HC Deb 13 March 1900 vol 80 cc745-75

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time."


I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. One of my objections to this Bill is that I do not think it is a proper way to raise money for carrying on the present war. At the time of the Crimean War a great deal of the necessary cost was raised by direct taxation, whereas only something like £12,000,000 is now to be raised by taxation on articles of consumption. The balance is to be raised by way of loan repayable in ten years. I think that is not a candid way of meeting the expense of the war. Sooner or later this loan will have to be repaid, and the burden will then fall on the taxpayers. By means of it you are deceiving and deluding the people as to what the war is actually costing. I think it would be more candid and fairer to impose additional taxation to a greater extent, especially as we are told that the war fever is so strong in England that there would be no objection to fresh taxation. So much from that point of view. But I object to participating in the slightest degree in the passage of this loan from an Irish point of view. I consider, quite sincerely and honestly, that it would be little short of a crime if Irish Members in the present financial condition of their country sat silent while this additional burden is put upon it, and if they failed to protest by their votes against this fresh imposition. I calculate that, at the very least, three millions if not four millions of this loan will fall upon the shoulders of the Irish taxpayers. At any time that would be a serious cause of complaint in Ireland, but at the present time, when the whole country is agitated from end to end on the question as to the capability of the Irish people to bear the taxation now upon them, to impose a fresh burden is in my opinion little short of monstrous. The incapacity of the Irish people to bear the burden of taxation already upon them is not a matter of complaint by Irish Nationalists alone. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that the agitation in Ireland during the last few years on the question of Imperial taxation has been maintained not merely by Nationalist Members, but by a large number of Unionist Members as well. The Royal Commission which inquired into the condition of Irish finance and into the question of the ability of the people to pay the Imperial burden already upon them reported practically unanimously that considering all the circumstances of the case the Irish people were called upon to pay something between two and a half and three millions more every year than they ought to pay, having regard to the different conditions of Ireland and England, and above all having regard to the Act of Union at the commencement of the century, which specifically stated that the Irish people should only be taxed in proportion to their relative taxable capacity, and that abatements and exemptions should be made in their case. That Report was not drawn up by mere partisan Nationalists, but it was a Report presented by a Royal Commission composed of the principal experts of the day on financial matters, and they laid down the conclusion that Ireland was paying at least 2½ millions more towards Imperial taxation than she ought to pay. That is beyond dispute and cannot be denied. No attempt has, however, been made to enforce the conclusion of that Royal Commission. Under ordinary circumstances a Report of that kind would have been followed by legislation, and the defects which the Royal Commission had pointed out would have been remedied if an English question were concerned. But no action was taken with regard to Ireland.


The hon. Member is now discussing the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland.


I do not intend to go at length into the question, because it would not be strictly à proposof the matter under discussion, but I wish to point out that the Irish Members object to this Bill not only on its merits but because it has been shown that, independent of this fresh war taxation, Ireland is already paying several millions a year more than she should. No attempt has been made to remedy that injustice. On the contrary the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of endeavouring to equalise Irish taxation and to remove the grievances of which many of his supporters in Ireland complain, asks the representatives of the Irish people, overtaxed and overburdened as Ireland is, to sanction this loan for the purpose of carrying on the war. I have no doubt English Members sometimes feel irritated at the constancy with which Irish Members refer to these financial proposals, but I say deliberately that not during the whole of this century has there been a more monstrous and more infamous proposition than that the Irish people should be called upon, in the present condition of their country, to pledge themselves to millions of fresh taxation for the purposes of the war. The stock of this loan is to be known as "war stock," and the bonds as "war bonds;" therefore, I assume I am entitled to go into the policy of the war. I have no desire to do so except very briefly; but this I will say, that whatever objection I had to the policy of this war, which has entailed this enormous cost, before this evening, within the last hour my objection has been doubled and trebled, and never since the commencement of these war discussions have I been so opposed to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that the war would cost £60,000,000, but it will really cost between £65,000,000 and £66,000,000, because the right hon. Gentleman has not taken into account the surplus which would have been to the good had there been no war. We were told first of all—and a very plausible statement it was—that this war should be continued at all cost because certain dominions of Her Majesty had been invaded by the forces of the two Republics. That is quite true, though I hold my own opinion as to what led to that invasion. I was not at all surprised that Natal was invaded under the circumstances. At the same time, I was not surprised at the attitude of the English Members, who maintained that this money should be spent, and more if necessary, in order to clear Natal and every inch of Her Majesty's territory in South Africa from the invading Boers. I can understand that; but what I cannot understand, and what I protest against, is that when by an overwhelming force you have cleared the invaders out of Her Majesty's territory, you are not satisfied with that, and you refuse to consider terms of honourable peace with a brave and gallant people. Now we are told for the first time what we all along suspected, that this war is not a war to right the wrongs of British subjects in South Africa, not a war merely to clear Her Majesty's territory of invading forces, but a war waged against the independence of the two Republics. The Prime Minister stated in a speech not long ago that the war was forced upon them to right the wrongs of British subjects in the Transvaal, and that they sought neither territory nor goldfields. The Duke of Devonshire said something of the same kind, and denied that there was any intention on the part of the Government to annex either the Transvaal or the Orange Free State. Now we are told by the First Lord of the Treasury that this war—this horrible carnival of bloodshed and misery and wretchedness—is to be carried on until the independence of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State is overthrown and swept away. After that declaration I object to this loan all the more strongly, and I shall vote more readily than I have ever yet voted against a single penny being granted. I venture to say that there was no Member in this House who listened altogether unmoved to the communication from the Presidents of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. You may disagree with them; you think, no doubt, they commenced this war without provocation; you think they were wrong from start to finish; but is there any Member in this House who, in his own breast, can withhold from these two States some tribute of admiration for the extraordinary valour and almost superhuman courage with which they have endeavoured to preserve what they consider to be their rights? And now these two men, having won some victories; when it seems that they are about to be overwhelmed; when they are about to be cleared out of the Queen's dominions; when they are considering any terms of peace which they could possibly, with an atom of self-respect, accept—when they make this offer, the answer of the Prime Minister to that offer will fill liberty-loving people throughout the world with despair, if not with disgust at the policy of Her Majesty's Government. No; no terms are to be considered. This war is to go on to its bloody end. Nothing is to satisfy the Government or the Colonial Secretary until Pretoria has been reached, and until the list of 15,000 killed, wounded and maimed British troops has been increased a thousand fold. This war is to go on with all its misery, all its bloodshed, all its terrible torture to those who fight, and those who are left behind, because, having got the power of enforcing every right that you could possibly claim for your British subjects in the Transvaal, having got the power of dictating the terms on which your people should live in the future in the Transvaal, no terms will satisfy you except those which strike at the existence and self-respect of those Dutch farmers—terms which you know perfectly well make it absolutely certain that these men, after to-day, will continue to fight to the last ditch, and that they will not surrender as long as a shot is left in the locker. Where is the wise statesmanship which we are told governs the policy of this Government at the present time? I wish to goodness that Mr. Gladstone were alive. I wish to goodness that Mr. Gladstone were directing the affairs of this country, and I believe the necessity for this money we are asked for to-night would not have arisen. Mr. Gladstone would have offered the same fair and honourable terms which commanded the respect and the admiration of the world when the Boers inflicted a small defeat on the British forces at Majuba. If he were alive, directing the affairs of this country, what terms would he not have made when appealed to by the Presidents of these two Republics in the hour of British victory? He would have behaved with humanity, and would have said to these people, "Now we have demonstrated our strength; now that we have got 205,000 British troops in South Africa—more than one for each of your population; now that you see our power, and that it is only a question of money when we can subdue you, admit you cannot withstand our overwhelming forces and ask for peace." Mr. Gladstone would have given them peace on terms which would have secured for every British subject the fullest fair play for the future, and would have given them peace upon the only terms on which you can have any abiding peace in South Africa, and on terms also of consideration for the self-respect and the bravery of the Dutch population throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. It is all very well to ask for this thirty millions to carry on the war, and enable you to march to Pretoria and hoist your flag there, and to destroy the independence of these two countries. That is easy enough to do. You may destroy their independence; you may raze Pretoria to the ground; you may kill every soldier in the armies of the two Republics; but will that guarantee the permanent peace of South Africa? Will that guarantee for the future to bring contentment or satisfaction to the minds of the vast concourse of Dutchmen in Cape Colony and Natal, and the majority of the whole population in South Africa, who are Dutch at the present time? I say, now is your time to make terms of peace regarding which the Dutch in the Cape and Natal will be able to say, "Well, after all, these English people have shown us their enormous power and strength, and when we acknowledged that and asked for peace they were magnanimous and generous enough to give us terms of peace which we could accept with self-respect." I say that is the policy which ought to actuate Her Majesty's Government, and which would win for England the respect of Europe and of the whole world. It is the only policy which will prevent the necessity for fresh military operations in South Africa. But if you go on with the policy that the blood of the British lion is up, and that you will be satisfied with nothing but to destroy the independence of these two small countries, you will earn the contempt of every liberty-loving people in every part of the world. That policy will perpetuate disaffection throughout every part of South Africa, and will make the Dutch in Cape Colony and Natal dissatisfied with your rule and wait for a chance of striking a blow for that independence which they so dearly prize. There is one point which always appeals to me in this matter, and which is always overlooked not only in this House but in the country, and that is that no matter what settlement you make you cannot help the whole of South Africa from Cape Town to the Zambesi being populated by Dutch people and English. These people will have to live for the future in South Africa. Are they to live together in peace, respecting each other; or are they to be obliged to live, as we have been forced to do in Ireland, not loving your rule? I say that, Dutch and English having to live together, you should pursue a policy which should commend itself to them in the hour of defeat—a policy of generosity and wisdom, and unless you do that you will only be breeding fresh trouble for this country. As for us in Ireland, we object to this war as being unjust; and, therefore, what is more natural than that we should come here and object to pay any portion of the money asked for these military opera- tions? Why, it is hard to understand the feeling which is afloat in England at the present time. It is hard to understand that this is what is called free England at all. The only place, so far as I can see where any man in this free country can say a word against this war and this enormous taxation is the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] Hon. Gentlemen opposite rapturously cheer that statement of mine, that the House of Commons is the only place where a word can be said against this iniquitous war and this enormous war expenditure, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, the late Member for Plymouth, and many others. If they attempt to exercise the right of public meeting or free speech in free England to-day, what is the result?


The hon. Member cannot discuss the right of public meeting on the motion before the House.


I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to do anything, but obey your ruling in this matter. I have stated that these meetings were interfered with, for the purpose of showing that the only place where our protests can be made without having our persons injured, our property destroyed, and the houses of our families invaded by a war-like mob, is the House of Commons. Therefore we take this and every opportunity of entering our protest against this war. I say the time will come, and it is not very far distant, when there maybe scenes of excitement outside this House amongst the taxpayers and the working people of this country. These scenes of excitement will not be created by pouring out the millions of the taxes wrung from the people for warlike preparations; but they will be caused in years to come, when this policy of crushing the independence of the South African Republics bears its fruit in continual disturbances in the Continent of Africa, and when the people find that the only return they get for this enormous expenditure of money, is to create in South Africa a larger and a more stubborn Ireland than you have here. I conclude by saying that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—impatient as he may be, and impatient as his friends may be to vote this money—cannot complain if we pro- test, as Irishmen, against having anything to do with this Vote—in the first place because we object to the war, and in the second place because Ireland is not entitled in any way to be asked to bear a share of its cost. They can hardly complain of us doing that, for over since the session commenced we have opposed this war. As the representative of one of the Irish Nationalist constituencies I enter my protest, and I care very little whether the supporters of the Government complain of my doing so or not. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

I rise to second the motion of my hon. friend. We were told when this war was entered into that it was only going to be a short war, costing something like £20,000,000. Those of us who knew something about the Dutch knew that it was not going to be such a short war, and I thought that the Dutch would not give up their independence without making a struggle to fight for it. We all know with what a light heart this war was entered upon, and we were told that our troops would be in Pretoria by Christmas. But what has been the result? My hon. friend has shown how this system of loan bamboozles the British public, and they are not made aware by it of what this iniquitous war is costing. It becomes our duty—objecting as we do to this war, to its origin, its continuance, and the spirit in which it is waged—as Nationalists to enter our protest at every stage and upon every occasion against this war. We have little or no interest in the expansion of your Empire, for it can bring to us nothing but taxation. As my hon. friend has proved, the very least that this Bill will put upon Ireland will be a burden of £3,000,000. When we consider that the people of Ireland have been starving for ten years in the west of Ireland, and we cannot get a wretched pittance to keep the life in our people, then it is our stern duty to say that Ireland is hostile to this country, and that we object to any taxation which includes any payment which falls upon the already overtaxed people of Ireland. I think we should be false to ourselves and to those who sent us here if we did not enter our protest. Although our numbers may be small owing to some of our supporters having to go elsewhere, it will be the duty of those who are here to protest against this proposal, and show that we have no hand or part in continuing a war which will bring nothing but misery in South Africa, and which will cost our own people an enormous sum of money.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. William Redmond.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

*SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I should like to say a word or two upon the Bill itself, and to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to one or two points in connection with it. I must, in the first instance, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the success of this financial operation; but I am bound to qualify that congratulation with the expression of a doubt, that a loan which is so popular, not only with the public of this kingdom but with the public of other countries, must be a remarkably favourable loan to those who may be fortunate enough to obtain a share, and that suggests whether the Treasury in settling the terms of the loan have done in the matter the best they could for the public Exchequer. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the mode in which he has issued this loan. I approve, and I think the House and the country approve, of the mode in which he has issued the loan, for he has appealed to the mass of the people and they have responded, and the loan is not weighted by any heavy intermediate commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I am sure, contrast his experience on this occasion with the not very satisfactory mode in which the last money obtained on Government credit was raised—I mean the Local Loans Loan which was raised in the month of January. Within a very few days of that loan being issued at £99 12s. 6d., I think, it was sold in the public market at something like £2 or £3 premium, and it stands pretty much at that figure now.

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. Hicks Beach, Bristol, W.)

It was issued by tender.


Yes, by tender, I know; but there is no doubt a limited number of persons formed, to use a common expression, the ring by which that loan was manipulated. At all events, this is a great improvement upon that mode of procedure. But I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us his reasons why he has not adopted on this occasion, in any shape or form, the principle of the terminable annuity. In the second clause of the Bill he has provided, as far as Parliament can enact, that at the expiration of ten years from the present time, this loan shall be redeemed on the payment of £100 sterling and the payment of all arrears of interest. He has also provided that the cost, both the principal and interest, of this loan should not be a charge on the sum of £23,000,000 which is the permanent annual charge for the National Debt, but that the interest and the principal will have to be met outside the debt charge. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say if I am right in that, namely, that the £23,000,000 will be raised and applied outside this debt which will have to be provided for outside that sum. I think that is a satisfactory provision. At the same time, I think it would have been better if the principle of annuity could have been introduced into this loan. I know the Treasury has a very strong objection to terminable annuities, but I should like the Treasury to appeal to the public. I have always held the opinion that if the general public had a chance of tendering for those annuities there is a class of persons who would come to the aid of the Treasury and avail themselves of securing a fixed sum annually for a limited period. That I know is not a popular view in the Treasury, and I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether anything outside the sentiment and prejudice of the Treasury has induced him to abandon the principle of annuity on this occasion, because the principle of annuity would secure the annual liquidation of a portion of the debt. Now, I should like to say a word upon our position with reference to this loan. I do not think that until the war expenditure has come to an end we are able to say exactly what proportion will have to be met by loan and what proportion will have to be met by taxation. I think that the general opinion of the House and of the country is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, at all events, so far as this operation is concerned, very fairly combined the two principles of taxing the taxpayer of to-day and also of charging the general finance of the country with a portion of this expenditure by way of loan. I think my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth said that this was the largest borrowing that has been made, certainly for purposes of this description, for something like forty years.


Since 1815.


I think we are entitled, in passing such a measure, to look at what really is the financial position of the country. Of course we are cautioned against optimism or pessimism with respect to our military operations. The feeling of the country to-day is that the moment that anything very successful happens the people are in a very optimistic frame of mind, and the moment that anything not very successful takes place they are plunged in the depths of despair. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, perhaps that is too strong a word; I will say the depths of gloom. But so far as finance is concerned we must look at the matter from another point of view altogether. We must deal with the matter really from the point of view of the position of the country; and I desire to quote a figure or two to the House upon that point. My right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth contrasted the present proposals with those which were made in 1857 when Sir George Cornewall Lewis wound up the expenditure on the Crimean War. But in contrasting that position with the position to-day we ought also to look at the financial position of the country to-day and its financial position then, and we must remember that the expenditure of this country and the amount raised in taxation has enormously increased in the last thirty, forty, or fifty years. Going back only twenty-five years—to 1874 or 1875—the gross revenue of the country was something like £75,000,000. The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the receipts of last year, receipts which had nothing to do with the war, as £125,000,000. Therefore, we have an increased revenue and an increased expenditure of something like £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 in that period, coming out of the taxation of the country. But there is another item in the account. Since the Crimean War, and since a much later period, there is a class of taxation and a class of expenditure which has arisen in this country, and year by year until it has approached a gigantic amount. I refer to local rates. It has already a national debt of its own, and contrasts not most favourably with the National Debt of the country. It must be remembered that the ratepayers and the taxpayers are the same people, and this year the ratepayers of England and Wales are called upon to pay in rates upwards of 40 millions sterling. That is in addition to the subventions from the Treasury, to the share in Imperial taxation, which are given to local bodies. I find no fault with that expenditure. In fact, I am a strong advocate of it. I think it is an expenditure that will increase, and ought to increase. But, when you are regarding the burdens of the present taxpayers and ratepayers, you must look all round, and you must remember that the 125 millions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is between forty and fifty millions short of the real amount to be paid by the taxpayers of this country. Now I take the figures so far as the National Debt is concerned, and that perhaps is more germane to the present Bill. In 1837, the year the Queen came to the Throne, the National Debt was £843,000,000, and if the local loans then outstanding for a small amount and the balances at the Exchequer are deducted from that amount the real net National Debt at that date was £843,000,000. I take another date. At the close of the Crimean War the National Debt was £842,000,000. Against that there were assets amounting to £23,000,000, and, therefore, the real National Debt was under £820,000,000. What was the National Debt last year? On the 5th of April, 1899, the gross liabilities of the State amounted to £635,000,000. The generation that has been taxpaying between 1857 and now has borne the burden of that large reduction of taxation; taxpayers have discharged their share of the debt, so far as paying it off is concerned, within that period. We have now assets amounting in round figures to £27,000,000, and, therefore, our financial position at the present time is that the real net liability of the State is something over £600,000,000. When we are asked by Her Majesty's Government to sanction for the purpose of this war an addition to that debt of £30,000,000, the financial authorities of the country are entitled to take up the position that, having regard to the financial position of the country as a whole, and to the fact that the burden of taxation is now so fairly adjusted between all classes of taxpayers and so wisely levied in the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Member for West Monmouthshire explained to the House the pressure of that taxation is very slightly felt; and as this debt of £30,000,000 is to be paid off in ten years—a promise which I hope will be faithfully redeemed, and it will be redeemed if Chancellors of the Exchequer only stand firm and do not give way to the criticisms of either friends or opponents—I think the House is assenting to a financial arrangement to which there is no just ground of complaint, and work will meet with the general approval of the people.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

I do not think the raising of a loan of £30,000,000 will be a very difficult operation to art Empire with such resources as our own. I think my right hon. friend is to be congratulated on the success which has attended the issue of the loan. I only hope he will be able so to influence those who probably now have the direction of the operation that as far as possible the loan may be placed in the hands of small investors, and I was going to say the British public as distinguished from the more powerful and wealthy financiers, but I believe I ought to say the British and Irish public. We have been told that from every part of Her Majesty's dominions applications have poured in, and notwithstanding what the hon. Member for East Clare says, if we were allowed to inquire into the sources of the applications I believe a great many of the applications would be found to have emanated from Ireland. In congratulating my right hon. friend on the success and skill of this operation, I would only say, with regard to the extremely interesting figures which have been read out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that I think there is one moral and one lesson which ought to be deeply taken to heart by Chancellors of the Exchequer, from whatever quarter of the House hey happen to come. I mean the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred when he pointed out that, although now we were more wealthy, we had less debt to bear. It is true that we are more wealthy, but if we had the same debt to bear our greater expenditure would cause a great deal more pressure on the taxpayers of this country. Therefore, while I am the first to recognise that when the nation is at war the greater part, if not the whole, cost of the war may legitimately be raised by borrowing, and by suspending the Sinking Fund, still, I earnestly pray that, except on these occasions, the policy of reducing the Debt of the country will go on in the future, and be religiously and diligently carried out.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I see from the newspapers that the loan which was issued at 98½ is already at 2½ per cent. premium. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman is in the position of being able to distribute to those who get the loan the comfortable little sum of £750,000. Well, I am not complaining of the Chancellor of the Exchequer bringing it out at the issue price. I am perfectly aware that it is always necessary to bring out what is intended for a popular loan below what the actual price would be, because, naturally, financiers are not anxious at any particular moment to buy Consols. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was making a speech on this loan, said he would have special consideration for the smaller applicants. Well, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will thoroughly carry out that view, for certainly if this £750,000 is to distributed among the public of this country, it is more desirable that it should go into a great many pockets than into a very few. Therefore I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us that he will proceed on this system: that he will first allot in full to all who have applied for, say, £100 worth of the stock; that he will then take those who have applied for £200, and that he will distribute it in this way among the greatest number of people he possibly can. I think that would only be fair and in accordance with the expression the Chancellor of the Exchequer used. One of the troubles of these loans has been that some great plutocrats in the City who are able to take up a large amount of stock get allotments. If the money is to be distributed let it be among the poor instead of among wealthy gentlemen in the City. I am not going into the policy of this war at the present moment—I have done so before; but we have had a document presented to us today—the despatch which has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the Presidents of the two Republics—which may certainly alter the views of a great many persons in regard to this war. It must clearly be understood that, while a great many of us on this side of the House do not assent for one moment either to the grounds which the Government have given for going into this war or to the scope which they intend at present to give to the war, at the present moment these two Republics are fighting, rightly or wrongly, for their independence, and we are carrying on the war in order to destroy the independence of those two Republics. I have never heard in modern times of such an intention avowed in regard to a war. The last time an independent country was blotted out of existence was the case of Poland, and surely we ought not to take the case of Poland as an example. There have been many wars since then, and I do not remember one single instance in which a foreign and independent country was destroyed by the victorious belligerent. We had a case a little while ago with respect to Greece. I am not one of those who have so high an opinion of the Sultan of Turkey that I would have objected if you had sent an ultimatum, and if you had caused us to spend money and blood to prevent Turkey from absorbing Greece if it had been the intention of the Sultan to do so; but that was not proposed. We have to take the opinion not only of Europe but of a large majority of Americans—we have to take the opinion of the whole civilised world, and you will find that they will protest against this attack on the rights of independent countries. I have been against this war all along, but I perfectly understood the position of Gentlemen opposite—it was a most difficult position—when, whether the war was just or unjust, whether it was our fault or the fault of the Boers, they were in our territory, and it was absolutely necessary to drive them out. I also understood those—though I cannot say I quite shared in it—who thought that our arms had suffered in prestige. I did not think so myself. I had a higher opinion of the valour of Englishmen than perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite. Still, my respect and my belief in the prestige of English arms was not in any way destroyed. I can understand that military gentlemen in some sort of way wished to have an opportunity before the war was over of re-establishing that prestige. The Boers have been driven out of our territory. [Cries of "No!"] Well, perhaps there may be half a dozen Boers hanging about, but for all practical purposes they have been driven out, and the British Army is now invading their territories. If you will take the trouble to read the despatch of the Presidents of the two Republics you will seethe terms on which they are willing to see peace restored. It will be admitted that we have practically driven them out of our territory. Under these circumstances I cannot, for myself, understand what ground you have for continuing this war. Can you tell me of any war in which the vanquished side asked for terms, and were told that the victors would only grant terms in the capital of the defeated country, and on condition of their surrendering their independence? I call this thing an iniquity. I call this a positive iniquity. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, hon. Gentlemen may say "Oh!" if they like, but I regard it as an iniquity and a disgrace to this country to propose such terms. Perhaps the question of iniquity does not appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is not only a crime, it is also a blunder. I do not believe this is the way to establish peace and harmony and good feeling in South Africa. I cannot forget that the majority in our own colonies are of Dutch extraction. Although they have been loyal for nearly a century to this country, and are prepared to remain loyal, their sympathies are entirely with their kith and kin, and if you wipe out the independence of these two Republics, you will create a state of things in South Africa under which you will have to maintain your rule by the sword not for a short time, but for a long time. In these circumstances I cannot help rising to register my protest at the earliest opportunity against the despatch sent by Lord Salisbury to the Presidents of the two Republics. There are many who share with you the belief that this is a just and necessary war, there are many who were with you in driving these people out of our territories, and who wished to establish our prestige; but I very much doubt whether the country, who are called upon to pay this enormous taxation and to sacrifice the blood of the soldiers, will be with you in the further prosecution of this war. I do wish a better spirit existed among hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government of the country. You are at present appealing to the lowest passions outside of this House. I do not believe you will succeed in the long run. It may be that the people will be carried away by the feeling which at present exists among Englishmen, but in the long run they will see that they have been fooled into this war by the vilest body of financiers that ever existed in this world, and that the opportunity had been taken to lay hold of the territory and gold, which Lord Salisbury himself boasted we did not wish for.

MR. VICARY GIBBS (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)

On this side of the House we are not prepared to accept the hon. Member for Northampton either as a moralist or a prophet. I quite agreed with the concluding part of his speech, and it was the only part I did agree with, that this is not the proper time for such a speech. The purpose for which I rose was to answer the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. In complimenting the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the success of the loan, he said that its very success pointed to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not altogether safeguarded the interests entrusted to him, and that he might have issued the loan a little higher. It is very easy for my right hon. friend or anyone else to be wise after the event. I wish to point out that in loans of this kind it is quite impossible to hit the happy mean, the exact point which will make a successful issue, and yet not waste a penny which might have been saved, No one who comes from that part of the City I come from will say that what I say is not true. The hon. Gentleman himself objects to the tender system, but I know perfectly well if he had been where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is he would have done exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has done. There was only one part of the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton germane to the subject. That was in regard to the giving of full allotments to the small investors. I quite recognise the propriety and the desirability of the small investors having this loan if they can take it, but anyone who has studied financial matters knows perfectly well that neither this nor any other Government can rely for their success on the small investors alone. If they were to take the step of giving £100, £200, £300, and so on to everyone who applied for these sums, and then issuing letters of regret to everybody else they would give the impression that those who applied for a large amount would not get an allotment. They would thus discourage those capitalists and plutocrats—"bloated," I think, is the term generally applied to them—who, though they may be a most unpleasant feature of modern civilisation, are a painful and disagreeable necessity to any Chancellor of the Exchequer if you are to carry on the financial business of the country. It would not be fair to them, it would be monstrous, not to give them allotments. I have heard pro rata allotments advocated. It would be equally unfair to shut out big men altogether—those who cover the loan over and over again. When people see an enormous amount of applications they must remember that these applicants know they will receive only part of what they apply for, I hope the House will excuse me if I have taken up their time, for I have some means of knowing something about these matters.


The Member for Northampton owes a debt of gratitude to his constituents, because they have enabled him to make speeches in this House which they would not listen to themselves. How long they will enable him to make such speeches is a question which will shortly be decided between him and them. In referring to the position of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, the hon. Member used misleading analogies, which demand a short word in reply Poland was divided by Austria, Russia, and Prussia, but did Poland invade Austria, Russia, and Prussia? There was a conspiracy against Poland by which they secretly partitioned that country. The case was very different here. It is the Boers who have invaded our territory. It is we who, up to the present moment, have been repelling invasion. The last message from the Presidents seems to be not less insulting than the ultimatum by which they began this war, and certainly it is a deal more hypo-critical. Nobody can say that that message is a reason for taking a more favourable view of the Republics than we previously entertained. With regard to this loan, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton understated his case when he added only £40,000,000 to the local expenditure. I obtained the figures last year for not only England, Scotland, and Wales, but also Ireland, and after deducting a contribution of £12,000,000 for the central Government, I made the total local expenditure £85,000,000. Some part of that is what is called reproductive expenditure, but it does not always reproduce. The total gross expenditure I reckoned to be—


I did not say expenditure; I said rates.


There are other kinds, we know, raised by toll and so on. I wish to make only one remark about the local debt. For years past, as the National Debt has been increasing, the local debt has been increasing in a larger proportion. Undoubtedly that must be taken into account, although possibly the National Debt may soon outstrip in rapidity of movements even the local debt. It is important that the House should remember that this £30,000,000 is not the whole of the indebtedness which will be added by this war. In addition to the £30,000,000 War Loan, there are £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman has diverted from the repayment of the National Debt in the shape of the saving realised last year.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

There were £8,000,000 more last year.


£5,000,000 saving. There were £10,000,000 voted last year; but I am dealing with the present year. It is true the right hon. Gentleman does not intend these £30,000,000 to be a permanent addition to the Debt, though, I take it, the interest will act that way. The interest will be something like £825,000 a year, and he must get that £825,000 out of taxation, I presumes. As to this £30,000,000, the the right, hon. Gentleman proposes to repay it within ten years. How is he going to do it? First of all he trusts in the goldmines of the Transvaal. If they will not find the money he trusts in Providence and the taxpayers. But finally it comes to this—he will have to add it to the National Debt, What he will finally fall back upon will be terminable annuities, the renewal of which will mean practically an addition to the National Debt. We hope it will not come to that, and possibly it may not. There is another point. The House must not run away with the idea that we are getting this money at 2¾ per cent. The loan is for £30,000,000, but we are getting only £29,500,000, because the loan is issued at 98½ That would return £29,550,000, but the broker's percentage and the advertising and other expenses, which would certainly amount to £50,000, are to be paid by the State. Ten years hence for that £29,500,000 we shall have to repay £30,000,000. Consequently the interest is really more than 2¾ per cent. No doubt this loan might have been offered at a premium, but that would have been a mistake. No doubt also the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have issued Consols instead of a separate loan, but that, too, would have been a mistake. My belief is that, on the whole, although it does appear as if we were paying a little more than the public actually would demand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the right course, and he and the country are to be congratulated upon the readiness with which the loan has been subscribed.

MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

The hon. Gentleman opposite said that the Boers had been fooled into this war. There is a great deal of truth in that statement. They have been fooled into the war largely by the speeches of Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House, and they are fooled at present to continue the war by the same means. It is the old case over again of the telegram to the King of Greece. If those Gentle men, instead of speaking as they have done, were plainly to tell their friends the Boers that the sooner they submit and throw themselves upon the mercy of this country the better, they would be doing something practical towards bringing this war to a close. If such a course were taken this nation would be generous as well as just; but it does seem to me, as representing a businesslike constituency, that it is the duty of this country to be just before one speaks of generosity. I do not altogether like the financial proposals of the Government in so far as they relate to increased taxation, but as regards this particular measure I heartily and cordially concur, and would add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman for the admirable way in which he has managed to make the loan a success. Whatever difference of view there may be on the question of taxation, there can be no question that the Government have done the best that was possible in the circumstances. But there are many people in this country who sympathise with the motion I ventured a little while ago to put on the Paper, which stated that it was not desirable that any portion of the expenditure upon the war should be cast upon the British taxpayer, and suggested that sooner or later the whole of the war expenditure should be met by a loan, of which the interest and sinking fund should be paid from the resources of those territories which have hitherto been known as the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State. That is my view today, and I do not see anything in this Bill which is inconsistent with such a view. This is not the moment, however, to urge that question by dividing the House upon it, as such a course would be misconstrued. But I think the Government will make a mistake if they do not take into account the large body of public opinion which is really at the back of the suggestion I made. I have received from many parts of the country, quite unsolicited and unexpected, expressions of accord with the views I have ventured to express, and I simply leave the matter with the Government as one which should be considered at the proper time.

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. Hicks Beach,) Bristol, W.

I do not intend at all to outer into the question of the war or the question of taxation. I simply rise for the purpose of thanking hon. Members for the approval which they have been good enough to accord to my efforts in this matter, and of referring to one or two points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolver- hampton. He asked me why I did not endeavour to deal with this question by means of terminable annuities. He seemed to think that there was a rooted objection at the Treasury to terminable annuities, and that, therefore, that was the reason why I did not endeavour to raise this loan in that way. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no such objection, either at the Treasury or in my own mind. If I could have raised this loan by terminable annuities, if I could have converted a large portion of the existing funded debt into terminable—annuities, I should have been delighted to do so, provided those terminable annuities were taken up by the public at large; but that is precisely what the public will never do. It is absolutely impossible to induce the public to any large extent to take terminable annuities, and it would have been a terrible mistake to attempt to obtain 30 millions in that way. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested in a very good-natured way that we have paid too much for this loan. Well, that is perfectly true. I was informed to-day by the Government broker that the loan as it stands is at a premium of 1¾ on the results of the applications, and of course everyone knows that the amount asked for has been subscribed ten times over. But I am not at all ashamed—and after what has been said this evening I think I have no cause to be ashamed—of the price at which the loan was issued. What was the position with which I had to deal? I had to provide £30,000,000. That is a very large sum—the largest loan which has ever been contracted by this country in one sum since 1815. With universal consent, I decided that it was better that that sum should be raised by stock or bonds for a shorter term than by an issue of Consols. I think I may also claim to have obtained universal consent to the principle that, having to raise so large a sum, it was better to issue the loan at a fixed price than attempt to raise it by tender. I cordially desired that it should be taken up by the public at large; and that it should be widespread throughout the country. We have taken every possible step to secure that result, and up to last night there had been 18,000 separate applications of individuals for participating in the loan—applications coming from all parts of the country. I hope that before the list is closed everyone throughout the United Kingdom and even in our colonies will have had an opportunity of considering whether they will assist in it or not. But, it having been decided to issue the loan at a fixed price, it was clearly essential that such a price should be fixed as would ensure that the money should be raised. It would have been the gravest mistake on my part, for the sake of saving a comparatively small sum—a sum large in itself, but small in comparison with the £30,000,000 of the loan—to incur a real risk of not having the loan subscribed. Any such result would have been a national misfortune. Further, if the loan had been only just covered, or only a little more than covered, I should have been quite justly blamed for parsimony in trying to abstract from the public more than they cared to give, and for having thus secured what everyone would have called a failure. I knew that I should be blamed whatever happened; but I have not been very much blamed to-night, because the loan is at a premium. No doubt, events have shown that it might have been possible to issue the loan at a slightly higher price. I admit it. But in fixing the price I undertook a great responsibility. I took the best advice I could get; and I may venture to say that, acting on my own responsibility, I fixed the price a little higher than that at which many of those whom I consulted would have fixed it. I am sure that none of my advisers would for a moment have suggested that I should fix it as high as 99. What is the result? Those persons who are fortunate enough to obtain allotments will have a very good investment, and will be able, if they choose, to make a profit by it; but not by any means the profit which some people may suppose from the nominal premium, for any attempt to sell in large amounts after the allotment would inevitably bring down the price, and the result would be very different from that which some people have been led to expect. In considering the price, I hope the House will remember that I had also to consider the possibilities. I had to fix the price last Thursday, and I had to consider what might happen in the course of the week following; because, in order to ensure a large public subscription, it was necessary to give a considerable time for application. Suppose that, instead of the successes of which we have happily heard, we had had some serious reverse in South Africa. Suppose some wholly unexpected complication had arisen in foreign affairs. Prices might have gone down on the Stock Exchange to a degree which would materially affect the issue, and it might never have been taken at all. I ask the pardon of the House for alluding to these things; but they are not known to everyone out of doors, and when people see the loan at a premium they naturally begin to think that perhaps we could have got more money for it. It is very easy in these things to be wise after the event. I believe sincerely that I acted for the best, and that the country will not grudge anything I have done, seeing that the large subscription for the loan and its great success are due quite as much to the strong patriotic feeling throughout the country as to a desire to find a good investment. It is my desire, and has been from the first, that this loan should be subscribed for by, and should come into the hands of the public at large. There has been no underwriting, no guarantee, none of those high commissions or opportunities for making large profits on the part of great wealthy houses which generally accompany the issue of a large loan. We have thrown ourselves upon the public; the public have responded to the appeal; and it will be my endeavour, in concert with the authorities of the Bank of England, to secure that there shall be no favouritism whatever in the allotment, that bona fide applicants, whether for large or small sums, shall all be fairly considered, and that if anyone has an advantage it shall be those who have made application for small amounts.


I do not rise for the purpose of criticising the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the issue of this loan. Nobody who has been in the position I have occupied would ever attempt to criticise the prescription of the family physician, who is necessarily more acquainted with the constitution of the patient than anybody else. I am perfectly well aware there were many circumstances which had to betaken into account. But I cannot quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that everybody has formed the opinion that the price fixed was the highest price it was possible to obtain. I have certainly heard opinions of high authority that it might have been issued at a higher figure. There is no doubt that this loan has some advantages over Consols, and it has also its disadvantages. It has the advantage that it continues its interest of 2¾ per cent. for a longer period than it could be obtained from Consols. On the other hand, there is the disadvantage that it may be or will be paid off within ten years. These are circumstances the effects of which are difficult to calculate. I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman in his position was bound to avoid any risk of the failure of the loan. But he had at his back not merely the great resources of this country but also the strong feeling in favour of the loan which predominates at this time throughout the country. I do not desire to complain of what has been done. The loan has been a great success, and the right hon. Gentleman may be congratulated upon it. I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could not have raised this loan on terminable annuities. There is no public demand, except of a most limited character, for terminable annuities. I confess I have myself a prejudice in favour of issuing loans at par, and giving whatever price is necessary for the purpose. It looks better that the country should issue its loans at par. The system in old days of raising loans at a very low sum in order to have apparently a low rate of interest was a very bad system, and we have suffered from it ever since. If Pitt had raised his loans at par, and given the interest demanded at the time, the interest would long ago have diminished, and we should not have been saddled with the enormous sum of the present debt. These are really questions to be considered in camera by the Treasury rather than discussed in the House of Commons. I rose really to express my anxiety that we should contemplate the future redemption of this debt. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he would keep alive the established provision for the redemption of the old debt, which has been naturally and reasonably suspended this year, and that he would make a separate provision for the redemption of this debt. I only wish that that should be on record. There is one other point to which I would allude. My right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton must have not quite clearly expressed himself or I misunderstood him. As I understand him he gave as a reason for raising this loan that though we were a richer country yet the taxation of the country was heavier than at the time of the Crimean War, and the reason he gave for that statement was that we were raising a much greater revenue now than we were at that time. But taxation may yield a great deal more money and yet be considerably lighter in its incidence. When Sir Robert Peel introduced the income tax it produced about £700,000 for a penny; now it produces more than, £2,100,000, or three times as much. But the taxation is no heavier than it was. The argument that, because three times as much is produced, the taxation is therefore three times as heavy, would not be a sound argument at all. At the time of the Crimean War the tea duty was raised to 1s. 9d. in the lb. The taxation at that time was very much heavier than at present. Therefore, when I ventured the other night to say that taxation was borne with greater patience in those days than at the present time I was well founded in my statement, because the weight of taxation per square inch of the population, if I may use the term, was far greater then than now. We are much more able to bear taxation now, although the lump sum raised from the revenue is far greater than it was at that period. I am very glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does recognise fully the duty of making provision for the redemption of this debt. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman the other night that, as soon as peace was concluded, he would inform the House of Commons of the measures he contemplated for that purpose.


I said that when peace was concluded we should have

to consider what the amount of the debt was, and also how much of the debt would have to be paid by the Transvaal.


Those are both circumstances of which I desire to be informed, especially the latter. It is of very great importance that we should know what the total amount of the debt is, and I only hope that it may not be greater than the amount for which we are now providing. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is now considering and maturing his plans for making it the first charge upon the Transvaal, because I understand, that we are only to come in as liable in a secondary degree. If that is so I think that will be a very satisfactory arrangement.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

I only wish to say one word. This night will be a memorable one in the history of the country, because to-night we have commenced a new policy. We have heard this war called a defensive war. Now, from the statement which the First Lord of the Treasury made to-night we know exactly, what the war is about. All sorts of theories were put about before, but now the right hon. Gentleman has declared distinctly that the war is to be carried on to destroy the independence of two free Republics. I wish to emphasise that. I only wish to say that, if that is to be the object of this war, and if it is to be carried on without any attempt to stop it, it is, in my opinion, a cowardly and infamous war.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 268; Noes, 21. (Division List No. 65.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir. Alex F. Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) Butcher, John George
Aird, John Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants Buxton, Sydney Charles
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Caldwell, James
Anson, Sir William Reynell Billson, Alfred Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)
Arnold, Alfred Birrell, Augustine Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Arrol, Sir William Bond, Edward Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex Causton, Richard Knight
Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn) Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brassey, Albert Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)
Baird, John George Alexander Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cawley, Frederick
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Brown, Alexander H. Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Banbury, Frederick George Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)
Barlow, John Emmott Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Bartley, George C. T. Bullard, Sir Harry Chamberlain, J Austent (Worc'r)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Henderson, Alexander Parkes, Ebenezer
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampste'd) Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hobhouse, Henry Pierpoint, Robert
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Holland, William Henry Pilkington, Sir G. A(LancsSW
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Hornby, Sir William Henry Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Horniman, Frederick John Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cripps, Charles Alfred Howard, Joseph Purvis, Robert
Crombie, John William Howell, William Tudor Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hozier, Hn. James Henry C. Renshaw, Charles Bine
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Rentoul, James Alexander
Currie, Sir Donald Hudson, George Bickersteth Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l
Curzon, Viscount Humphreys-Owen, Arther C. Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Dalkeith, Earl of Jacoby, James Alfred Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Denny, Colonel Jenkins, Sir John Jones Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jessel, Captain Herbert M. Robson, William Snowdon
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Frd. Dixon Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.
Dorington, Sir John Edward Johnston, William (Belfast) Round, James
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Runciman, Walter
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Joicey, Sir James Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Doxford, Sir William T. Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U Rutherford, John
Drage, Geoffrey Kearley, Hudson E. Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Dunn, Sir William Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H. Kimber, Henry Savory, Sir Joseph
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth Seely Charles Hilton
Emmott, Alfred Kitson, Sir James Sharpe, William Edward T.
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Knowles, Lees Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Faber, George Denison Lafone, Alfred Shaw-Stewart, M H.(Renfrew
Fardell, Sir T. George Laurie, Lieut.-General Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn Sidebottom, T Harrop (Stalybr.
Fenwick, Charles Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H. Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)
Fergusson Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)
Finch, George H. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth
Fisher, William Hayes Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Long, Rt Hn Walter(Liverpool) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Fitzwygram, General Sir F. Lonsdale, John Brownlee Strachey, Edward
Fletcher, Sir Henry Lough, Thomas Strauss, Arthur
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Lowe, Francis William Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E,
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lowles, John Thorburn, Sir Walter
Gibbs, Hn A. G. H.(City of Lond. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Thornton, Percy M.
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Lucas-Shadwell, William Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Lyell, Sir Leonard Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gilliat, John Saunders Macartney W. G. Ellison Tritton, Charles Ernest
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J. Macdona, John Cumming Usborne, Thomas
Goddard, Daniel Ford MacIver, David (Liverpool) Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Maclean, James Mackenzie Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Gold, Charles Maclure, Sir John William Warr, Augustus Frederick
Goldsworthy, Major-General M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wason, Eugene
Gordon, Hon. John Edward M'Crae, George Webster, Sir Richard E.
Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon M'Iver, Sir L.(Edinburgh, W.) Weir, James Galloway
Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St. George's M'Kenna, Reginald Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. (T'n
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Malcolm, Ian Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Marks, Henry Hananel Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-L.)
Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Martin, Richard Biddulph Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W.(Yorks.) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Gretton, John Melville, Beresford V. Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Greville, Hon. Ronald Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Monk, Charles James Wilson, John (Govan)
Gull, Sir Cameron Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.) Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) Wodehouse, Rt. Hon ER.(Bath
Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert Wm. Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh. Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hud'rsf'd.
Hanson, Sir Reginald Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Woods, Samuel
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Morrell, George Herbert Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Hardy, Laurence Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Wyndham, George
Hare, Thomas Leigh Morton, Edw. J.C (Devonport) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Harwood, George Murray, Charles J.(Coventry) Younger, William
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Myers, William Henry Yoxall, James Henry
Heath, James Nicol, Donald Ninian TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Heaton, John Henniker Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Kilbride, Denis O'Malley William
Ambrose, Robert Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Power, Patrick Joseph
Blake, Edward Macaleese, Daniel Redmond, Willam (Clare)
Crilly, Daniel M'Dermott, Patrick Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Molloy, Bernard Charles Tanner, Charles Kearns
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Doogan, P. C. O'Connor, Jas.(Wicklow, W.) Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Resolution agreed to.

Forward to