§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)The Amendment which I have had the honour to place upon the Paper I now desire to move. I know that to question anything of this sort is a matter that requires a certain amount of brutality, and I know perfectly well I shall not be looked upon with any great favour for the action I now take by some Members of this House; but in the remarks I shall make I shall not trespass on any personalities. I merely wish to raise a question of great public importance, and to judge it on its merits. In the steps I have taken I am not in the position of an anonymous writer; many of these matters are raised anonymously, but what I have written I have put my name to, and I bring that forward to show that I am not afraid to act in my own name. I believe the formation of the Government is a thing that everybody notices and refers to privately, 368 but one which they do not like to refer to in public. In my judgment this matter goes to the root of the influence of the Government, and it will prevent the Government doing that which I think it is bound to do as a result of the General Election through which we have just passed. In the recent elections the country decided two great issues. One was the war, and on that question the country approved the action of the Government, and decided that the war was to be continued to the end. It gave the Government absolute power and discretion to carry it on until the British flag was supreme between Cape Colony and the Zambesi. The other question which, in my judgment, was almost as important which the country also had before it to decide was whether, without any further delay, there should be, not reform, but entire reorganisation in our system of national defence. I believe that the country felt this question to be as important as that of the carrying on of the war, if not of greater importance, and the country gave the Government this overwhelming majority on the condition that the reorganisation of our system of national defence should be taken in hand at once. The question I raise is as to the predominance of one family in the Cabinet, and how it affects that question, and I shall endeavour to show that this arrangement is detrimental to the idea that we are going to have any reform at all. It is no secret that the country was not satisfied with the action of the late Government. That is common knowledge on both sides of the House. I am speaking not only for myself but for many others, and if the House wants proof I need only refer to the letter of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, written last summer and already quoted in this debate, in which he said the action of the Government was not satisfactory. If they had not felt that the hon. Gentleman was a man who could be trusted they certainly would not have selected him to move the Address, and thereby clearly shown that a good deal of what has been said was correct on these points. Everybody, whatever their feelings, sank their differences to the great issues before the country. The great question of the Church, the question of Education and Voluntary Schools, even the action of the Government concerning vaccination, 369 were forgotten. All these questions were sunk because we wished to give the Government as long, strong, and large a majority as possible in order to support them throughout Europe and the world. The only exceptions were their Irish allies, who did not act during the General Election as if they were strong supporters of the Government, but the Government have thrown over the chief member who acted under the late Government for Ireland, and so I suppose some compromise has been arranged. Well, it may be said that if we felt so strongly on the subject of the national defence, why could we not have brought it up in the last session of Parliament? There were obvious reasons why we did not do so. There were very few on the opposite side of the House, except the section already referred to, and practically no one except one Member on this side, who did not wish to give the Government absolute freedom during the last Parliament. We did not wish to bring up those questions on which we differed, and we did not wish to raise the question of the national defence, because we wished, not to embarrass the Government, but to give them an absolutely free hand. The election having passed, and the country having decided as they have done that these questions cannot be ignored, I say that we have a right, and I think it is our bounden duty now, to consider whether the formation of the Government will tend to produce these reforms so necessary in our national defence. I lay great stress upon that; and the point which I shall try to show is that the predominance of one family, however distinguished, is certainly detrimental to that position. There are many apologists for our system who say that during last year, with all our calamities, the country sent between 200,000 and 300,000 men to South Africa, and that everything was done that could be done. I say that that was done, not by the system of the Government, but in spite of it. I say that the country rose as one man, and that everything was done—volunteers came forward, and all the other steps were taken, but it was not done by our system. It seems to me that our system of national defence led to the failure at Colenso, but it was the action of the country that changed the aspect of affairs and turned the tide to success. If that was so, I think the time has come 370 for us to demand an inquiry into those questions, and that seems to me to be the point we should brace ourselves to consider. It was not the time, nor was it desirable that we should last session go into it, but the time has now arrived. Although there are a number of points we should inquire into, I do not wish to trespass long upon the House. Still there are a few points I must refer to. Those of us who are interested in the South African war, and many of us who were present in South Africa, know that there are an immense number of points that must be considered. We are bound to ask and to get an answer why our army was not ready, and whether our guns were less or not less efficient than those of the enemy. Why was Natal left absolutely at the mercy of the Boers, and why was Ladysmith made the Aldershot of the Cape? Was our supply of ammunition adequate? These are questions which it is absolutely necessary that we should go into. I have heard on very good authority that the Navy had to be ransacked for ammunition, and that we were absolutely at a loss for ammunition at the beginning of the current year. I say we are bound, without regard to party, without regard to personal feelings, and without regard to personal interests, to inquire why that was the case. If it was so somebody should be held absolutely and personally responsible. How is this inquiry to be made? No doubt we shall be told when Parliament meets in February next that there will be a Commission or something of that sort to inquire into these questions. That may be very good, but the whole of that inquiry depends on the way in which it is made. During the election there were continual inquiries as to what changes were to be made in the personnel of the Government. Everybody felt that there must be changes made to carry out this inquiry, and so loud did these inquiries become that hon. Members may, perhaps, remember that just before the election Lord Roberts was announced to be the successor of the Commander-in-Chief. That gave a great feeling of relief to the whole country, but I would ask why we were not told who was to be the First Lord of the Admiralty at the same time? I myself believe if we had been told it would have been a very satisfactory thing for us to know it. I don't 371 think that many of us would have had any great confidence in the inquiry if the name had been announced. The Standard, which, I believe, is a newspaper that supports the Government, was very strong upon the point, and it said if it had been announced beforehand possibly the result of the election would have been different from what it was. But immediately after the election we had a very few authentic remarks on this subject of the inquiry by the Prime Minister at the Guildhall. Here I lead up to a point which seems to me to be very vital in the consideration of this question. At the Guildhall the Prime Minister made a very remarkable speech. He praised up the War Office, and dilated upon the fact that between 200,000 and 300,000 men had been sent out. All that, I say, was done in spite of the War Office, and not by it. It was done by the country, and not by the system of national defence—by the resources of the country, and not by the resources of the War Office. The Prime Minister said he rather deprecated than encouraged unnecessary inquiry. He used the word "unnecessary," but I think that the spirit and tone of these remarks did deprecate a complete and exhaustive inquiry such as we demand. If it took Lord Lansdowne five years and a great war, with its enormous loss to this country of life and treasure, to find out that our stores were wrong, if we do not mind it will take as many years, and perhaps another war, before we get the inquiry. When the vacancy in the office of Secretary of State for War was announced to the country every newspaper, The Times amongst others, dilated upon the great importance of securing somebody at the War Office who was the strongest man who could be obtained—the most decided, and the most absolutely independent, and that he ought to have a free hand if he was to do anything. Can we say that we have this rara avis secured to us? I have great respect for the Secretary of State for War—I think he is a most excellent man; but if there had been a guessing competition, such as we find now in various newspapers, how many in this House would have guessed that the right hon. Gentleman would have been selected for this most serious and most important duty? He is a gentleman I have known during fifteen years I have been in this House, and I have found him extremely kind. He has even gone the length of being 372 kind after he got a seat on that august Bench. But what are the antecedents of that right hon. Gentleman? He has been nearly ten years in the War Office. He has been associated with almost all the work there up to the time of the war. If there is all this deficiency in stores and in the other preparations, such, for instance, as the absence of maps which every War Office should have, I say with all due respect and from the political standpoint absolutely, that he is largely to blame for these deficiencies. I think he will form an excellent administrator; still, I think there is reason for us to feel, looking to the events of the past year in connection with the war and the condition of our national defences, that it is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman has been associated with that department so long, and that he has been mixed up with all these matters. I ask this: supposing there came to be a difference of opinion between Lord Salisbury and the right hon. Gentleman, is he likely to override the Prime Minister in matters concerning the War Office? The Prime Minister, in his speech, rather deprecated unnecessary inquiry. Is it likely that the right hon. Gentleman will have the power to have his own way in the case of that difference of opinion arising? We know perfectly well that when he was in the House in the last Parliament as Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs he was not allowed to answer questions of a supplementary character without referring to the Prime Minister, and therefore it seems to me that to put a man in that position who probably will have the usual differences of opinion from the Prime Minister is very dangerous. The fact of the right hon. Gentleman, of whom I wish to speak with great respect, being put in this position suggests that the War Office Will continue to be considered the perfect machine it has been in the past. But it may be said—and here I come to the chief point of my argument—that, although the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War may differ, there are other members of the Cabinet who will look after any deficiency that may arise, that he will be guided by others, acting, of course, on their own account for the great Departments—the Navy, the Treasury, and the Foreign Office. These are great Departments of the State, but 373 three out of the four are represented in the Cabinet, and they are practically members of the same family. I say it is an unprecedented thing that one-fifth of this swollen Cabinet should practically be all of one family party. How do you expect to get independence of opinion in that case? You want men who will administer their Departments with absolute independence and vigour, which you cannot expect to get in well ordered sons in-law and sons. In the last Cabinet there of this family, whom we all very highly esteem, but I think most of us feel that was enough, and that we should not have five in positions, making the Government not one of independent units, but really a Government of one family. It appears to me that this is a serious question, as this Cabinet has been so swollen. It has now twenty members. It has become so large that a sub-Cabinet has to be made, and that sub-Cabinet, with the Prime Minister and the First Lord, is practically a Cabinet of one man. With regard to the First Lord of the Admiralty, many of us knew him when he was in this House; in fact he was so fond of us he did not want to go. He sat in this House after he became a peer, and we had politely to tell him he must go. I do not wish to say a word against anybody—I am not saying a against anybody, except in their professional or political position—but if their was a difference of opinion in regard to the Navy between Lord Selborne and Lord Salisbury, which would have more power, the father-in-law or the son-in-law? It is obvious that such a condition of affairs is not desirable. Can we for one moment compare Lord Selborne with Mr. Goschen? I say, emphatically, that Mr. Goschen was a man of great power, originality, and industry, to whom the country owes a great debt for the way in which he managed the Navy in the last Parliament, and nobody can deny that the strength and power of the office is immensely reduced, in spite of the fact that it is the most important function of this House to maintain the strength of the Navy, by the transference of the seals of the office to Lord Selborne. Then there is the Board of Trade. I candidly say that I have never heard a single man in any direction support this appointment. We know the late Home Secretary was got rid of; I have it on very good 374 authority that he did not want to leave, but he was got rid of in order to make way for some other Gentleman. The appointment to the Board of Trade certainly does not strengthen that Department, nor does it give it an independent voice in the Cabinet, and that I extremely regret. I think I have shown conclusively that the preponderance of this one family in the Cabinet does not strengthen the Government in the eyes of this House or of the country. I do not for one moment say that the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of this family are not men of great ability. We know they are; but if one-fifth of the Cabinet is to be of one family, why not a half, or the whole? And then there are the Lord Chancellor and the Commander-in-Chief. There are members in the family who would well fill those positions. Take the Archbishopric of Canterbury; there is no doubt about there being one perfectly competent for that post. He is so able that when he was barely ordained he was sufficiently competent to take one of the best livings in the Church. A good many years ago Lord Beaconsfield appointed the son of a clergyman in his district, I believe, to a post in the Stationery Office. The outcry was tremendous; it was considered an outrageous job. But that was a single event, and did not mean word five of a family being put into offices in which they drew £17,000 or £18,000 a year, as in the present case. It is most unreasonable that this should be considered simply as a matter of private concern. Suppose for a moment that this action had been taken by the late Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone took two offices, and a great fuss was made. But supposing he had taken for his own family five or six of the highest appointments in the Cabinet. I know what would have happened then. We should have had a bill giving the names of the relatives and their salaries placarded in every borough in the land. If it would have been wrong for Mr. Gladstone, why is it not wrong when somebody else does it? I undertake to say unhesitatingly that if this matter was thoroughly explained at any meeting in the country, whether Conservative, Tory, or even Liberal Unionist, it would be strongly objected to. It is not desirable that our Government should have this jibe thrown at all. All the newspapers are jeering; the comic papers refer to it; and the 375 other night even the House of Lords was made to laugh about this very subject. Our friends as well as our enemies speak about it, and in our Conservative clubs and elsewhere the Government is called "The Hotel Cecil, Unlimited." This being the case, are we supposed to sit on this side of the House and look as if we approved of and liked it? I may be regarded as audacious and daring to refer to the matter, but there are many on this side who agree with me, although they do not like to say so, and doubtless they will not vote for me. No doubt they do not like to look unkind; no doubt we all owe—and I would say this most emphatically—Lord Salisbury an enormous debt of gratitude. I only regret that in the last few years of his life he has done this, because it is damaging his prestige and position. But, as I say, many agree with me, although they will not vote with me—some from very high motives, and one or two, perhaps, because they think by so doing they would cut off all chance for themselves. Let them not be alarmed. They do not lose anything by being straight on this matter. They have a bettor chance by telling the truth straightforwardly. They must remember that the family is not yet exhausted, and there is another family in the Midland counties to pick up any crumbs which may be left. It has been said, and will be said again, that I am taking this course because I am a disappointed man, and I expected to get a large salary for some good appointment. Many in the House think this, and dare not say it, and there are thousands outside, no doubt, who will agree with them. But whatever my motive, are these things facts or not? As regards myself it is true, no doubt, that Lord Salisbury might have told my constituents that he regretted very much that he could not give me office owing to special circumstances, but he did not repeat the statement this year—there were family reasons to prevent it. I would acknowledge that I did innocently and fully believe that the Prime Minister meant what he said, and that it was not merely a diplomatic expression. But I think I am justified in saying that I am free from any such motive as that of disappointment. I have been offered an appointment, with a—to me—very large salary, and also there was held out to me by some the glittering prospect of the 376 honour which is so keenly received and enjoyed by some of my Liberal Unionist friends behind me—namely, a belted knighthood. The appointment, I may say, was that of Auditor General. I refused it. I did not want it. I did not leave the public service twenty-five years ago in order to get a better appointment. Strange as it may seem—although some people on the Bench there might wish me to—I did not want to leave the House, and as long as my constituents give me, as they do now, one of the largest majorities in the kingdom, I am content to remain as I am, and my aspiration now is to endeavour to keep the Government a little more in order, possibly, than it was before. Nobody knows better than I do what folly it is to speak here with independence. But the times are very serious, and independence is more needed on our side than ever. We have practically—I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be offended—no Opposition. At any rate, the Opposition is not very powerful. The Government can do exactly what it likes; it never consults us, although we keep it in office still. It is necessary that independence should exist, and that we should say what we think on these particular points. I do not know whether I shall be out of order, but Lord Randolph Churchill used to call it "the old gang," and I am afraid "the old gang" is more "old gangy" than it ever was. No one can possibly object to a reasonable number of a family deriving benefit from the greatness of the State. I should be the last to object. I think it is one of the highest incentives to enterprise and success that we should do something for our children. Nobody wishes to prevent that, but it must be in reason. Important and great offices must not be given to nonentities. There is another aspect of this affair. The canker worm of patronage is not limited to Parliamentary appointments. It has rarely been done so boldly as at present, but it also enters into the Array and Navy. I say emphatically this is a matter of enormous importance. How many of the early disasters of this last, war were due to improper appointments in the early days of the Government? When it was thought that the war was to be of so easy a character many of the appointments were obtained by family intrigue. Men in this country are willing to sacrifice themselves, or to give 377 their children in the war, but still there is a feeling abroad—and no hon. Member will venture to contradict me—that many of our first reverses were due to the incompetency of officers who had been largely picked out from private considerations. They may be wrong in this, but they want to know, and they want to have the matter examined. Nobody is satisfied at the present time, and they will not be satisfied unless there is a full investigation into this matter by an absolutely independent authority. I say that it is a little "off" for the Government which is going to make this inquiry to have a certain amount of taint itself in this way. In our national defence the selection of heads will be of the most vital importance, and the example set by the Government in this respect is a very unhappy one. It seems to me that although certain persons may hold high positions their families may not all be clever, and those individuals are too apt to think that their sons are as clever as they are, and they may attempt to put them into such positions. I have brought my remarks very nearly to a close. I may be very foolish to voice hero what so many think. I shall no doubt be abused and hunted down, and I am aware that the unfortunate mouse that bells the cat has a bad time of it. However, that must come to pass. That is unimportant to the community so long as this matter is brought to light, and what happens to me is a matter of no concern. [An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.] I am much obliged to my Liberal Unionist friend behind me for that interruption. The responsibility, no doubt, is great in these matters, and of course it should all be done absolutely for the public good. It should not only be done in that way, but it should look so to the man in the street. That is a most important point in the giving away of high patronage. When there are so many of one family selected by the head of that family, certainly it does not inspire confidence amongst outsiders, and both in politics and in the Army and Navy this weakness is certainly a very serious one. I do not know whether I shall get even a seconder for my Amendment, and I have not inquired for one. I hope I shall, and if I do I shall certainly divide the House. It may be that the Leader of the House will not even condescend to answer me. If he does, I have no doubt that I shall 378 receive a severe castigation. But let me warn him that the division will not be an index of the feeling of this House or of the country. If everybody here could vote as they think the result would be very different. I am sure of this—that there is a feeling abroad that this sort of thing could not happen in the Conservative party. There is also a feeling abroad that we have unlimited confidence in the Prime Minister in this matter, and we expect him to use that confidence in a way which will not only satisfy himself, but satisfy outsiders; and I am sure of this—that, although my Amendment may receive little support, it will have a tendency to stop this evil going on in the future. And, therefore, with great reluctance, and still feeling that I have brought forward a proper matter for the consideration of this House, I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§ MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)formally seconded the Amendment.
§
Another Amendment proposed—
At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But we humbly express our regret at the advice given to Your Majesty by the Prime Minister in recommending the appointment of so many of his own family to offices in the Cabinet and Government, as being calculated to diminish the responsibility of Your Majesty's Ministers to Parliament, and gravely to impair the efficiency of the public service.'"—(Mr. Bartley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.My hon. friend who has just sat down appeared to be absorbed during the latter part of his speech with a feeling of glowing self-satisfaction at the courage he was displaying in carrying out a difficult and dangerous public duty. He seemed to think that some terrible Nemesis would fall upon him for the line he was taking, and that he was acting a very heroic and patriotic part in throwing himself undaunted into the breach. I do not quite understand my hon. friend's view in this matter. I have been in the House now for twenty-six years, and I do not think there is any Parliamentary task more easy than, amid the cheers of your opponents, 379 to make a personal attack on your friends. It requires for its operation and for its successful execution neither very great courage nor very great ability. I am quite sure my hon. friend has both courage and ability which he is prepared to exhibit at an appropriate moment, but the particular job which he has taken on hand to-day does not seem to be one of those which specially call for the exercise of these heroic virtues. I listened with great attention to my hon. friend, and, though I discovered that he had a very strong aversion to the number of persons in the Cabinet connected with the Prime Minister, I did not exactly understand the line of argument by which he attempted to prove that it was inimical to the public service. He did not suggest—as far as I heard him, at all events—that any of those persons wore incapable of carrying out, or unfit to carry out, the functions entrusted to them. He did not even refer, I think, to myself, who am the oldest, and, I presume, the worst offender in the line of which he was speaking. What was the argument of my hon. friend? He said the country has recently been called upon to pronounce a verdict upon two great issues. One of those issues was the continuation of the war, and the other great issue was the reform of the War Office. So far so good. I followed my hon. friend in the statements he made, but I was greatly puzzled to know what bearing they had upon the conclusion he wished the House to adopt. He made a violent attack on the War Office—upon the late occupant of the War Office. He made another attack, a very unjust, and, in my opinion, very ungenerous attack, on the present holder of the War Office. Neither the late Secretary of State nor the present Secretary of State for War has the misfortune which is shared by some of their colleagues of being nearly related to the Prime Minister. How, then, was this attack, this most unmerited attack, as I think, upon Lord Lansdowne and my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War relevant to the issue which the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House? As I understood it, that long preface about the supposed misdeeds of the War Office and the supposed incompetence of my right hon. friend near me to reform the War Office was directed to this end—that when my right hon. friend in the Cabinet found himself in disagreement 380 with the Prime Minister upon some subject of Army reform, a faithful phalanx of relatives would come forward and outvote my right hon. friend, and prevent him from carrying out those reforms which, in another part of his speech, my hon. friend said he was by nature and training absolutely unfitted to suggest. Is that a very reasonable point of view? The hon. Gentleman said the Cabinet is now an overgrown Cabinet. If it is an overgrown Cabinet, the proportion of this unhappy and persecuted family-has the smaller influence for evil. But, he said, the Cabinet is so overgrown that, there must be a sub-Cabinet, and that that sub-Cabinet is composed of the Prime Ministers near relations. How does my hon. friend know that there must be a sub-Cabinet; how does he know that these things are done by a sub-Cabinet; and, if there be a sub-Cabinet, how does my hon. friend know that it is composed of the Prime Minister's near relatives? It is purely invention on my hon. friend's part, and, though it was loudly cheered by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, I could not help smiling to myself when I remembered how inconsistent that view is with the other theory of the Cabinet which we hear constantly put forward in the Press, in the couutry, and, above all, by hon. Gentlemen opposite. My hon. friend's view is that the Prime Minister and his satellites, who are also his relations, rule as a sub-Cabinet over the deliberations of their colleagues and crush the budding reforming tendencies of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War and others, who, however incompetent, according to my hon. friend, have still inclinations towards the right. But that is not the view held by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their view is that this Cabinet sits simply to register the decree of one all too powerful Minister, and that all too powerful Minister is not the Premier, backed up by his family, but my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies. He is not, according to my hon. friend, even a member of that sub-Cabinet. In my hon. friend's perverted view of what goes on the Secretary for the Colonies does not figure at all. He vanishes altogether, while in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite he looms an enormous and baleful figure, overshadowing his pigmy colleagues and reducing all the other nineteen gentlemen who nominally sit with him in the Cabinet to the 381 position of humble and subservient followers. Those are two quite opposite views of the Cabinet—views which are mot only opposite, but inconsistent—and I would respectfully venture to suggest to the gentlemen who have drawn those pictures—whether the picture in which the Prime Minister with his satellites figure as the villain of the piece, or the picture in which the Colonial Secretary figures as the villain—that these are both equally the creation of an uninformed imagination and have no resemblance whatever to the reality. My hon. friend goes upon the theory that from the nature of the ease relatives are too likely to agree. His view, if I do not misrepresent him, is that the very fact that people are bound together by the tic of relationship prevents that independence of judgment without which, no doubt, a Cabinet cannot fulfil its full measure of utility. I do not know that I am particularly anxious to make agreement in the Cabinet more difficult than, I suppose, some Cabinets have found it, and I certainly cannot hold out the smallest hope or expectation to my hon. friend that any members of this Cabinet are likely to disagree, and certainly not the members of this Cabinet who happen to be in any way connected by relationship. But certainly if my hon. friend is not making a personal attack upon particular individuals, but is making himself the advocate of a great general principle—if that is his view, I think the smallest knowledge of English history will inform him that there have been constantly near relations assooiated together in the Government of the country, and that they have hardly ever contrived to agree during the whole of their political career. I am not going to run down the long course of successive Ministries, but I may remind my hon. friend that Walpole could not help quarrelling with his brother-in-law, Lord Townshend, and turning him out of the Secretaryship of State; that Lord Temple first quarrelled with his brother-in-law, who won for us Canada, and then quarrelled with his brother, who lost to us America; that they alternately agreed and alternately quarrelled with each other until, the quarrels of the Grenvilles and the Pitts formed half the English history of the third quarter of the last century. In the next generation, unless my memory fails me, 382 the second Pitt and Mr. Grenville, afterwards Lord Grenville, first cousins, were two of the most important members of Mr. Pitt's first Administration. For some reason or other, which I either never knew or have forgotten, after the Peace of Amiens Lord Grenville found it impossible to work again with his relatives. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Wellesley, when they worked together, worked together for the great benefit of the country, but unfortunately, as is well known, in later life the two brothers found it impossible to work together harmoniously, greatly, as I think, to the public loss. And even in the great Reform Cabinet of Lord Grey of 1830, unless all the stories that have come down to us are erroneous, the two most important members of that Cabinet were Lord Grey and his son-in-law, Lord Durham, and their relations very often left much to be desired. I have gone into this long parenthesis, but my hon. friend really need not be so distressed about this imaginary danger that, owing to there being two or three gentlemen of the same family in the Cabinet, independence of opinion is lost and the power of the Prime Minister unduly magnified. The hon. Member has told us that if the composition of the Government had been known before the General Election was concluded it would have been alluded to at every meeting, placarded on every hoarding, and the public indignation would have been so aroused that the General Election would have turned out differently.
§ MR. BARTLEYI did not say that.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI certainly thought my hon. friend did suggest that.
§ MR. BARTLEYI said that if Mr. Gladstone had so acted that is what would have been clone by us.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf I remember rightly Mr. Gladstone did appoint the only son he then had in the House of Commons to office. [Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches: "No."] My memory may be wrong. If he did appoint his son he was quite right. I make no criticism upon him. I thought that was the fact. I am really almost ashamed to follow the line of my hon. friend, but I think Mr. Gladstone did 383 appoint another son. I was not referring to that part of my hon. friend's speech in which he touched on that suggestion. I have no desire to deal with a controversy of that character. I was alluding to the part of my hon. friend's speech in which he distinctly stated, as I understood him, that this was a subject which might be brought, and ought to have been brought, before the public at the election, and that if it had been so brought forward public indignation would have been aroused. Well, there is but one member of the present Government connected with Lord Salisbury who was not in the late Government. I am not aware that the composition of the late Government raised this storm of indignation of which my hon. friend complains. I have not heard, directly or indirectly, of such an attack upon this supposed evil distribution of offices. But perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to say that attacks of this sort should be made, if made at all, not upon the principle of selection, but upon the individuals selected. If it be true that any of the individuals selected are unfit for the offices they hold, it is a matter for regret and for legitimate criticism. But if they are fit, then I say that the unhappy accident of birth ought to be no bar to their selection, to these gentlemen having office. My hon. friend, perhaps only from kind feeling and good taste, refrained from suggesting that any member of the Prime Minister's family who is in office is incapable of carrying cut the duties of his office. He kept the venom of his indignation for my right hon. friend near me, the present Secretary for War, and Lord Lansdowne, the late Secretary for War, neither of whom have any blood relationship, or any connection by marriage with the Prime Minister. It has never fallen to my lot to form a Government, but I have seen a good deal of the formation of Governments, and I cannot imagine a task at once more difficult and more distasteful to be imposed upon any human being. The Prime Minister has had to discharge this, of all his duties the most difficult and important, four times, and I do not think that the performance of that duty has met with any serious hostile criticism in any part of the country. If a Government were to be selected by competitive examination, if the occupants of the Treasury Bench could be chosen 384 for their skill in Greek iambics, it would very greatly facilitate the task of the Prime Minister, though it would very greatly change the composition of this Bench. Indeed, I am not sure that there is any member of this Bench, except, perhaps, my right hon. friend and relative the President of the Board of Trade, who would come out of such an ordeal with even decent credit. But unfortunately the task of the Prime Minister is very different, and very much more important. I do not believe it possible that it could be exercised to the universal satisfaction, at all events of those who, quite rightly, perhaps, think that had the choice fallen upon them they would not have discredited the Government. My hon. friend, I think, in one part of his speech admitted that he was a disappointed candidate, and in another part lie rather repudiated the suggestion. I do not know which of those two views represent the real mind and mood of my hon. friend. But this I must and can say—if the country did anything at the last election it entrusted the present Prime Minister with the task of forming an Administration. It did so with a knowledge of him reaching back to the year 1885, when he formed his first Administration, of which, I almost regret to say, I was a member, so inveterate are the faults of Lord Salisbury, so early had his unhappy leaning towards his relations shown itself. But if the country has had before it the knowledge of the manner in which Lord Salisbury has exercised this high trust, a trust which no one can share with him, which the Cabinet cannot share with him, and which none of his colleagues in the Cabinet can share with him, which from the very nature of the case he must exercise in isolated responsibility—and if the decision of the country, repeated not once, nor twice, but three or four times, means anything, it means that they repose not only in his integrity, which no man doubts, but in his ability to carry out what is the most difficult, the most responsible, and almost, I might say, the most heartbreaking and most thankless task that could be imposed upon any subject of Her Majesty.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said that nobody suggested that the accident of birth should be a disqualification for office. The right hon. Gentleman was himself a case in point, 385 for no one would even hint that he had not fully earned his spurs. But that was not the question before the House. The question was that there were members of Her Majesty's Government who surely would never have been appointed to their offices but for the accident of their relationship to the Prime Minister, and nobody could suggest that these appointments had been made by merit. The right hon. Gentleman had made reference to the difficulties the Prime Minister had in forming a Cabinet, but Lord Salisbury had solved that difficulty in a very peculiar way. He did it much in the same way that the monkey solved the difficulty of dividing the cheese between the cats, by eating the cheese himself. The hon. Member for North Islington had made reference to Mr. Gladstone. The universal feeling in this House, he ventured to say, was that it was unthinkable, by way of suspicion, to couple Mr. Gladstone's name with such a proposition, or that a man of Mr. Gladstone's high feeling could ever descend to anything of the kind. It was only on the other side of the House that a gross job of this kind had ever been or would ever be perpetrated.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)I was satisfied that this was one of the subjects that unfortunately must be raised in the House; inevitably, I think, under the circumstances. I could not but suppose that a matter which had attracted such notice outside, ought to have some little attention inside the House. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury claims that my hon. friend below the gangway did not attack the personal capacity of the Members of the Salisbury family appointed to the Government; but neither did my right hon. friend defend the capacity of these Ministers. Again, in answer to my hon. friend below the gangway, who said that there was too great a chance of several members of a family being in agreement with each other in the Cabinet, the First Lord quoted historical instances of relatives in past Governments having disagreed with each other, and the evils which had fallen in consequence upon the Empire. That, he said, suggested was the more likely thing to happen; and, therefore, if we were to abandon the position of the mover of the Amendment we must take up the position of my right hon. friend, 386 and say that the appointment of so many members of the same family to the Cabinet will tend to a disagreement, and to the consequent ruin of the Empire. My right hon. friend was a little hard on the mover of the Amendment. He said his action was unjust and ungenerous, and had shown venom, and that he was a disappointed candidate.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESI am in the remembrance of the House. Did not the light hon. Gentleman say that my hon. friend had reserved the venom of his indignation for particular Ministers?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI said that his attack upon the Secretary for War and upon Lord Lansdowne was irrelevant.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESI think my right hon. friend has now made his charge worse, for he says that the Member for North Islington had shown not merely venom, but irrelevant venom. My hon. friend has, indeed, some excuse for his action. Perhaps he is a disappointed candidate; but the right hon. Gentleman is a candidate who has not been disappointed, and he defended the place in which the House would fain keep him.
These fight like husbands, and like lovers those;These fain would keep, and those more fain enjoy.The Member for North Islington fights like a lover, while the First Lord of the Treasury fights like a husband, though his marital duties are not heavy. My hon. friend the Member for North Islington, if he is disappointed, has some reason to be so; he was a Tory when right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench were Radicals and Socialists. My hon. friend was one of a small band of Tories, who in the years 1893, 1894, and 1895, stubbornly conducted the assault on Her Majesty's Radical Government, and fought unceasingly by night and day, often when their leaders were not there to lead them, when their Front Bench was empty, and when every member of it was absent, enjoying the society of congenial souls. My hon. friend was one of the foremost of the fighters, and when the fortress of the Government was captured he was left 387 outside. Why, I do not know, and I do not undertake to say; but certainly it was very largely owing to that little hand, of whom he was one of the foremost, that the Government now sits on these benches. But my hon. friend must not assume that his case is hopeless. Not at all. Last May the hon. and gallant Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset, sitting on this bench, made what was considered to be an attack on the Government with reference to the issue of General Buller's despatches. He ventured to say that Sir Redvers Buller was a gentleman, and this was so resented that the First Lord of the Treasury fell upon the hon. and gallant Member, and broke him in pieces like a potter's vessel, on the ground that to say General Buller was a gentleman was, under the circumstances, to say that the members of the Government were no gentlemen; and he said that in the whole course of his experience he had never heard so scandalous and unjust an attack, and that he did not think that any language could be severe enough to characterise it. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman has now been appointed to that excellent post, Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. The critic of May has become the Vice-Chamberlain of December. Perhaps the critic of December may become the Chamberlain of May! My hon. friend suggests that there are too many members of one family in the Government. Well, there are a good few of them. My hon. friend suggests that that does not strengthen the Government. If I were asked whether all the changes that have been made have weakened or strengthened Her Majesty's Government, I should respectfully ask that the question should be postponed till the next day; and I do not desire now to express my opinion about it. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury has very truly pointed out that of all the tasks the leader of a party has to undertake there is none so difficult, so invidious, and so thankless, and one in which failure is so easy, as that of constructing a Government. But the difficulty is doubled when you come to reconstruct a Government, because then you have not only to appoint people, but to disappoint them. You have not only to take in, but also to turn out. There are also certain technical difficulties, such as the need of making up 388 to one House what was taken from it. It is held necessary to give an equal number of great offices to the House of Lords and the House of Commons. If you take away the Secretary of State for War from the House of Lords you have to take away the First Lord of the Admiralty from this House. Then there is another very serious difficulty to be considered after a General Election, which is the claim of those who have supported the Government in the election. For elections cost money. Peers and other great personages subscribe their money to Party funds, and their claims are serious; their families often are numerous. The horse leech had daughters crying "Give, give," but it is not recorded that it had sons-in-law or nephews. Finally, there is the important question of the ability of the Members to be appointed to the Government, for, though ability is the last and least thing to be considered, yet there is no doubt that ability always lends a certain charm to a Government. Here I think my hon. friend has underrated the difficulties that beset the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister is in the House of Commons he knows his followers, and can judge for himself whether they are men of ability; but when he sits, like a Grand Lama, on the distant red benches of another place, it is difficult for him to get that knowledge, and perhaps he does not always have adequate assistance in obtaining it. In his own family circle, however, he does know; he is able to detect there the latent political talents and administrative qualities that might perhaps be unsuspected by persons outside. Consequently by utilising this talent that he does know he is exposed to the danger of somewhat disregarding the enormous amount of talent that he does not know. In the case of the Liberal Unionists, however, there is no doubt, he does get adequate assistance, for their leaders are hard fighters, they go in for power, their claims are always adequately pressed—so much so, indeed, that really I think the Government will soon become more Liberal Unionist than Conservative. But I think it is not so bad as it might have been. The Government might have been filled with souls, Cecils, sycophants, and socialists. But it is not so. A very large proportion of very able men have 389 survived the reconstruction. I have already alluded to the difficulty of getting rid of people. One right hon. Gentleman has disclosed the method by which that was done; they were required by the Prime Minister to surrender their places, not because there was any condemnation of their policy, but because "vacancies were wanted for others." It was absolute surrender that was required, unconditional surrender, and the purpose avowed was to make places for "others." The summons to surrender met with various results. The right hon. Member for Sleaford surrendered, though he more or less kept his colours flying as he marched out. I feel that that right hon. Gentleman had been treated a little ungenerously; but he has shown very considerable dignity, and has given very useful political information. Some members of the Government, however, when summoned to surrender refused, if they did not even fire on the white flag; they were the younger and more boisterous members—giddy young things of the age of from 70 to 75, whose warlike ardourcould not be restrained, and it was likely that they would fly their colours to the last. In the case of the Home Secretary, it appears that he was taken neck and shoulders and turned out. That was a very hard thing for the Prime Minister to be forced to do. The late Home Secretary performed his duties with courage and ability, and, although sometimes in the face of considerable doubt on the part of the public, always with final success. Who, now, was the "other" here? Who was the place wanted for? The immediate successor to the office was the President of the Board of Trade, but he already had an office, so it was not for him. The vacancy thereby created was given to the late Secretary for Ireland, who was the other intended to be provided for. For him it was, in reality, that the Home Secretary was turned out. That right hon. Gentleman was considered to be so great a success that he could not even be left to Ireland; he must be put into this office, and into the Cabinet. So the Home Secretary was turned out to put him in. Then Mr. Goschen was called upon to surrender the Admiralty. He evactuated the position very promptly, though I am not sure that there was not a tough fight before he went.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURinterjected a remark which did not reach the gallery.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESI take it entirely from the right hon. Gentleman that there was no pressure whatever put upon the First Lord of the Admiralty. He retired because he was tired of public life. But the noble Lord who succeeded him is chiefly remembered in this House as having introduced, with other scions of the aristocracy, a Bill whose object was to enable them to sit in either House of Parliament when they liked. I have nothing to say against the noble Lord personally, except this, that he is not the person I should have expected to have seen appointed as First Lord of the Admiralty at this time, considering the very serious condition of the Navy. I will not go into the minor surrenders further than to say that there was the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who were both turned out and made Privy Councillors, and will now have to advise Her Majesty on great affairs of State. But the family party in the Cabinet is not so large, after all; it has only been increased from two to four. It has only been doubled, and it is only a fifth part of the Cabinet. That is to say, the family is only assumed to represent and to embody a fifth part of the talent on all the benches on this side of the House and on the Government side in the other House. Surely that is a small assumption to make for so gifted a family! They are talented. I believe there is an extreme possibility that they may all prove heaven-born statesmen, all prove illustrious men, and perform the greatest possible services to their country. But their abilities are as unknown to the Party in general as the abilities of the Party in general are unknown to their leader, Lord Salisbury. But when Lord Salisbury, knowing those abilities, reflects that he has only four of his own family in the Cabinet—though, I believe, two had been appointed outside it—he must be astonished at his own moderation. But it must have been a greater matter for astonishment that, after having so provided for all the talent that he knew of in his family, he found himself without any emolument at all—the one unpaid volunteer in a Ministry created by himself. We have heard of the pelican that fed its young with its own blood, 391 but that was a lame and halting precedent for what must have taken place here. But there is here a difficulty and an abuse. The office of Prime Minister, as such, is unknown to the Law. There are therefore no emoluments attached to such an office. There is, however, an office that belongs to the Prime Minister of this country, one which was provided some 150 years ago; that is the office of First Lord of the Treasury. There are no administrative or departmental duties attached to that office; there are no duties whatever attached to it; it is an office consisting of a salary. I will not weary the House, else I could produce authorities on the subject. Mr. Lowe in 1889 avowed that the office has no duties connected with it; Sir William Anderson, in his recent work on the Constitution, explains that the office has no duties and has always been associated with the office of Prime Minister. So, too, says Mr. Alpheus Todd in his work on Parliamentary Government. The Duke of Wellington said in 1827 that it was difficult, if not impossible, for the Prime Minister to hold any other office than that of First Lord of the Treasury, on account of the great financial control that the department of the Treasury exercised over all the other departments of the Government. And the Duke has been justified by the fact that Lord Salisbury, in consequence of his not holding this office, has been forced—he, the Prime Minister—to make himself a most serious attack in the House of Lords on the Treasury itself. This was only because he was not himself, as he should have been, First Lord of the Treasury, and because he, therefore, could not control it. Now I do not know how far family considerations have had anything to do with it, but what I do know is this, that for some years past Lord Salisbury, whose greatness of public spirit, whose talents, knowledge, ability, and temper have been of most undoubted advantage at the Foreign Office, and who has been the almost indispensable Foreign Minister ever since he took over the difficulties of the Office, has now recognised the impossibility of continuing the duties of both Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and has wisely placed our foreign affairs in the most capable hands of Lord Lansdowne, and so brought 392 them under the purview of two minds instead of one. For that we ought to be very thankful. But Lord Salisbury, having retained the Prime Ministership, should have the post that belongs to him as such. He should be First Lord of the Treasury. But that is not to be done. He has assumed the post of Lord Privy Seal, an office all the duties whereof were abolished not because there are any now duties attached to it, but because the Prime Minister is kept out of his own proper office. That is a very unfortunate state of things. Eight offices were vacant in the Cabinet, and one of them might have been given to the Leader of the House. A salary is not given to the office of Leader of the House, any more than a salary is given to the Leader of the Opposition. They are the leaders of two great parties, but that is all; there is no salary attached to those offices. Now, is there any objection to an unusual preponderance of a family unduly gifted with public ability? I think there is. My hon. friend adduced argument against the inner Cabinet, and I think his argument was a strong one. The Cabinet was instituted when the Privy Council became too large to do expeditious work. Now, I do not know if the Colonial Secretary is to be taken into the inner Cabinet, but I do know that there is a strong probability of an irregular inner Cabinet in which a policy might be suggested at breakfast, discussed at luncheon, and settled at dinner, in the same dining-room. But in all this reconstruction and re-arrangement of offices the one thing which seems to me most important is the Admiralty. I am convinced that there are matters of difficulty and danger in connection with the Navy which demand the greatest exertions of the very best men available at that Department. There are serious defects in, serious dangers connected with the Navy. With regard to arrears of construction, to training, to instructions and direction, it has been impaired. I have not said much about this matter in the House, but I have never ceased to press it in other places, and all those things have filled me with great anxiety. As L say, I have not pressed them in this House, but in the private rooms of Ministers and other places, and I am not without some belief that I have given 393 some private assistance to Ministers in some of these matters. It was a matter of great pride to me when I was told by the late Attorney General that I had rendered assistance in discovering a trading case as to contraband of war destined to a neutral port, and in other ways. My belief is that in all these matters serious dangers affect the Navy; and the answer which I and all those who feel this anxiety have received has been the appointment of a Board of Admiralty, which seems to me to be a mocking and contemptuous dismissal of the anxieties keenly felt and the representations seriously made. The new Board of Admiralty is not satisfactory, and rather adds to than diminishes these
§ anxieties, and I regret that Lord Salisbury has shown, as I think he has, a marked, absence of desire to consult the views and allay the apprehensions of his followers. It was proper, indeed, to bring forward this motion. It has now been discussed, attacked, and defended, and the jury outside will decide. I hope, therefore, that now my hon. friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, No."] The hon. Gentleman is in the hands of the House, but that is my suggestion.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided.—Ayes, 128; Noes, 230. (Division List No. 4.)
395| AYES. | ||
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Gurdon, Sir William Brampton | Pickard, Benjamin |
| Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud) | Haldane Richard Burdon | Pirie, Duncan Y. |
| Asher, Alexander | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Rea, Russell |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hardie, J Keir(Merthyr Tydvil) | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Harwood, George | Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries) |
| Barker, John | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Barlow, John Emmott | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. | Rigg, Richard |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. D. | Healy, Timothy Michael | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Bell, Richard | Helme, Norval Watson | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) |
| Black, Alexander William | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) | Holland, William Henry | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Brigg, John | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Shipman, Dr. John |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire). |
| Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Smith, Samuel (Flint) |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Jacoby, James Alfred | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Burns, John | Joicey, Sir James | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Burt, Thomas | Jones, David Brynmo (Swans'a | Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | Strachey, Edward |
| Caine, William Sproston | Kearley, Hudson E. | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Caldwell, James | Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.). |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Layland-Barrett, Francis | Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Leng, Sir John | Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lewis, John Herbert | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lloyd -George, David | Thomson, Frederick W. |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Lough, Thomas | Tomkinson, James |
| Cremer, William Randal | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Dalziel, James Henry | M'Kenna, Reginald | Walton, John L. (Leeds, S) |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Mather, William | Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan) |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm. | Weir, James Galloway |
| Duncan, James H. | Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Dunn, Sir William | Moss, Samuel | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Edwards, Frank | Moulton, John Fletcher | Whiteley, George(York, W. R.) |
| Ellis, John Edward | Murray, Hn. A. W.(Midlothian | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Newnes, Sir George | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Norman, Henry | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Furness, Sir Christopher | Palmer, George Wm. (Reading | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Partington, Oswald | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Grant, Corrie | Paulton, James Mellor | Mr. Bartley and Mr. Schwann. |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Perks, Robert William | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Arroll, Sir William | Bain, Colonel James Robert |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Baird, John George Alexander |
| Aird, John | Austin, Sir John | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Bailey, James (Walworth) | Banbury, Frederick George |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol) | Hambro, Charles Eric | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord G (M'd'x | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W. | Parker, Gilbert |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Bignold, A. | Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th | Percy, Earl |
| Bigwood, James | Harris, Dr. Fred. B.(Monmouth | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Bill, Charles | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Hay, Claude | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Bond, Edward | Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Helder, Augustus | Purvis, Robert |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter | Pym, C. Guy |
| Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex) | Higginbottom, S. W. | |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampste'd | Randles, John J. |
| Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. | Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | Rankin, Sir James |
| Butcher, John George | Hobbouse, Henry (Somerset, E. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Carlile, William Walter | Hogg, Lindsay | Renwick, George |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Hope, J. F.(Sheffi'ld, Brightside | Ridley, Sir M.W.(Stalybridge) |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles William | Horner, Frederic William | Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J(Birm. | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson |
| Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r | Hoult, Joseph | Robertson, Henry (Hackney) |
| Chapman, Edward | Houstan, Robert Paterson | Robinson, Brooke |
| Charrington, Spencer | Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A.E. | Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Coddington, Sir William | Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop | Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J. |
| Cook, Frederick Lucas | Knowles, Lees | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow) | Lambton, Hon. Frederick W. | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Laurie, Lieut.-General | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lawson, John Grant | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H. | Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East) |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Lee, Capt A. H (Hants. Fareham | Spear, John Ward |
| Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham | Legge, Colonel Heneage | Spencer, Ernest(W. Bromwich) |
| Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S. | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.) | Stock, James Henry |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir P. Dixon | Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) | Stroyan, John |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lucas, Reginald (Portsmouth) | |
| Duke, Edward Henry | Macartney, Rt. Hon. G. W. E. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart | Macdona, John Cumming | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ. |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Maclure, Sir John William | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Maconochie, A. W. | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.) | Tufnell, Col. Edward |
| Finch, George H. | M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Majendie, James A. H. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Fison, Frederick William | Manners, Lord Cecil | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Marshall-Hall, Edward | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Maxwell, W. J. (Dumfriesshire) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Flower, Ernest | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunt'n |
| Forster, Henry William | Middlemore, J. Throgmorton | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts) |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Milward, Colonel Victor | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Garfit, William | Mitchell, William | Williams Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm |
| Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond. | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) | Montague, G. (Huntingdon) | Wilson, Arthur S. (York, E. R.) |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn | More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Gordon, Maj. W. (Tow'rH'ml'ts | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. | Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford) | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath) |
| Goschen, George Joachim | Mount, William Arthur | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Wylie, Alexander |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Groves, James Grimble | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | |
| Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Myers, William Henry | |
| Gunter, Colonel | Newdigate, Francis Alexander | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Hain, Edward | Nicholson, William Graham | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
§ Main Question again proposed.