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
said he thought a local body, a quasi- public body, had been very harshly treated in this case. There was an analogous case in which the Woods and Forests Commissioners had acted in quite a different way. They had, in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, absolutely given fifteen acres of valuable public land to a quasi-public body. In face of that he thought that either their present action action was indefensible, or that, in the other case, they had done a wrong thing.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Seventeenth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £33,040, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.'"
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
desired, as the salary of the First Commissioner of Works was included under this Vote, to raise what he considered to be an important point. So long as the statue of Oliver Cromwell defiled the precincts of the House he would in season and out of season raise his voice in protest, and he should contest the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary. He rejoiced in the fact that he was a man of peace, but he noticed that owing to the reticence on 711 the part of the Irish Members in bringing their opinions before the House, there was a danger of their presence in the House being overlooked. On 9th October a resolution was passed by the House of Lords to the effect that no statue of Oliver Cromwell ought to be erected within the precincts of Parliament. With reckless disregard to that resolution the right hon. Gentleman, who had voted against Cromwell and all his ways in 1895, allowed this statue to be erected. Not only was his action disrespectful to the House of Lords, but it was wanting in respect to the House of Commons and his own party, because in 1895, when an hon. Gentleman, afflicted with a large Nonconformist conscience, raised the question of having a statue of Oliver Cromwell, the Irish party opposed it and the Tories voted with them. Oliver Cromwell was the last person in the world whose statue should be erected in the precincts of a constitutional assembly. He called the Mace a "bauble." He was no friend to the House of Lords, and he abolished it. He was no friend to the Church; it was true he did not describe the union of the Church and State as incestuous, but he destroyed the Church. He was a most hateful politician, even as an English politician, for he not only brought himself into public life, but, having commenced public life as a Radical, he brought in a whole string of relatives whom he pushed into public positions. The erection of a statue of this man was a standing insult to Ireland, whose people he murdered by thousands. To erect that statue within the precincts of a House of Commons which, owing to the exigencies of the circumstances, Irish representatives were compelled to attend, was a deliberate insult to every Irishman in existence. Was it felt that the Unionists were under such obligation to Lord Rosebery for having broken up the Liberal party that they were obliged to allow the monument to be erected? He should be glad to hear the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, who had himself on two occasions voted against the erection of the statue. It would probably be put down to "continuity of policy," but the whole transaction was a gross, cowardly, and contemptible insult, against which Irishmen would protest on every possible occasion.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine's
I do not intend to say more than two or three words. The hon. Member has made exactly the same speech on three occasions this session, with, perhaps, a slight variation of adjectives, and I have explained on two occasions my action in the matter. The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying that I have defended that action on the ground of continuity of policy, and he is also perfectly accurate when he says I voted in 1895 against the proposal to erect out of public funds a statue to Oliver Cromwell. When I came into office I found that my predecessor had accepted the offer of an anonymous donor to provide a statue, and had promised a site. The donor asked whether the Government intended to adhere to the promise he had made, on the faith of which the commission had already been given to the sculptor, and we replied in the affirmative. The site was chosen by my predecessor, and that site we gave. In no respect did we interfere with the action which had been taken. I do not think it would have been fair to upset the arrangement when it had gone so far, and I am perfectly prepared to take my share of responsibility in the matter.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
did not consider that the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was a justification of his action. This statue had been erected practically within the precincts of the House, in spite of the fact that both Houses of Parliament had on different occasions declared they did not want it.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLAS
The votes of the House were against the use of public money for the purpose.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said that if the House decided against the use of public money for the purpose, the House meant by that to express its disapproval of the erection of the statue under any circumstances. That was the method by which the House testified its approval or disapproval of a policy. He did not, however, join in the condemnation of the donor of the statue. That gentleman was perfectly entitled to give money for the purpose if he so pleased, being a great admirer of Cromwell. His own opinion, however, of Cromwell was that 713 he was one of the greatest ruffians in the history of the country; that he did acts of autocracy and tyranny far in excess of those of the unfortunate king whom he condemned to the scaffold. After his conduct in Ireland, to erect a statue to Cromwell in a House which still contained 103 Irish representatives was really very like a message of war and enmity to the Irish people. On a previous occasion the First Lord of the Treasury made a comparison with regard to the attitude of Irishmen towards Cromwell, which was entirely fallacious. The right hon. Gentleman said he lived near Dunbar, where Cromwell inflicted a great and terrible defeat upon the men of Scotland, but yet the people of Scotland had learned, wisely, to forget the ignominy of the defeat, and they did not to-day hold towards Cromwell the feelings of rancour and hatred such as were evidenced by Irishmen. But the continued detestation and hatred
§ of Irishmen was not due to the fact that Cromwell beat the Irish in fair battle on an open field, but because he committed the assassinations and wholesale massacres of Drogheda. The comparison should not be with the battle of Dunbar, but with the massacre of Glencoe, as to which the horror of Scotchmen was as fresh to-day as when the massacre took place. There was really nothing in the point that it would have been unfair to have refused to erect the statue, as there were many parts of England where people would have been only too glad to give a site where the statue might have been erected without flouting the opinion of both Houses of Parliament, as had now been done.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes,150; Noes, 10. (Division List No. 276)715
|Arnold, Alfred||Curzon, Viscount||Keswick, William|
|Arrol, Sir William||Dalziel, James Henry||Kimber, Henry|
|Asher, Alexander||Denny, Colonel||Laurie, Lieut-General|
|Atkinson, lit. Hon. John||Dewar, Arthur||Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)|
|Balfour, Rt HnGeraldW(Leeds||Edwards, Owen Morgan||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn(Swans'a|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r||Lloyd-George, David|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Bethell, Commander||Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne||Lowe, Francis William|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M.M.||Fisher, William Hayes||Lowles, John|
|Bigwood, James||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Macartney, W. G. Ellison|
|Bill, Charles||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Birrell, Augustine||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Garfit, William||M'Killop, James|
|Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur||Gedge, Sydney||Maddison, Fred|
|Brassey, Albert||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Brigg, John||Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon||Middlemore, John T.|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Monk, Charles James|
|Burt, Thomas||Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley||Moore William (Antrim, N.)|
|Butcher, John George||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Griffith, Ellis J.||Morrison, James A. (Wilts, S.|
|Caldwell, James||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.||Gull, Sir Cameron||Moss, Samuel|
|Cawley, Frederick||Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Heath, James||Peel, Hon. Wm. R. Wellesley|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Hill, Arthur (Down, West)||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Provand, Andrew Dry burgh|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hughes, Colonel Edwin||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Purvis, Robert|
|Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.||Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir M. W.|
|Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Kenyon, James||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Strachey, Edward||Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.|
|Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R(Bath|
|Rutherford, John||Talbot, Rt. Hon J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon.C. B.Stuart-|
|Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)||Wyndham, George|
|Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)||Tomlinson, Wm, Edw. Murray||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. Strand)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Souttar, Robinson||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Spencer, Ernest||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Steadman, William Charles||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Tauuton|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Hogan, James Francis||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||M'Leod, John||Mr. MacNeill and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.|
|Crilly, Daniel||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Eighteenth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.'"
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
I am very conscious of the inconvenience of dealing with Votes in Supply on Report, and so far as I have been able I have abstained from doing so. At present I can only make one speech upon the subject, and in matters of this kind it is almost impossible to deal with such a subject in a satisfactory manner in one speech. In this instance I am forced to take this course, because this is one of the Votes which was guillotined last night, for out of 156 Votes 46 had their heads cut off last night without any discussion at all. This is a Vote for Foreign and other Secret Services of Her Majesty's Government; in other words, it is a sum of money which Her Majesty's Government asks for from this House in order to get private information from persons whose names it is not allowed to publish, and I need scarcely remind the House that it is one of those Votes which entirely escapes all audit and control, and almost all inquiry in this House. It is only accidentally that I am able on this occasion to animadvert upon the question of secret service money. I am by no means opposed to voting sums of money for secret services, for I believe it is absolutely necessary to have some fund from which to reward those who give this private information which is necessary for 716 the safety of the country. I will go further and say that this money contrasts in a most remarkable manner with the much larger sums spent by other countries every year on a similar service. It is relatively a small sum, and it is absolutely necessary that such money should be spent. But if it be necessary to spend this money in ordinary times of peace, it is absolutely indispensable in times of war, and the English Government should have a considerable sum at its disposal to obtain information which may become of the most vital importance. In the time of Pitt and Napoleon we spent large sums of money in this way, and there arose a race of men who during the war between England and France acted as spies, and gave information to both sides. That is the nature of a spy, for if you want to get information from him as a rule you have not only got to pay him in money, but you have to give him some information which he may take to the other side. In times of war such information is most necessary. This is, perhaps, the one Vote among the sums voted by Parliament that escapes all subsequent examination. You vote this money and it goes into the hands of the Ministers, and then it absolutely disappears. All that we know is that particular Ministers have certified that the money has been expended with their approval. The Comptroller and Auditor General himself knows no more than this. But I shall be able to show that we have some means of knowing how the secret service money has been spent. If the secret service money is spent with judgment and in order to obtain true information it is extremely well spent; but if it is spent to obtain not true but false information, instead of being a benefit it 717 is a most enormous injury, and that is exactly what has happened in this case, as I shall very shortly be able to show. In the beginning of the war with the Boers it became an extremely important matter that we should stop the carriage of contraband of war at Delagoa Bay——
§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the application, as he conceives it to be, of secret service money; the only question here is whether the House should vote a certain sum of money as secret service money. If any Department is known to have expended some of that money upon any particular object, then it may be called to account for it on the Vote for that Department. The question which can be discussed is, whether Parliament ought to authorise the Government to spend a sum of £65,000 for which they have not to account.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
I do not propose to go into detail, but the object of my few remarks will be to claim a better control over the expenditure of this secret service money.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
But the hon. Member was proceeding to deal with the question as to whether some of this money had been properly spent upon obtaining information at Delagoa Bay, and he is not entitled to do that.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
What I am going to say and what I propose to argue is that this secret service money has been so spent as to procure false information for the Government, and that has resulted in Her Majesty's Government capturing ships in the belief that they had on board contraband of war when they had not. They failed to stop contraband of war going to the Boers, and this was in consequence of the way in which the secret service money was spent, and in regard to that I want to make some suggestions.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
That is quite out of order upon this Vote.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
referred to the fact that the Vote had increased from £36,000 to £65,000, and asked whether he might suggest that in expending the additional sum advice should be taken 718 from merchants, stevedores, shippers, and others acquainted with the rules governing the shipping of cargo.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
I think the hon. Member desires to get behind my ruling. All I can say is that, should he endeavour to do so, I shall do my best to stop him.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
I assure you, Sir, I should not have the presumption to entertain such a desire. But I will abandon that line of argument, having indicated what I wished to say, and confine myself to generalities. My generality is this: Although it may be quite right that a sum of £36,000 should be voted for secret service, that an extra £300 a year should be voted for the management of the fund, and that the management should be placed in the hands of officials of the Foreign Office, still it is not right to ask us to increase that sum to the extent now before us unless we have some further means of controlling the secret service money. At present we have no information whatever about it. I observe the Vote is for "foreign and other" secret service money. What is the "other" secret service money? For all I can tell, it may be spent in the United Kingdom.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
The manner in which the money is spent is not in issue here. If the House does not choose to entrust the Government with secret service money, that is a reason for not voting it; but if it is voted as secret service money there can be no question on the Secret Service Vote as to how it should be expended.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
Then I will abandon that line of argument also. I will only say it is extremely unsatisfactory that a Vote should be presented to this House as to which we have no information given us, and as to which we can make no inquiry either before or after it is expended, even though the amount has been more than doubled. My belief is that a large proportion of this money during the present year has been expended in such a way that we ought not to vote one farthing of it. I regret that under your ruling I cannot give, as I should have been able to do, in detail my reasons for believing that. These reasons are very strong and important, 719 and I think it is extremely doubtful whether, if we had been able to discuss the question in full, the House would have felt justified in agreeing to this important Vote.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
I can conceive that in running an empire such as ours it may be necessary under certain circumstances to utilise a fund of this description, but at the same time I have some difficulty in understanding; why the enormous police service in this country should not be used for the purpose for which this money is provided. The Prime Minister a short time ago accounted for the failure to obtain proper information about the Beer forces by the fact that this House voted such a small amount of secret service money. It is for us to consider whether the difference in the situation as it was and as it might have been is satisfied by the increased amount which the Government are now asking us to provide. The main object I had in rising, however, was to ask for a pledge that no portion of this money would be devoted to any purpose other than that for which we are voting it. I think we are entitled to have a straight answer to a straight question. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge on behalf of the Government that no portion of this Vote will be devoted to the support of any political candidates or to the satisfaction of any political interest at any General Election which may take place? If a satisfactory answer is given, it will, to some extent, remove my opposition to this Vote.
§ MR. HANBURY
I am afraid I cannot give any pledge of the sort. It is extremely unlikely that the money will be used for any such purpose, but I cannot undertake to tie the hands of the Government as to the purposes to which they may devote this secret service money. The money is voted by the House to the Government without any limitation as to the purposes to which it should be applied, and I cannot make any pledge as desired by the hon. Member.
§ MR. MADDISON (Sheffield, Brightside)
said he had always objected to entrusting any Government with such a large sum of money for which they were accountable to no one, and about which Parliament and the country knew abso- 720 lutely nothing except that they had to pay it. With regard to the pledge asked for by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, if it was ridiculous, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to suppose that the money would be devoted to the purpose suggested, why did not the Secretary to the Treasury at once give the assurance asked for? The Vote was for "foreign and other" purposes. Those words were very wide, but the right hon. Gentleman had deliberately made them wider still by refusing to give this definite pledge in reply to a plain question. For all he knew, therefore, he might be fighting at the next election against someone receiving money from Her Majesty's Government. He could only say that he should vote against the resolution. It was a most dangerous thing in this democratic age that £65,000, or an increase of £35,000 over last year, should be voted for secret service on the eve of a General Election. He felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman gave the best reply he could, but that reply was most unsatisfactory. They had had in a brief space a confirmation of their worst doubts about this secret service money. He ventured to say in the nations where the most secret service money was spent there were the most vamped-up crime, and there the worst deeds took place. Secret service money had always been the minister of tyranny and corruption. If the right hon. Gentleman could have relieved them of the slightest doubts they would not have put him to the trouble of a division. He should certainly vote against this resolution.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
I am amazed at the humiliating nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. It might have been expected that the suggestion that this money, taken from the public, was to be devoted in aid of a political campaign, would had been repudiated with scorn and indignation; but Members are left to draw their own inference from the fact that the question was met in the way it was. I will make one point which I hope the public will remember, and that is that this sum of £30,000 additional voted on the eve of a General Election is exactly the amount of the cheque which Hooley sent to the responsible heads of the Tory party—a cheque kept for months in the hope that it would be cashed, and which they only decided not to cash when they 721 had to make a virtue of necessity. What they could not get from Hooley they are now taking from the country.
§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)
If there is any political risk to the Government connected with the next General Election it is that they may come back to the House with too great a majority; and if any secret service money is expended it should be rather devoted to the purpose of seeing the balance between parties more evenly maintained. I cannot, however, conceive that anybody could imagine that secret service money would be applied to increasing the already too large disparity between the two parties in this House. Apart from that, one would like to think that there is no possibility of any use being made of secret service money for party purposes.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
The right hon. Gentleman has surely no hesitation whatever in uttering a word in order to reassure the House and the country, whose confidence in the Government has been considerably shaken. We know that in even recent times this particular fund was applied to purposes wholly illegitimate. When the amount of this fund is being doubled for purposes mainly foreign in their character, we should have a definite pledge that not a single penny of it will be applied to political party purposes. A most reasonable appeal has been made to the right hon. Gentleman; but of course if that appeal cannot be answered we can only place one construction upon it, and must come to the conclusion—though with the greatest possible hesitation—that the Government are going to devote the secret service money to the help of their friends at the General Election. I appeal once more to the right hon. Gentleman to set our minds at rest in this matter, and I can assure him that any word he can say in that direction will be acceptable to the House and the country tonight.
§ MR. HANBURY
I crave that indulgence of the House to amplify what I
§ said before. When a Vote is given by the House for a general purpose I do not think that a Minister ought to undertake to limit the use of it in any way. But I will at the same time express my own opinion that this money is given not for party, but for national purposes, and that in my opinion it would be despicable to use what is given for national purposes for party purposes. I cannot conceive that a single penny of this fund could possibly be used for party purposes.
§ MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)
My hon. friend was amply justified in raising this question by the remarks which have fallen from the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury. It seems to me almost incredible that the money should be applied in the way suggested, and I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in the spirit in which he has made it. I suppose that the secret service money passes through the same phases as other Votes, and that if there is any surplus at the end of the year that amount is carried to other accounts in the usual way
§ MR. HANBURY
It is not; the balance is surrendered.
§ MR. CHANNING
The balance is appropriated to other purposes. To a certain extent this fund is not large enough at the present time. I have spent some little time in reading the Blue-book in regard to China, and I am bound to say that the information we have obtained in regard to the growth of armaments in that country has been of a very insufficient character. It seems to me that if those entrusted with the management of affairs in China had been allowed the use of this fund better information might have been obtained forecasting the present disturbances.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 32. (Division List No.277.)723
|Arnold, Alfred||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bethell, Commander|
|Arrol, Sir William||Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Bigwood, James|
|Bill, Charles||Garfit, William||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Morrison, James A. (Wilts., S.)|
|Brigg, John||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)|
|Brassey, Albert||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Griffith, Ellis J.||Newdigate, Francis Alexander|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Gull, Sir Cameron||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Butcher, John George||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh||Hill, Arthur (Down, West)||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Birm)||Howard, Joseph||Purvis, Robert|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hughes, Colonel Edwin||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. G. Thomson|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)||Kenyon, James||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Kimber, Henry||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.||Laurie, Lieut. -General||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn||Spencer, Ernest|
|Curzon, Viscount||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)||Strachey, Edward|
|Denny, Colonel||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lowe, Francis William||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E(Taunt'n|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lowles, John||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||William's, J. Powell- (Birm.)|
|Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Macdona, John Cumming||Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. ER. (Bath|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fisher, William Hayes||M'Killop, James||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Flower, Ernest||Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Monk, Charles James|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Edwards, Owen Morgan||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Asher, Alexander||Gourley, Sir E. Temperley||Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Hogan, James Francis||Souttar, Robinson|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)||Steadman, William Charles|
|Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Burt, Thomas||M'Kenna, Reginald||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Caldwell, James||M'Leod, John||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)|
|Crilly, Daniel||Moss, Samuel||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Dewar, Arthur||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Maddison.|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Thirty-first Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £33,510, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland.'"
§ *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)
It will be in the recollection of the House that I lately called attention to what I conceived to be a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the arrest on warrant of two of my constituents—Mr. O'Keefe, 724 the manager, and Mr. Keene, the editor, of the Kilkenny People. They were brought before two magistrates on a charge of having published the proceedings of a public meeting which was held two months before. I may say that Mr. O'Keefe is one of the most respected citizens in Kilkenny. He was mayor of the city last year, and Mr. Keene was a member of the corporation only a few months ago. If these gentlemen committed any offence I am not for a moment going to excuse them in the least. Nor am I going to prejudge the trial in the least. But I say it is a most extraordinary procedure that they should be brought up in the manner I have described on the 1st 725 August for the publication in their paper on 2nd June of a resolution passed at a public meeting. I do not know the nature of that resolution, and therefore cannot defend it, but according to the information I have obtained from some of my constituents, there was a mooting of the organisation known in Ireland as the United Irish League, at Mullinahone, county Tipperary, on the 27th May, and there, it is alleged, some resolution was passed. A report was supplied to the press in the ordinary way, and was published in the Kilkenny People. Thanks to the action of the Crown that resolution and that paper have obtained a notoriety they never would have got otherwise. The Crown might within two mouths have been able to lay their hands on the people who passed the resolution and have prosecuted them, and not have dealt with the manager and editor of the paper and dragged them before two magistrates—one of them imported for the occasion. I say that this is as gross an interference with the freedom of the press as over occurred in Ireland, and that is saying a great deal. What Minister would dare to do such a thing in any part of Great Britain? The Crown might have trusted the Kilkenny bench of magistrates, composed of gentlemen of all sorts of politics, to deal with the two gentlemen—one of whom, as I have said, was only a few months ago mayor of the city, and the other a member of the corporation. I can account for it in no way except that the Government were in hopes that Parliament would be up before attention could be called to the case. I leave it to the Attorney General for Ireland to explain how it took him two months to hatch this case, and why it is that, with the ordinary law and a variety of Coercion Acts at his hand, he has had recourse to the ancient and obsolete Whiteboy Acts. Any amount of multiplication of the offence may have taken place in the meantime since the Mullinahone meeting. I want to know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not act on the principle that prevention is better than cure, and why ho did not step in to prevent the publication of the resolution, and why he did not visit those who passed the resolution with punishment, if passing it was illegal. Both Mr. Keene and Mr. O'Keefe are personal friends of my own, and they are not the men to evade responsibility for what they have done 726 publicly; neither are the people of Mullinahone the people to evade responsibility. They are gentlemen who stand up to their guns and take the consequences. I say it is monstrous, instead of proceeding in the ordinary way, to drag them through the streets of the city over which one of them has presided. They might have been proceeded against by ordinary summons instead of under the Whiteboy Acts. I do not propose to detain the House at any length, but I certainly would have failed in my duty to my constituents if I had not brought before the House such a gross attempt to muzzle the press. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is trying to destroy that paper because it has an enormous Nationalist influence in the city of Kilkenny. But if that was his object, I promise him that he has failed; he has only given it a better advertisement and a better claim on public confidence than it ever had before. What does the right hon. Gentleman, expect to gain by this action? I shall feel it my duty and pleasure to go into that city and setup a branch of the Irish League now, and we will give him resolutions quite as hot as he will relish them in Kilkenny city, without waiting for them to be imported from Mullinahone.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.
The hon. Member has indulged in a freedom which it would be obviously most improper for me to follow, because he has criticised and entered into the validity of a charge that is now pending against these two men.
§ *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN
I ask to be allowed to explain that I did nothing of the kind. I did not defend the resolution or the publication of it. All I said was that the Crown had the proper means two mouths ago to stop it.
§ MR. ATKINSON
If the hon. Member did not moan to discuss the nature of the charge, I am at a loss to understand what he means when he talks of muzzling the press.
§ *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN
I rise to order. I did not say——
§ *MR. SPEAKER
There is no point of order. The Attorney General is putting a construction on the words of the hon. Member.
§ MR. ATKINSON
It would be unbecoming on my part if I let fall one word which might tend to prejudice accused persons over whom a charge is pending and who may yet have to stand their trial. And therefore it is absolutely impossible to enter into a discussion of the motives or object of the prosecution, and why a particular mode of procedure was adopted. I do not wish to enter into the facts of the case or to discuss them. I merely say that the hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking that the rising of Parliament had anything to do with the prosecution. These people are accused of the very serious crime—under the 3rd section of 1 and 2 William IV., c. 44—of printing certain matters tending to incite persons to unlawful combination, and to exercise intimidation upon a particular individual to do or not to do a particular thing.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
That applies only to Ireland.
§ MR. ATKINSON
Of course it refers only to Ireland. That is the crime of which these gentlemen are accused, and if they are guilty of that crime it is preposterous to talk of the liberty of the press, as if there was any liberty of the press, which should be recognised, in instigating to commit a crime. The hon. Member said that the Crown ought to find out who passed the resolution. The offence was not passing the resolution, but publishing it. That is the crime of which these gentlemen are accused. The hon. Gentleman will not contend that when a man commits an offence he should not be brought before the magistrates and dealt with. One process is as legal as another, and unless it be conceded that the criminal should be allowed to choose the mode with which he should be dealt with and the tribunal before which he should come to be tried, there can be no complaint. Every care was taken, and every precaution, to avoid anything like indignity being cast upon these two gentlemen, and to save annoyance to them except what was absolutely necessary. Mr. O'Keefe himself thanked the Crown Solicitor for the kind consideration with which he was treated when he was brought before the magistrates. The hon. Gentleman said he was dragged through the streets; he might as well have said he was beheaded no one 728 but Mr. O'Keefe himself and the constables who effected the arrest knew that he was arrested. It is impossible at the present early stage of the case, before it has been investigated, to enter into all the reasons which induced the Crown to take the proceeding which is now objected to, but when the prosecution has come to a conclusion I shall be prepared to justify to the satisfaction of the House the steps which the Crown took in this matter.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said he did not propose to discuss the nature of the charge which was made against these two gentlemen, or the evidence in support or against of that charge. Not only would such a proceeding be an abuse of the privileges of a Member of Parliament, but it might prejudice the case of these gentlemen. The real issue between the Attorney General and the Nationalist Members was as to the particular form of procedure adopted in this case. The procedure was to bring these gentlemen up under the Whiteboy Acts. So long ago as 1880 or 1881 he introduced a Bill to repeal these Acts, which received a considerable amount of support, and most of the Members were rather shocked to find that such archaic, obsolete, and savage Acts still remained on the Statute-book. The Whiteboy Acts applied to every kind of agrarian disputes, and so savage were they in their punishments, and so insidious and furtive and dangerous, that under a Whiteboy Act a man for a very trivial offence could be sentenced to seven years penal servitude. The right hon. Gentleman had said that editors should have no different treatment to anybody else. With that proposition he agreed. He himself had filled the difficult and trying position of an editor, and had occasionally come into conflict with the rights of individuals, and he had had to pay very dearly for his real or imaginary faults. He did not complain. He was brought before a civil court, tried by a jury, found guilty, and mulcted in damages. He made no complaint in that regard; but had he been in Ireland, and had he come into conflict with the landlords, he would have been tried as a criminal, and instead of being subjected to a fine of £100 or £1,000, would have been liable to seven years penal servitude, with the additional punish- 729 ment of being twice or thrice publicly whipped in the market place.
§ MR. ATKINSON
No, not now. That part of the Act has been repealed.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
was greatly relieved to hear that that was so; it showed that some progress was being made even in Ireland. He was grateful for it. A man could now only be sentenced to seven years penal servitude, and could not be publicly whipped. What was the genesis of these proceedings? According to general report, before many months were over, the country would be electing a new House of Commons, and the Chief Secretary's Department with others would be under discussion. The great point the right hon. Gentleman had been making was that he had been able to administer Ireland under the ordinary
§ law, and he wanted to be able to keep up the technically correct statement that the Coercion Act had not been enforced. The result was that he had recourse to this other ancient Coercion Act. But that was a policy which would not succeed——
§ It being Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 15th February last, proceeded to put forthwith every Question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply.
§ Question put. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 278.)731
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r.||Lowles, John|
|Arnold, Alfred||Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Lucas-Shadwell, William|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Macartney, W. G. Ellison|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fisher, William Hayes||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.||M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||M'Kenna, Reginald|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Flower, Finest||M'Killop, James|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol)||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.|
|Bethell, Commander||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Galloway, William Johnson||Middlemore, John Throgmort'n|
|Bigwood, James||Garfit, William||Milbank, Sir Powlett Charles J.|
|Bill, Charles||Gedge, Sydney||Monk, Charles James|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||More, Robert J. (Shropshire)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr|
|Brassey, Albert||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Morrison, James A. (Wilts., S.)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Gull, Sir Cameron||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)|
|Butcher, John George||Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir. Edw. H.||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath|
|Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.||Newdigate, Francis Alexander|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)||Heath, James||Penn, John|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hill, Arthur (Down, West)||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.||Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Houston, R. P.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Charrington, Spencer||Howard, Joseph||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Purvis, Robert|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hughes, Colonel Edwin||Pym, C. Guy|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready||Jackson, Rt. Hn. W. Lawies||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.|
|Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.||Kenyon, James||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.||Kimber, Henry||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Laurie, Lieut. -General||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Curzon, Viscount||Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn||Rutherford, John|
|Denny, Colonel||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Disraeli, Conings by Ralph||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.||Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)|
|Faber, George Denison||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Lowe, Francis William||Spencer, Ernest|
|Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-|
|Stephens, Henry Charles||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wyndham, George|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Strauss, Arthur||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.|
|Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.||Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Thornton Percy M.||Wilson-Todd, W H. (Yorks.)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Tollemache, Henry James||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Edwards, Owen Morgan||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Asher, Alexander||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley||Souttar, Robinson|
|Birrell, Augustine||Griffith, Ellis J.||Steadman, William Charles|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hazell, Walter||Strachey, Edward|
|Brigg, John||Hogan, James Francis||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jones William (Carnarvonshire||Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)|
|Burt, Thomas||Kearley, Hudson E.||Ure, Alexander|
|Caldwell, James||Lewis, John Herbert||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Cawley, Frederick||M'Leod, John||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Maddison, Fred||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Crilly, Daniel||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Morton, Ed W.J. C. (Devonport)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Dewar, Arthur||Moss, Samuel||Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Doogan, P. C.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
Resolutions Thirty-two to Thirty-four agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Thirty-fifth Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £752,408, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum732
§ necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary.'"
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 146; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 279.)733
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Coghill, Douglas H.||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon|
|Arnold, Alfred||Collings, Rt. Hon Jesse||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)||Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)||Gull, Sir Cameron|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.||Halsey, Thomas Frederick|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Cox, Erwin Edward Bainbridge||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.|
|Bethell, Commander||Curzon, Viscount||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Denny, Colonel||Heath, James|
|Bigwood, James||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hill, Arthur (Down West)|
|Bill, Charles||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Houston, R. P.|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Faber, George Denison||Howard, Joseph|
|Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Brassey, Albert||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r||Hughes, Colonel Edwin|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Fisher, William Hayes||Jenkins, Sir John Jones|
|Butcher, John George||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Jessell, Captain H. Merton|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.||Kenyon, James|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Kimber, Henry|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Flower, Ernest||Laurie, Lieut.-General|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.||Galloway, William Johnson||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)|
|Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)||Garfit, William||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie|
|Charrington, Spencer||Gedge, Sydney||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swan'a|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Lowe, Francis William||Penn, John||Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)|
|Lowles, John||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur||Stephens, Henry Charles|
|Lucas-Shadwell, William||Pierpoint, Robert||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Pretyman, Ernest George||Strauss, Arthur|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Sturt, Hon. H. Napier|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Purvis, Robert||Thornton, Percy M.|
|M'Killop, James||Pym, C. Guy||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Manners, Lord Edward W. J.||Rentoul, James Alexander||Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray|
|Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.||Richards, Henry Charles||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.||Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L|
|Monk, Charles James||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)|
|Moore, William (Antrim, N).||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|More, Robert J. (Shropshire)||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R.(Bath)|
|Morrison, James A.(Wilts, S.)||Rutherford, John||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Wyndham, George|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Simeon, Sir Barrington||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Spencer, Ernest|
|Abraham, Wm (Cork, N.E.)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Asher, Alexander||Hazell, Walter||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Hogan, James Francis||Roberts, J. B. (Eifion)|
|Birrell, Augustine||Jones, David B. (Swansea)||Souttar, Robinson|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Jones, William (Carnarvon.)||Steadman, William Charles|
|Brigg, John||Kearley, Hudson E.||Strachey, Edward|
|Burt, Thomas||Lewis, John Herbert||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Caldwell, James||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Ure, Alexander|
|Cawley, Frederick||M'Leod, John||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Maddison, Fred.||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Dewar, Arthur||Morgan, W. Pritch. (Merthyr)|
|Doogan, F. C.||Morton, Edw.J.(J. (Devonport)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Edwards, Owen Morgan||Moss, Samuel||Mr. Crilly and Mr. Michael Austin.|
|Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
Resolutions Thirty-six to Forty-one agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Forty-second Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £2,300, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the734
§ sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.'"
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 14. (Division List No. 280.)735
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Bousfield, William Robert||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)|
|Arnold, Alfred||Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Brassey, Albert||Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Brigg, John||Channing, Francis Allston|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Charrington, Spencer|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Bullard, Sir Harry||Clare, Octavius Leigh|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Burt, Thomas||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol)||Butcher, John George||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Bethell, Commander||Caldwell, James||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Cooke, C.W. Radcliffe (Heref'd|
|Bigwood, James||Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow|
|Bill, Charles||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.|
|Birrell, Augustine||Cawley, Frederick||Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Ed. T. D.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)||Curzon, Viscount|
|Denny, Colonel||Kenyon, James||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Dewar, Arthur||Kimber, Henry||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Faber, George Denison||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane.||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans.||Rutherford, John|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. M.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Lowe, Francis William||Seely, Charles Hilton|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Lowles, John||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.||Lucas-Shad well, William||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Macartney W. G. Ellison||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Flower, Ernest||Macdona, John Cumming||Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.|
|Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||M'Killop, James||Souttar, Robinson|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Maddison, Fred.||Spencer, Ernest|
|Garfit, William||Manners, Lord Edward W. J.||Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)|
|Gedge, Sydney||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Steadman, William Charles|
|Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.||Stephens, Henry Charles|
|Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Strachey, Edward|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.||Strauss, Arthur|
|Gray, Ernest, (West Ham)||Monk, Charles James||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Gull, Sir Cameron||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merth'r||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Morrison, Jas. A. (Wilts., S.)||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)||Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Hazell, Walter||Moss, Samuel||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|Heath, James||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute||Whiteley, H. (Asht'n-under-L.|
|Hill, Arthur (Down, West)||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)||Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)|
|Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Houston, R. P.||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Howard, Joseph||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Penn, John||Wyndham, George|
|Hughes, Colonel Edwin||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Pretyman, Ernest George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Swan.||Purvis, Robert|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)||Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Hogan, James Francis||Ure, Alexander|
|Crilly, Daniel||Jones, William (Carnarvon.)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Leod, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Edwards, Owen Morgan||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
Resolutions Forty-three to Forty-six agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Forty-seventh Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £275,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the736
§ Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901.'"
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 148; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 281.)737
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds)|
|Arnold, Alfred||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Barnes, Frederic Gorell|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r)||Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol|
|Bethell, Commander||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Bigwood, James||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon||Newdigate, Francis Alexander|
|Bill, Charles||Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex)||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Goulding, Edward Alfred||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Penn, John|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Green, Walford D(Wednesbury||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur|
|Brassey, Albert||Gull, Sir Cameron||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Purvis, Robert|
|Butcher, John George||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Pym, C. Guy|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Heath, James||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire||Hill, Arthur (Down, West)||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)||Houston, R. P.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Howard, Joseph||Robertson, H. (Hackney)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Hughes, Colonel Edwin||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies||Rutherford, John|
|Charrington, Spencer||Jenkins, Sir John Jones||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Seely, Charles Hilton|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Kenyon, James||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Kimber, Henry||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.||Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. D. T.||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)||Spencer, Ernest|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)|
|Curzon, Viscount||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'sea)||Stephens, Henry Charles|
|Denny, Colonel||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Stirling Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Disraeli, Conings by Ralph||Lowe, Francis William||Strauss, Arthur|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lowles, John||Stint, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Faber, George Denison||Lucas-Shad well, William||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.||Macartney, W. G. Ellison||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r||Macdona, John dimming||Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E (Tauntn.|
|Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.|
|Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne||M'Killop, James||Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Manners, Lord Edward W. J.||Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Wodehouse, Rt Hon. E. R(Bath|
|Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.||Wyndham, George|
|Flower, Ernest||Monk, Charles James||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)|
|Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)||More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Morrison, J. A. (Wilts, S.)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Garfit, William||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)|
|Gedge, Sydney||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Edwards, Owen Morgan||Moss, Samuel|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Birrell, Augustine||Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Griffith, Ellis J.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Brigg, John||Hazell, Walter||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Burt, Thomas||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Caldwell, James||Kearley, Hudson E.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Lewis, John Herbert||Souttar, Robinson|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lloyd-George, David||Steadman, William Charles|
|Channing, Francis Allston||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Crilly, Daniel||M'Leod, John||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Maddison, Frei.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Dewar, Arthur||Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Doogan, P. C.||Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Mr. Ure and Mr. M'Kenna|
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.