HC Deb 22 February 1900 vol 79 cc842-59

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."


I would not have troubled the House with raising any objection in the present stage of this measure if it were not for the fact that on Friday, when we were considering the Supplementary Estimates dealing with the money mentioned in this Bill, the First Lord of the Treasury prevented me and other Members who had given notice of reductions from moving them and giving our reasons for so doing. I know that I cannot now move the reductions which I proposed to do. What I can do is to object to the third reading of this Bill. This Bill is for the expenditure of no less than thirteen millions of pounds for the expenses of the war up to the 31st March of the present year. The first thing I have to say is that I think this piecemeal plan of applying to Parliament for comparatively small Votes time after time is unsatisfactory. Last session we were called on for a Vote of ten millions, and some people anticipated that that sum would have been sufficient to see the war brought to a conclusion satisfactory to the Government. What has occurred in South Africa has necessitated the further application to Parliament for an additional sum of thirteen millions. We are expressly told in this Bill that the thirteen millions are only for expenses up to the end of the financial year closingon the 31st day of March next. That means that this sum, added to the Vote of last session, twenty-three millions in all, has already been spent in the progress of this war. It means that an attempt is made to blind the people of this country to the fact that the war is only being proceeded with at a most unexpected and extraordinary cost. I want to know from the Secretary of the Treasury if he can tell us when the next application will be made to Parliament for a further Vote to carry on this war, how much the amount of that Vote is likely to be, and whether any estimate has been arrived at by the Government as to what will be the probable cost of these proceedings in South Africa before they are concluded. We have heard from time to time very flattering eulogies passed on the conduct of the various colonial Governments that have lent assistance in the prosecution of this war. Already a large number of men have gone from the colonies, but I have yet to learn that any very considerable sum of money has been offered by any of the colonial Governments to the home Government to defray the expenses of the war. It should be borne in mind that this Vote of thirteen millions is not merely to meet an emergency, but is, in a large measure, to meet a permanent increase in the British Army represented by 120,000 men who have been asked for. What you have to bear in mind, and what the people have to bear in mind, is that after the enthusiasm of this war is passed and the colonial troops have returned to their homes, the taxpayers of this country and of this country alone will be left to bear the enormous cost entailed by the permanent addition to the British Army. As an Irish representative, I object to this Vote, first, because it would be simply hypocrisy on our part if we allowed the statement in this Bill to go by without being challenged. The Bill says that this sum of thirteen millions is cheerfully granted to Her Majesty and that we humbly beseech Her Majesty to apply the money so cheerfully given for the prosecution of the war. I do not know how other Gentlemen feel about it, but I do not feel in the slightest degree cheerful on the subject. It is quite time this antiquated phraseology should be done away with, because, even though you vote this money, it is simply humbug to put in an Act of Parliament that it is cheerfully given, for no man in this House feels cheerful over parting with so much of the treasure of the taxpayer for such a purpose. From the Irish point of view the voting of this money is intolerable. It is an outrageous scandal, in my opinion, when a war is got up in South Africa of which the Irish people absolutely disapprove, that they should be called upon to pay a large proportion of the cost of the war. Ireland, neither directly nor indirectly, had any hand or part in the proceedings which led to this war. We had absolutely no means of influencing or controlling the negotiations which ended in the lamentable occurrences taking place in South Africa. If we had had a voice in this matter the enormous majority of the Irish people and their representatives would have declared against the war. We can see nothing even now which affords sufficient reason for these gigantic military preparations, and above all—even if this war were just—we cannot see that anything possible in the shape of a return can be gained by the conquering of either of these Republics. We in Ireland arcs sometimes accused of complaining without reason. Is it not reason enough for us to see throughout the length and breadth of the land that Irish country industries are languishing, that our people are handicapped in the question of higher industrial and technical education, and hampered in every possible way because they cannot induce the Government to expend a reasonable amount of money to help and educate the people and prepare them for the battle of life and the development of their country? We cannot get anything from this House for any practical purpose in Ireland. We know that the result of an expert examination has shown that under the system prevailing now the Irish people are unfairly treated in the matter of Imperial taxation. There is a profound conviction in Ireland that the people are already called on to pay more than their fair share for Imperial purposes, and the people regard with despair the ineffectual attempts made to get money for the development of the country. Under these circumstances is it surprising if the utmost indignation is felt among the Irish people when the) ' are told, and know, that of every million that is voted for the carrying on of the war they will have to pay a share out of all proportion to what it should be? The, Irish Members would be wanting in their duty if they did not take every opportunity of protesting against this expenditure, and especially protesting against it in the name of the Irish taxpayer. I do not propose to go into any examination of the various items in the proposals of the Government upon which the thirteen millions are to be spent. In Committee I singled out items and gave notice of my desire to move reductions therein, but was not allowed to do so by the closure. Nor am I able to do so now. I do not go in detail into an examination of whether I think the expenditure unfair in the matter of pay, munitions of war, or transport. I confine myself to saying that the whole expenditure from beginning to end is unnecessary and unjust, and will be absolutely unproductive. In the protest I have made at every possible stage of these proceedings, I venture to say I am voicing not merely the views of my own constituents and the popular opinion in Ireland, but also the opinion of tens of thousands of the taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Wales, many of whom have a rooted objection to seeing their hard earned taxes squandered in military expeditions for the suppression of liberty and the invasion of the homes of industrious and Christian people in South Africa. Although the masses of the English people here have not been heard to any great extent upon this expenditure, I am certain a day will come when there will be a great revulsion of feeling in this country, and when the present Government, the authors of this iniquitous war, will be swept out of office, and a Government installed in power which will return to the policy practised by Mr. Gladstone in South Africa a policy not of bloodthirstiness and tyranny, as is the present, but one of magnanimity and justice, recognising that if a man is born a Dutchman instead of an Englishman he has a right to have his national prejudices, feelings, and pride respected and considered just as much as has an Englishmen. Since this war commenced, after listening very closely to the debates, my feeling in regard to English character has undergone several changes. To find the vast bulk of the British representatives voting the money for this war convinces me of the truth of the estimate of England which we have held in Ireland for generation after generation. We have always been taught to believe that the English people will allow nothing abroad to check them when their own interests are at stake, that they will not consider the rights and interests of others, and that the only time at which a barrier is raised to the policy of Imperial expansion in England is when that expansion finds itself confronted by some strong and mighty power. But in quarters where the means of resistance are weak and slender, the Imperial spirit of England rides roughshod over the people, as is the case at present in South Africa. On the other hand, I confess I have more than once been moved to intense admiration while listening to certain speeches in this House, speeches delivered by men who have been sneered at, interrupted, and insulted because they object to this war. The speeches of such men as Sir Edward Clarke, the right hon. Member for Bodmin, the hon. Member for Cocker mouth, and the hon. Member for Battersea have aroused in the breasts of Irishmen the feeling that, after all, there are some men in this House and country sufficiently brave to face popular disfavour and to be on the right side, though for the time being that side may be in a miserable minority. Do the hon. Gentlemen who vote this money so lightly and regard the prospects of the war with so much satisfaction and confidence, ever remember the expenditure indulged in by this country over one hundred years ago, when the colonial dependencies of this nation in America were attacked as the people of the South African Republics are being attacked to-day? Some of the most fervent and eloquent speeches ever delivered in this House by British statesmen were delivered against the policy of exasperation and brute force practised in America. It was predicted that the policy would lead to the loss of the American colonies, and that prediction was amply justified. The policy now being pursued in South Africa is the same in many respects as that which lost you the American colonies. The speeches then delivered by Burke and Chatham might have been delivered at this very day in regard to the war in South Africa. If this policy is pursued to the bitter end the result will be not only that you will fail permanently to subdue the people of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but that you will in all probability ultimately lose your control over Cape Town. Natal, Rhodesia, and every single square yard of territory in South Africa. Why do I say that? Because the vast majority of the inhabitants of South Africa are Dutch, and unless you are going to instruct your soldiers to do the same as soldier's did not very long ago—to bayonet the women and children, and stamp out the breed of the Dutch by fire, sword, and persecution, the Dutch nation and the Dutch race will spring up in a new generation, and in a few years you will find yourselves confronted with the same difficulties as at present. There was no reason for this war. Negotiations could have been carried on which would have resulted in the granting to the subjects of the Queen in the Transvaal everything they could reasonably require. One of the chief reasons I am so vehemently opposed to this war is that the whole matter could have been settled by arbitration. Was there ever in the history of the world such an exhibition of inconsistency—I had almost said such hare hypocrisy—as the action of the British representatives in this matter? At the Hague Conference the strongest advocate of arbitration was the British representative. In common with the representatives of the United States and the great European Powers, he signed the agreement with regard to arbitration. Yet we find that in a dispute where it was of the last importance that there should be a peaceable settlement, and where it was known that war if it did break out would be a dreadful and devastating conflict, almost before the ink of the signatures to the Arbitration Agreement was dry, the representatives of this country turned their hacks on their own resolution and ignored the principle of arbitration. When President Kruger offered to submit the whole matter to impartial arbitration and to abide by the award, he was insulted and flouted, and told that the representatives of the Queen could not consent to arbitrate with so petty and miserable a State as that composed of a few hundred men, represented by Paul Kruger. What does arbitration mean in the opinion of English gentlemen? Does it mean that you are to apply it only in the case of a quarrel in which you are confronted, not by President Kruger and 200,000 Boers, but by President McKinley with his 70,000,000' of population at his back? Arbitration was agreed to in the case of Venezuela, but refused in the case of the Transvaal. Therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that it was accepted in the one case because America was strong and powerful; but because the Transvaal was weak and isolated it was thought that the will of this country could be wreaked upon it. Arbitration would have been no dishonour to this country. If a strong and mighty power, in a dispute with a weak and small Power, says, "Well, come, we will submit these matters to arbitration," the conduct of that strong Power is calculated to create feelings of admiration throughout the world. You have had to spend all these millions, to submit to these terrible humiliations, and to put up with the loss of many valuable lives, all because the principle of arbitration was not acted upon. It must be a bitter reflection that by a little conciliation and good feeling everything you could reasonably expect or really require in the Dutch Republics might have been granted to you, and your name and flag would have been kept untarnished, instead of being sullied by a series of disastrous and humiliating defeats. There is nothing astonishes me more than the light-hearted way in which the British people seem to take the progress of this war. We have often heard of British stolidity. We were taught at school that one of the chief characteristics of the, Englishman was that he was very stolid; that in moments, of success and triumph he was self-contained and quiet, and in moments of defeat, impassive and unmoved. It would be more to the credit of this country if a little more consideration was publicly exhibited in view of the terrific losses which have been inflicted on your armies. We are told that the second epoch of the war has now been entered on; that all the days that have been are past, and that for the future there will be nothing but glorious victories and triumphant marches to Pretoria. But in the midst of all this, when every glaring news bill tells us that General Cronje is flying, that the Boers, are terrified and overthrown, that Kitchener is on their track, when we open our newspapers at breakfast what do we see? A column of glorious and victorious news? No. A column of casualties, telling us that as a result of the operations of the last few days two of the bravest British generals are seriously wounded, and that no less than fifty commissioned officers are at this moment lying either dead in South Africa or suffering the tortures of bleeding and wounded soldiers in the hospitals. How many men have been killed and wounded? Why do we not get the news in some sort of completeness, so that we may know what is going on? We shall probably not hear of the killed and wounded of the rank and file for some days. As to the anxious mothers and fathers of the poor rank and file from the highlands of Scotland and the homesteads of Ireland, it matters not when they hear whether their relatives are safe. There may be hundreds of these men killed or wounded, and yet we are told the war has now entered on its period of victory. If the people of this country are stolid they have sufficient calmness and common-sense to bear the truth, and they ought to be told the truth. There is not a newspaper correspondent allowed to send a telegram, not a line is permitted to be sent home, giving true and impartial accounts of the proceedings at the scat of war, and even the War Office only publishes fragmentary and piecemeal intelligence. The manner in which the news of this war is given out is on a par with the manner in which the Government prepared for the war. My hon. friend the Member for South Leitrim the other night made several criticisms with regard to the arrangements of the War Office, to which he did not get a single reply. I honestly believe the authorities could not reply. I cannot for the moment think of a Parliamentary phrase sufficiently strong in which to describe the incapacity of the gentlemen at present running the War Office. You may sneer at France or Germany, and think that your system is the best in the world, but there is not a nation on the face of the earth which would have allowed the constitution of the War Office to be the same to-day as it was at the commencement of the war. The authorities miscalculated and misdirected everything, with the result that you now have 1 1,000 British soldiers either killed, wounded, or prisoners at Pretoria. During the five months this war has been proceeding, the authorities have simply made a botch of it. They have had the spending of vast sums of money, and now we are asked to hand over to them another £13,000,000. As far as I am concerned, I certainly will not do it. There is not the organised capacity there ought to be in the War Office, and for that reason amongst others I object to this Vote. The Prime Minister in another place, in justifying this war, said that he had no means of judging that the Transvaal were making such large preparations, and that guns and munitions of war were sent there in piano cases. Was ever such language heard from the Prime Minister of an important country? You had your Agent at Pretoria; you had your spies at Pretoria—


Order, order! The want of preparation for this war does not arise on this Vote.


Of course, I bow to your ruling, Sir, but my line of argument was to show that this money ought not to be entrusted to the administrators of the War Office, because of the incapacity they have shown in failing to acquaint themselves with what is obvious to people of other countries as to the arming of the Transvaal. However, I will not pursue that subject any further than to say that, from the Prime Minister down, every member of the Government has been proved to be incapable. My opinion does not stand alone in that respect. The Times, the Morning Post, the Standard, and nearly every enlightened exponent of Unionist and Tory opinions in the press, have expressed the same view. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has come in at the fag end of my remarks, when it is too late for him to hear all the perfectly unanswerable things I have said. I will therefore conclude by repeating to him the statement with which I commenced my remarks, viz., that I would not to-day have opposed this Bill by more than my vote if last Friday at half-past ten he had not thought fit to apply the closure and to exclude me.


The hon. Member must know he is out of order in commenting on the application of the closure on a previous occasion. It is the act of the House, and it is quite improper to suggest that it is unfair.


I have no doubt the application of the closure on that occasion was in the opinion of the gentleman who moved it—


Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it at all: it is out of order.


I have not the slightest desire or intention to disobey your ruling, or to offer any remarks which you think out of order, but I conceive that I am perfectly entitled to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that my reason for interfering in this debate and speaking at this stage of the proceedings was that I was prevented from doing so by the application of the closure last Friday.


Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is in order in saying he has made these observations because he had no opportunity of making them before, but he has no right to criticise the application of the closure.


I do not desire to criticise the application of the closure, but strictly to follow your ruling. I merely say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have intervened at this stage and made these remarks because, through a collection of untoward circumstances, over which I had no control, but the controlling of which did rest—


If the hon. Member will disregard my ruling I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.


Really I have no desire to disregard your ruling, hut I must say that I do not clearly understand what that ruling is. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman—


I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he has said the same thing four or five times in different ways, and now he is repeating it again. It is tedious repetition, such as is forbidden by the Standing Order.


On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within your recollection that the hon. Member for Stoke lectured the First Lord of the Treasury—


Order, order! That is not a point of order.


Nothing was further from my intention when I rose than to enter into any discussion with regard to your Tilling. I was endeavouring to point out, and I maintain I am entitled to point out, that I have taken this opportunity of speaking—


Order, order! The hon. Gentleman does not understand my ruling. What I said was that he was beginning to say for the fourth or fifth time that he has taken this opportunity of expressing his views because he had not the opportunity on a previous occasion, and now he is simply continuing to repeat it.


All these little unpleasantnesses would have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had come in at the commencement of my speech. The moral of my intervention upon this occasion is that whenever I am interfered with I will make good such interference upon the first opportunity, and where perhaps ten minutes would have done if I had not been interfered with I will take as long as I can when I do get an opportunity.

MR. TULLY () Leitrim, S.

I beg to support my hon. friend's objection to this Bill. We are asked to vote this £13,000,000 to the War Office to be spent by the officials who at present have the control of that department. I for one object to handing over these £13,000,000 to the present officials of the War Office. I do so on various grounds. One of the grounds upon which I rise to support my hon. friend the Member for East Clare is that when I made certain charges here the other night no answer was given from the Government benches to a single one of them. I think when we make strong and definite charges against the War Office we are entitled to some explanation, and to some answer to those charges. The hon. Member opposite asked the Under Secretary of State for War a question dealing with (me of the engagements that has taken place, during the march of Lord Methuen's force to the relief of Kimberley. He asked who was responsible for the present proportion of horses and of guns to infantry in the different battalions of the first army corps. That was a reasonable question, and he asked the Under Secretary to explain who was responsible. He practically got no reply to that question. I asked the other night for certain replies to straightforward and definite charges, and I think in important questions which are a matter of life or death to this country, when such questions are raised in this House, we are at least entitled to demand some explanation on these points from hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Government bench. Upon the question of the deficient armaments and munitions supplied to the troops, and upon other vital questions which have been raised, no answer whatever has been given. Upon such questions as the sighting of the rifles and the refusal of the War Office to purchase in 1892 the patent of the Maxim-Vickers gun we got no reply. We raised the question of the powder and the cordite, and we got no reply with regard to that. On that question I quoted the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Government bench, and I referred particularly to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I remember sitting upon a Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman was Chairman, and I remember the courage and determination he showed in dealing with certain scandals in connection with the Telephone Company. I ash, when the Secretary to the Treasury showed such a keen knowledge in matters connected with the War Office, why a business man like him was not put in charge of the War Office in order that he might root out the scandals connected with the administration of that department. On the question of cordite a greater scandal could not exist in the history of any country. It was stated in the debates which took place in this House that the so-called invention of cordite cost taxpayers £200,000. What was the so-called invention? A number of inventors were asked—


Order, order! These remarks are quite irrelevant.


This money has to be spent by the War Office, and they deal with cordite—


The fact that the War Office have to administer this money and have to deal with cordite does not entitle the hon. Member to discuss the history of the invention of cordite.


I think I am entitled to show—


rose in his place and claimed to move "That the question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 33.)

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H. Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Simeon, Sir Barrington
Helder, Augustus Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire)
Hickman, Sir Alfred Milner, Sir Frederick George Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Milward, Colonel Victor Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)
Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) Monckton, Edward Philip Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)
Hobhouse, Henry Monk, Charles James Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Holland, William Henry More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Howard, Joseph Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Morrell, George Herbert Spencer, Ernest
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Stanley, Ed Jas. (Somerset)
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart
Jenkins, Sir John Jones Muntz, Philip A. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Johnson-Ferguson, J. E. Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Strachey, Edward
Johnston, William (Belfast) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Strauss, Arthur
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Joicey, Sir James Myers, William Henry Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'dUniv)
Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Nicol, Donald Ninian Tennant, Harold John
Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U Norton, Capt. Cecil William Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)
Kearley, Hudson E. Nussey, Thomas Willans Thorburn, Sir Walter
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Thornton, Percy M.
Knowles, Lees Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Lafone, Alfred Parkes, Ebenezer Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn) Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry) Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)
Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Ed. H. Pollock, Harry Frederick Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Webster, Sir Richard E.
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Price, Robert John Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunt'n)
Leng, Sir John Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw. Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)
Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea) Purvis, Robert Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Lockwood, Lt.-Col.-A. R. Pym, C. Guy Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Rankin, Sir James Whitmore, George Algernon
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Lucas-Shadwell, William Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Lyell, Sir Leonard Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Robson, William Snowdon Wilson, John (Govan)
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Macdona, John Cumming Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham) Woodhouse, Sir. J T (Huddersf'd)
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Woods, Samuel
Maclure, Sir John William Rutherford, John Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. (Stuart)
M'Killop, James Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Wyndham, George
Malcolm, Ian Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Maple, Sir John Blundell Savory, Sir Joseph
Martin, Richard Biddulph Seely, Charles Hilton TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Melville, Beresford Valentine Sharpe, William Edward T.
Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Allsopp, Hon. George Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.) Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Finch, George H.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Charrington, Spencer Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Chelsea, Viscount Fisher, William Hayes
Bailey, James (Walworth) Clare, Octavius Leigh Fison, Frederick William
Baird, John George Alexander Clough, Walter Owen Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Baldwin, Alfred Cohen, Benjamin Louis Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r) Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Flower, Ernest
Banbury, Frederick George Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Forster, Henry William
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)
Bartley, George C. T. Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Fry, Lewis
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. Cripps, Charles Alfred Galloway, William Johnson
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton) Gedge, Sydney
Bethell, Commander Curzon, Viscount Gibbons, J. Lloyd
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dalkeith, Earl of Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)
Biddulph, Michael Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)
Bill, Charles Davies, Sir Hor. D. (Chatham) Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Billson, Alfred Davies, M. Yaughan (Cardig'n) Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Blundell, Colonel Henry Denny, Colonel Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Dickinson, Robert Edmond Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Brigg, John Donkin, Richard Sim Goulding, Edward Alfred
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dorington, Sir John Edward Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley
Brown, Alexander H. Doughty, George Graham, Henry Robert
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)
Bullard, Sir Harry Doxford, Sir William T. Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Drucker, A. Gull, Sir Cameron
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Gurdon, Sir William Brampton
Carlile, William Walter Dunn, Sir William Haldane, Richard Burdon
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas Halsey, Thomas Frederick
Causton, Richard Knight Emmott, Alfred Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derhys.) Faber, George Denison Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Fardell, Sir T. George Hare, Thomas Leigh
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Ferguson, R. C. Monro (Leith) Heath, James
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Farrell, James P. (Cavan W.) Power, Patrick Joseph
Allison, Robert Andrew Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.) Reckitt, Harold James
Ambrose, Robert Goddard, Daniel Ford Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Atherley-Jones, L. Hammond, John (Carlow) Redmond, William (Clare)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Hayden, John Patrick Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
Barlow, John Emmott Horniman, Frederick John Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Kilbride, Denis Steadman, William Charles
Blake, Edward Labouchere, Henry Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Broadhurst, Henry Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'd) Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Caldwell, James Lloyd-George, David Tully, Jasper
Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow) Macaleese, Daniel Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Cawley, Frederick MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Crilly, Daniel M'Dermott, Patrick Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) M'Ewan, William Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Dalziel, James Henry M'Ghee, Richard
Dillon, John O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Doogan, P. C. O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)
Duckworth, James O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Engledew, Charles John O'Malley, William

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

The House divided:—Ayes, 274; Noes, 33. (Division List No. 34.)

Allsopp, Hon. George Doughty, George Kearley, Hudson E.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.
Arnold, Alfred Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Knowles, Lees
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Lafone, Alfred
Ashton, Thomas Gair Drucker, A. Lawrence, Sir E.]) urnig- (Corn.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Duckworth, James Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)
Baird, John George Alexander Dunn, Sir William Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.
Baldwin, Alfred Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph D. Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Emmott, Alfred Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Banbury, Frederick George Faber, George Denison Leng, Sir John
Barlow, John Emmott Fardell, Sir T. George Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans')
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd. Lockwood, Lt.-Colonel A. R.
Barry. Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bartley, George C. T. Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B. (Hants) Finch, George H. Lough, Thomas
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Beckett, Ernest William Fisher, William Hayes Lucas-Shadwell, William
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Fison, Frederick William Lyell, Sir Leonard
Bethell, Commander Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Flannery. Sir Fortescue Macartney. W. G. Ellison
Biddulph, Michael Flower, Ernest Macdona, John Cumming
Bill, Charles Forster, Henry William MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Billson, Alfred Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Maclure, Sir John William
Blundell, Colonel Henry Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) M'Ewan, William
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Fry, Lewis M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.)
Brigg, John Galloway, Wm. Johnson M'Kenna, Reginald
Broadhurst, Henry Garfit, William M'Killop, James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gedge, Sydney Malcolm, Ian
Brown, Alexander H. Gibbons, J. Lloyd Maple, Sir John Blundell
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Gibbs, Hn. A G H. (City of Lond.) Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Gibbs, Hon. V (St, Albans) Melville, Beresford Valentine
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Giles, Charles Tyrrell Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Bullard, Sir Harry Goddard, Daniel Ford Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Caldwell, James Goldsworthy, Major-Genera] Milward, Colonel Victor
Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow) Gordon, Hon. John Edward Monckton, Edward Philip
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Monk, Charles James
Carlile, William Walter Goulding, Edward Alfred More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson Gourley, Sir Edward Temperl'y Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monmithsh)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Graham, Henry Robert Morrell, George Herbert
Causton, Richard Knight Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshre) Green, W. D. (Wedneslmry) Morton. Ed. J. C. (Devonport)
Cawley, Frederick Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Muntz, Philip A.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Gull. Sir Cameron Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute)
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Haldane, Richard Burdon Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Halsey, Thomas Frederick Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Myers, William Henry
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor.) Hanbury, lit Hon. R. Wm. Nicol, Donald Ninian
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hare, Thomas Leigh Norton, Capt. Cevil William
Charrington, Spencer Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas, Seale Nussey, Thomas Willans
Chelsea, Viscount Heath, James O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Clough, Walter Owen Holder, Augustus Parkes, Ebenezer
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hickman, Sir Alfred Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Columb, Sir John Chas. Ready Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd) Hobhouse, Henry Pollock, Harry Frederick
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Holland, William Henry Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Horniman, Frederick John Price, Robert John
Cripps, Charles Alfred Howard, Joseph Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cross, Herb. Sheph'd (Bolton) Hozier, Hon. James Henry C. Purvis, Robert
Curzon, Viscount Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Pym, C. Guy
Dalkeith, Earl of Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Rankin, Sir James
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Jenkins, Sir John Jones Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
Davies, Sir Hor. D. (Chatham) Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l)
Davies, M. Vanghan (Cardig'n) Johnston, William (Belfast) Rickett, J. Compton
Denny, Colonel Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Joicey, Sir James Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Donkin, Richard Sim Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dorington, Sir John Edward Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U Robson, William Snowdon
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) Hammond, John (Carlow) Power, Patrick Joseph
Ambrose, Robert Hayden, John Patrick Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Kilbride, Denis Redmond, William (Clare)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Blake, Edward Macaleese, Daniel Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Crilly, Daniel MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) M'De mott, Patrick Tully, Jasper
Dillon, John M'Ghee, Richard Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Doogan, P. C. O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Engledew, Charles John O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.) O'Connor, T. R. (Liverpool)
Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.) O'Malley, William

Resolution agreed to.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton)
Hound, James Stone, Sir Benjamin Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham) Strachey, Edward Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Strauss, Arthur Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Rutherford, John Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Un.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Tennant, Harold John Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Savory, Sir Joseph Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E) Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Seely.' Charles Hilton Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r) Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Sharpe, William Edward T. Thorburn, Sir Walter Wilson, John (Govan)
Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) Thornton, Percy M. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Simeon, Sir Barrington Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd)
Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire) Trevelyan, Charles Philips Woods, Samuel
Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Tritton, Charles Ernest Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.) Wyndham, George
Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe) Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arcy
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Warr, Augusus Frederick TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Spencer, Ernest Webster, Sir Richard E.
Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset) Weir, James Calloway
Forward to