HC Deb 15 August 1901 vol 99 cc1098-111

Considered in Committee:—

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1:—


said he proposed to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington. The finance of this Bill as he ventured to point out yesterday, was totally different from the finance of the Naval Works Bill. There was no doubt that the Naval Works Bill, in common decency, ought to occupy one night at least more, and he had not yet obtained one single word of explanation in regard to the totally different systems of finance adopted in these two Bills. In the case of the Naval Works Bill, no matter what the liability for work might be, they were asked to vote in the present Bill only so much money as it was estimated by the Board of Admiralty could be spent in the next two years. In the case of the Military Works Bill they were asked to vote borrowing powers equal to the total estimated cost of the work. The result of this policy in previous years had been simply ludicrous; for whereas in the present Bill they were called upon to vote a fresh credit of £6,000,000, the Government admitted that they had an unexpended balance of £7,000,000. He thought that was a reckless system of finance, and the comparisons he had made showed that even the War Office had already got a long way ahead of the Admiralty in regard to extravagance. The moment the War Office estimated for work, although that work might extend over ten years, they demanded the full amount to cover the whole period. That was a most extravagant and slovenly method of finance. The War Office ought to be content, like the Admiralty, with the sum really required for the current year. He objected also to the clause on the ground that the fortification of London would be a monstrous and grotesque waste of money. The Secretary of State for War and the Under Secretary had sketched out a proposal to fortify London by a chain of fortified posts. Nothing could be more preposterous and absurd than this proposal at a time when Paris, which was more exposed to invasion, intended to abolish the fortifications and turn them into boulevards.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'six,' and insert the word 'two.'"—(Mr. Dillon)—instead thereof.

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


In regard to the last part of the hon. Member's speech lean assure him that neither the money undisposed of nor any other money will be taken for the defence of London proper. All the money which will be voted tonight is allotted simply for those sea- board defences, which I think he will agree are necessary. With regard to the method in which this Bill is drafted and the difference between it and the Naval Works Bill, I do not attempt to explain the difference, but I wish to point out the method on which this Bill is drawn. We ask for certain works, and we state to the House what we believe is the total amount the works will cost. We do not ask the House or the country all at once to put to the credit of the War Office the sum mentioned in Clause 1 of the Bill. We simply ask that the House should authorise the completion of these particular works, and that they should understand at the same time what the works will cost. We ask the House to authorise us to go on up to the limit of expenditure set down for that particular item. It is put before the House and the country in as clear a way as we possibly can. The full liability as to the works to be constructed is known, but nothing is asked from the country in the way of actual cash until the time comes when we want the money to pay it over to the contractor who is carrying out the works. It will therefore be seen that there is no difference of method between ourselves and the Admiralty.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said the money was not only asked by the War Office, but they got authority to draw it when they wanted it, and that was what the Admiralty did not do. The War Office asked for money before they wanted it, and he agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo that it was a most extravagant way of dealing. He thought the Admiralty system was infinitely preferable.

SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

objected to voting money for defence works when they were not told where the money was to be spent. He congratulated the War Office upon having abandoned the policy of fortifying London. He thought that was satisfactory progress in the true direction. Was any of this money to be spent on Wei-hai-wei?




The War Office were getting in the thin end of the wedge for the fortification of Wei-hai-wei.


protested against the scandal of asking the House to sanction the expenditure of several millions of money at three o'clock in the morning at the very end of the session.

MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)

asked the noble Lord whether any unexpended balance in connection with works which had been authorised and not completed would be diverted to new works, and, if not, what would be done with money now voted and not spent? Could any

of the money be spent on the defences of Wei-hai-wei or London?


With any unexpended balance no new works of any kind can be begun. The whole of the works we intend to begin are in the schedule and in front of the House, and no new works besides these will be commenced.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 52. (Division List No. 477.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gordon. Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'r H'mlets Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gore. Hon S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.) Mount, William Arthur
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Balfour, Rt. Hon Gerald W. (Leeds Gretton, John Nicholson, William Graham
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Groves, James Grimble Nicol, Donald Ninian
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Hambro, Charles Eric Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Bignold, Arthur Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Pretyman, Ernest George
Bill, Charles Harris, Frederick Leverton Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Blundell, Colonel Henry Haslett, Sir James Homer Purvis, Robert
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.) Randles, John S.
Brassey, Albert Helder, Augustus Reid, James (Greenock)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead Ridley Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)
Caldwell, James Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh ire) Hornby, Sir William Henry Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hudson, George Bickersteth Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Johnston, William (Belfast) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
(Harrington, Spencer Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Keswick, William Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawson, John Grant Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Spear, John Ward
Colville, John Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Cranborne, Viscount Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Davenport, William Bromley- Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Dickson, Charles Scott Loyd, Archie Kirkman Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Thornton, Percy M.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Tollemache, Henry James
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Macdona, John Cumming Valentia, Viscount
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Maconochie, A. W. Walker, Col. William Hall
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Williams, Rt. Hn J. Powell- (Birm.
Fielden Edward Brocklehurst Majendie, James A. H. Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E. R.)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Malcolm, Ian Wodehouse. Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Martin, Richard Biddulph Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fisher, William Hayes Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H E (Wigt'n TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Gardner, Ernest Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Condon, Thomas Joseph Duffy, William J.
Ambrose, Robert Crean, Eugene Field, William
Barry, E. (Cork. S.) Cullinan, J. Flavin, Michael Joseph
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Delany, William Flynn, James Christopher
Clancy, John Joseph Dillon, John Gilhooly, James
Cogan, Denis J. Doogan, P. C. Hayden, John Patrick
Hayne. Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Nannetti, Joseph P. Power, Patrick Joseph
Healy, Timothy Michael Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.) Reddy, M.
Horniman, Frederick John Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Joyce, Michael O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Sullivan, Donal
Leamy, Edmund O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N.
Lundon, W. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Tully, Jasper
O'Doherty, William
Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A. O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
M'Govern, T. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Mansfield, Horace Rendall O'Malley, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Murnaghan, George O'Mara, James
Murphy, John O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

said he wished to reiterate the protest which he had made in regard to the Naval Works Bill. He thought it was a scandalous thing that they should be called upon to sanction the expenditure of several millions at three o'clock in the morning. This was oligarchic Imperialism, not democratic Imperialism. He protested against it in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was absent. He wished to refer the House to a most admirable speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had delivered at the Mansion House to the bankers and merchants of the City of London on 26th June last. He thought that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an appeal for a party of economy, that appeal should receive some response, and if there was only one man to stand up in response to that appeal he should be that man. The right hon. Gentleman had given some very sensible advice in regard to the opinions offered by experts in these military and naval matters. He said— In all these matters, and in many others to which I need not allude, we are always, of course, confronted with the professional expert. Now, I have seen a good deal in my public life of the professional expert. He is always cocksure, he always differs from another expert, he is always expensive, and he is not infallible. He is gifted with an unbounded belief in the inexhaustibility of the public purse, and with a supreme contempt and digust for any Treasury official, or any Chancellor of the Exchequer who checks him in the realisation of his momentary fancies. Hear the experts by all means, weigh carefully whatever they put before you, but in your public affairs, as in your private affairs, act with prudence, intelligence, and judgment, and weigh their advice before you take it. Alas, had not that been proved by the experience of the House of military experts and their theories? They had been warned that if they did not vote these ten or twenty millions they would be traitors to the true interests of the country. He would ask who were those who had been the true patriots, and had built up its great trade and commerce? It was the men who advocated public economy and retrenchment. These Bills meant heavy taxation. It might be that they were necessary, but if so they had been made necessary by the policy of the Government, which had estranged Great Britain from every nation on the face of the earth. These Bills, which were practically votes of credit given blindfold to the Government, had been forced on the House at the end of the session, and he asked an explicit assurance that that would not be repeated, and that when next a Naval or Military Works Bill was introduced it should be brought forward at an early period of the session. He hoped that the House of Commons would try to regain some of its liberty of criticism and control, which had been rapidly passing away from it.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.



said that the first item in the Schedule was three-quarters of a million, and there was no indication as to where the money was to be spent. It was perfectly well known that there was not the slightest difficulty in foreign Governments, who knew the way to go about it, obtaining every information in regard to these works, and he wanted to know why the Government hid these works with an impenetrable veil of secrecy from the House. Certain payments were to be made in distant parts of the world, particularly in regard to some of the colonies. He especially wished to know what the expenditure was for at Esqui- mault. He also drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that there was no contribution whatever from Canada. In Australia the population was taxed for naval and military purposes at the rate of 3s. per head, whereas the inhabitants of this country were taxed 33s. per head for these purposes. We only received £136,000 from Australia and New Zealand on condition that our Fleet was maintained in these waters.


said he should like some explanation with reference to the £164,000 which was asked for for expenditure in Egypt, He observed that under the head of ranges there were items for mobilisation and store-rooms, which had absolutely nothing to do with ranges. It was perfectly absurd that they should be included in the Vote for rifle ranges. All he desired was that it should not be thought that they were spending over £1,000,000 on rifle ranges when less than half a million was being actually spent. This was a sham, and made it appear as if the War Office were putting up more ranges than they were actually doing. The answer of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the previous night was very indefinite. No doubt the hon. Gentleman was anxious to do what he could, but his answer was only a general expression of anxiety on his part to do well.

MR. F. W. WILSON (Norfolk, Mid)

said he desired to support the remarks of his hon. friend. Ranges were being mixed up with artillery and other matters, with the result that the public thought that money was being spent on them, whereas it was being actually spent in other directions. The country would not be satisfied until the Government took up the question of providing rifle ranges seriously.

MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal Co., N.)

said that like the hon. Member for North Louth he frankly admitted he had not an Imperial soul, and the matter he desired to raise had no connection with Gibraltar or any other outpost of the Empire, but referred to his own constituency. Under the Military Works Act of 1897—


The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the Military Works Act of 1897. He must confine himself to the Bill before the Committee.


said that fortifications were at present being constructed at the entrance to Lough Swilly, which prevented a great number of fishermen from following their calling, thereby inflicting a great hardship on them. He would suggest that a few hundred pounds should be spent for a boat slip in that district in order that the fishermen might still be able to pursue their calling. He understood that there was no objection as far as the military authorities were concerned. If that were not granted, the breadwinners of fifty or sixty families would be turned out of employment. He hoped the matter would be inquired into, and that he would receive a satisfactory assurance from the noble Lord.


said he wished to move to omit the reference to rifle ranges. [Several HON. MEMBERS: Not rifle ranges.] Then in deference to his hon. friends he would move an Amendment with reference to Bermuda. He was anxious to have the grant for Bermuda struck out. Whenever the First Lord of the Treasury was in the House, especially at such an early hour in the morning, he was always closured.


; The hon. Member must now confine himself to Bermuda.


said he objected to £84,000 being spent in Bermuda, because he had noticed that the Government were sending Boer prisoners there, just as Irish prisoners of war were sent to that island. Was the money required for barracks for the Boer prisoners? If it was, he objected to Imperial money being spent for imprisoning those gallant men.


If the hon. Member will look at the Bill he will see that there is nothing about prisoners in it. He must confine himself strictly to his motion.


said he would move to reduce the grant to Bermuda by £80,000

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 4, to leave out '£84,000' in order to insert '£4,000.'"—(Mr. Tully.)

Question proposed, "That '£84,000' stand part of the Schedule."


said he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment, nor did he suppose that the hon. Member imagined for a moment that he would. The money was to provide barrack accommodation for an infantry battalion, and also for some small minor works which had to be carried out.


said that after the satisfactory explanation of the noble Lord he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


said that there wore many items in the Bill to which under other circumstances he should feel bound to call attention, but he would confine himself to moving the omission of one item, namely, £164,000 for providing barrack

accommodation in Egypt. He specially selected that item because he thought it involved a very large question of policy. Of course the expenditure meant a public statement of the intention of Great Britain to break her solemn pledge to Europe and to maintain a permanent occupation in Egypt. They knew perfectly well that that had always been the intention of the Government, but it was a different matter to vote £164,000 for permanent barrack accommodation in that country, which would be declaring to Europe that the solemn pledge given by England was valueless, and that England meant to remain permanently in Egypt. He would content himself with taking a division as a protest against the policy involved in the Vote.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, line 11, to leave out 'Egypt, £164,000.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 47. (Division List No. 478.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Johnston, William (Belfast)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers- Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Doxford, Sir W. Theodore Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward Keswick, William
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lawson, John Grant
Balfour. Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Firbank, Joseph Thomas Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds Fisher, William Hayes Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Foster, Philip S. (War wick, S. W.) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Gardner, Ernest Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Bignold, Arthur Godson, Sir A. Frederick Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bill, Charles Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'r H'mlts Macdona, John Cumming
Brassey, Albert Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc. Maconochie, A. W.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Caldwell, James Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Majendie, James A. H.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire) Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) Malcolm, Ian
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gretton, John Martin, Richard Biddulph
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Groves, James Grimble Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Hambro, Charles Eric Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Charrington, Spencer Harris, Frederick Leverton Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Haslett, Sir James Horner More, Robert Jasper (Shropsh)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.) Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Helder, Augustus Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Mount, William Arthur
Colvile, John Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Cranborne, Viscount Hornby, Sir William Henry Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Davenport, William Bromley- Horniman, Frederick John Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Dickson, Charles Scott Hudson, George Bickersteth Nicholson, William Graham
Nicol, Donald Ninian Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Tollemache, Henry James
Pretyman, Ernest George Seeyl, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Valentia, Viscount
Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. Edw. Seely, Capt. J. E. B (Isle of Wight) Walker, Colonel William Hall
Purvis, Robert Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Williams, Rt. Hn. J. Powell (Birm
Randles, John S. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)
Reid, James (Greenock) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge) Spear, John Ward Wyndham, Rt. H George
Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson Stanley, Hon. Arthur) Ormskirk TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Royds, Clement Molyneux Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale- O'Doherty, William
Ambrose, Robert Healy, Timothy Michael O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Joyce, Michael O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Leamy, Edmund O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Clancy, John Joseph Lundon, W. O'Malley, William
Cogan, Denis J. Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A. O'Mara, James
Condon, Thomas Joseph M'Govern, T. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Crean, Eugene M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.) Power, Patrick Joseph
Cullinan, J. Mansfield, Horace Rendall Reddy, M.
Delany, William Murnaghan, George Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Dillon, John Murphy, John Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Doogan, P. C. Nannetti, Joseph P. Sullivan, Donal
Duffy, William J. Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Tully, Jasper
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Question put, "That this be teh Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 129; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 479.)

Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Doxford, Sir Win. Theodore Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Keswick, William
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lawson, John Grant
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Firbank, Joseph Thomas Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Fisher, William Hayes Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Gardner, Ernest Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Godson, Sir A. Frederick Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Bignold, Arthur Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgm & Nairn Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)
Bill, Charles Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Macdona, John Cumming
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gordon, Maj. Evans- (T'r H'mts Maconochie, A. W.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Brassey, Albert Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury Majendie, James A. H.
Burdett-Coutts, W. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Malcolm, Ian
Caldwell, James Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.) Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Gretton, John Martin, Richard Biddulph
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Groves, James Grimble Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hambro, Charles Eric Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r. Harris, Frederick Leverton Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Charrington, Spencer Haslett, Sir James Horner More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow
Coghill, Douglas Harry Heath. James (Staffords., N. W.) Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.
Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse Helder, Augustus Mount, William Arthur
Colomb, Sir John C. Ready Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Colville, John Hornby, Sir William Henry Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Cranborne, Viscount Horniman, Frederick John Nicholson, William Graham
Davenport, W. Bromley- Hudson, George Bickersteth Nicol, Donald Ninian
Dickson, Charles Scott Johnston, William (Belfast) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Pretyman, Ernest George
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Tollemache, Henry James
Purvis, Robert Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight) Valentia, Viscount
Randles, John S. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Walker, Col. William Hall
Reid, James (Greenock) Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell- (Birm.
Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E. R.
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Spear, John Ward Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Royds; Clement Molyneux Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Healy, Timothy Michael O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Ambrose, Robert Joyce, Michael O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S) Leamy, Edmund O'Malley, William
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Lundon, W. O'Mara, James
Clancy, John Joseph MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cogan, Denis J. M'Govern, T. Power, Patrick Joseph
Condon, Thomas Joseph M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Reddy, M.
Crean, Eugene Murnaghan, George Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cullinan, J. Murphy, John Sheehan, Darnel Daniel
Delany, William Nannetti, Joseph P. Sullivan, Donal
Dillon, John Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n N.
Doogan, P. C. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Tully, Jasper
Duffy, William J. O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Flynn, James Christopher O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Gilhooly, James O'Doherty, William
Hayden, John Patrick O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.