§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [11th June], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
§ Question again proposed.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)
said that, as far as the amount of the Civil List was concerned, he took no exception whatever; he begrudged no amount that might be necessary to maintain the dignity of the Crown, but the point which he wished to press on the House was the inexpediency of paying the members of the Royal Family by hereditary revenues instead of by payment out of the Consolidated Fund. In a constitutional country the people were the rulers, and the King ruled by the will of the people. The hereditary revenues of this country were really the revenues of the State, and he thought it was far more appropriate that those revenues should be managed by the State, and that the King should receive a fixed sum in cash than that he should be in the position of having to farm what was really the property of the State. Now the revenues he referred to were 737 the Woods and Forests, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. As regarded the first, the Committee had recommended that they should be managed by the State as formerly, and not by the Crown. But why should a distinction be drawn in the case of the Woods and Forests as against the other revenues? It might be said that in this case the revenue was not an increasing quantity, while in the case of the two duchies it was. He believed that in connection with both the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall there was a considerable investment in property in London, and in the course of a very few years numbers of leases would be falling in. He did not begrudge the increased revenue. That was not the principle he was contending for; what he advocated was a money payment to the King, whatever the value or prospective value might be, and the State management of these revenues. He submitted it was most inexpedient that the King or any member of the Royal Family should be in the position of holding property in the City of London, and consequently of standing in the relationship of landlord, with the subject for the tenant. It was no use saying that the Duke of Cornwall, as owner of the Duchy of Cornwall revenues, could afford to be generous in dealing with the property of the Duchy. A limited owner could not be expected to be generous; he must necessarily make the most he could out of the revenues while he was in the position of a limited owner; and surely it would be much better for the State to be the owner, as it could afford to await the future development of the property in a way which a limited owner could not. It would be most unseemly for the Duke of Cornwall, as owner of property in London, to have in his capacity of landlord to order evictions, and to be concerned in any of the other disputes which cropped up in the relationship of landlord and tenant. Things might be done in his name which would be a scandal. Hence it was he favoured a fixed money payment in regard to these revenues. And then when they came to the taxation of land values they brought the King and the Duke of Cornwall into relation as to how their interests would be affected 738 by a debatable question of that kind. Of course he recognised that the Bill had to pass in its present shape, but he was availing himself of the opportunity of the Third Reading to impress upon the Government the expediency of reconsidering this whole matter. It could be done in the future, and it would be very much better both in the interests of the State and in the interests of the property of London that it should be dealt with by the State than by a limited owner. He had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Duchy of Lancaster would pay property tax in London the same as any other subject in the realm, and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said "Yes."
§ MR. CALDWELL
said that then another little difficulty came in. How was the King to pay property tax in respect of his landownership? Was he to pay the property tax and the local rates the same as anyone else?
§ MR. CALDWELL
said that the right hon. Gentleman replied "Yes"; but was His Majesty to pay the property tax and the local rates direct, because in the case of the Crown he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that it was not likely that he would pay them direct, as being assessed on the value of the property. In the case of Crown property an equivalent sum was given, but the principle of the taxation of Crown property for either the property tax or the amount of the local rates was not admitted; and that question would be sure to arise in the future. He was not objecting to the amount given to the King or to the members of the Royal Family to maintain the dignity of their position. That had been settled by a Committee of this House, and he saw no reason for disturbing the settled policy of the country. Neither would he ask that a fair share of any increased revenue which the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of 739 Cornwall might hope to get by the falling in of the leases in London should not be set aside in the next twenty or thirty years for the benefit of these duchies. But he did object that, as they had taken the ground revenues of the Woods and Forests, they ought also to take the ground revenues of the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and give a certain fixed sum to meet these, and not put the King or any member of the Royal Family in the invidious position of being a ground landlord.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
I agree with my hon. friend that if we do maintain the existing system in regard to Crown lands, it should be made applicable to the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, and that these should be directly administered by the State in the same way as the Crown lands. I do not entirely agree with him, however, that because the Committee upstairs reported in a particular direction it necessarily follows that good sound Radicals in the House of Commons should follow the leading of the Committee. For my part, I have addressed the Committee frequently and somewhat exhaustively on the successive stages of this Bill, and I should not have troubled the House with any remark this afternoon had it not been for certain observations which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill was last before the House in regard to the right of property possessed by the Sovereign in the Crown lands and the hereditary revenues. The First Lord of the Treasury said that if the Sovereign does not voluntarily surrender the revenues of these Crown lands he has got a perfect right to maintain them himself, and that he may spend them as he best pleases. If I remember rightly, the right hon. Gentleman goes as far as to say that the Sovereign possessed the Crown lands precisely in the same way as anyone else possessed a life interest in any property that may have accrued to him. I say that that doctrine has never been pushed so far by any Minister of the Crown. A Conservative newspaper the other day said, "It is desirable that the Sovereign should retain in his hands the power to bargain with a niggardly and dis- 740 affected Parliament." That is to say, if these properties increased in value, the Sovereign for the time being may be encouraged to declare—"I will not take this money, but I will seize hold of these Crown lands, and thus exercise pressure on a niggardly Parliament." There are one or two historical points which support my contention that the Crown lands are part and parcel of the hereditary revenues of the country. Before the Revolution there was not the slightest difference made between the Crown lands and the hereditary revenues which went to the personal expenditure of the monarchy. When James II. was evicted from the throne, if the Crown lands had been his personal property they would have belonged to James III.; but that right was not recognised, and his right of property in the Crown lands lapsed When William and Mary were elected to the throne it was stated in the Parliamentary records, when the Civil List was voted, that—"The Civil List is a just sense and acknowledgment of the great things His Majesty had done for the country." There was no pretence at that time on the part of King William or Queen Mary that the Crown lands were their private property. Then, on the death of King William, when the throne came to Queen Anne, Queen Anne was not regarded as the heir of King William in any sort of way or on any sort of theory; she did not inherit it through King William. It is stated in the Parliamentary records that—"Your Commons have freely and unanimously resolved to give and grant, and do give and grant herewith," a certain Civil List. Here there was no pretension for a moment that in any sort of way, direct or indirect, Queen Anne had any right to any moneys except those voted by Parliament. What was granted to King William and Queen Anne? They were granted sums of money from "the hereditary duties of Excise and Post Office, from the revenues of the Crown lands, and from some small branches of the Revenue." No distinction was made between the Crown lands and the smaller branches of the Revenue or the other great branches of the Revenue, the Post Office and the Excise. If it be contended that there is some special right in the Sovereign to these 741 Crown lands derived from old times, and that he has a right to refuse to surrender them, then you must go on logically and maintain that the Sovereign has a right not only to the Crown lands, but to all the great sources of the Revenue such as the Excise, Post Office, etc. That is why I say that the historical position taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury is preposterous and absurd. I happen to be no lawyer, and when the First Lord of the Treasury made that statement I said to my hon. and learned friend the Member for Dundee, "Get up and contest it." He explained to me afterwards why he did not get up; it was because he did not know what he was to contest. And yet he is a lawyer! I see my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire, who is a great authority on constitutional law, and I should like to know what he thinks of the matter.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Very well. George I. and George II. had the Crown lands revenues voted to them on the same conditions precisely as they were voted to William and Mary and Queen Anne; but when George III. came to the throne he introduced into the preamble of the Civil List a surrender, not of all the revenues of the Crown, but a surrender of the Crown lands. He did not make a surrender of the smaller or the greater revenues. I maintain that it is absurd to say that that constitutes a personal title in the Sovereign to the Crown lands. It does not make a title in any sort of way. I am glad that my right hon. friend will address the House on this subject, because he is a learned pundit on the subject, and I think he will agree with me that a title to property cannot be acquired by surrendering it. I take my statement from the Finance Committee's Report of 1872, which was a Committee of the Treasury. I defy anyone to read that Report fairly and impartially and not agree that I am in the right, and that the First Lord of the Treasury is in the wrong. I have opposed the Civil List, not because I think that the Sovereign ought not to have a sufficiency of money to live in 742 decent magnificence, but because I think the amount of money proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government in the Bill is in excess of what is required. We are told that we ought to vote this amount because we should not put any restriction on Royal hospitality. But we are placing a restriction; if we are to be logical we ought not to fix a sum, but to give the Sovereign a right to draw an unlimited credit on the Treasury. We vote, however, what we deem is sufficient and adequate for the hospitality which the Sovereign is expected to exercise, and for the ceremonial duties incumbent upon him from his position. I have seen it stated that certain supporters of the Government regard it as something almost criminal, something traitorous to venture to move the reduction of the amount that is asked for by the Government for the Civil List. I can only say that times have very much changed for the Conservative party, because after the great Revolution it was the Whigs who proposed a Civil List, and it was the Tories who opposed them. What did the Tories say then? They said the Whigs were "hired slaves and corrupt instruments" because they proposed the Civil List. Under these circumstances it seems rather curious that a Radical should be attacked for doing something monstrous when he follows the lines laid down for him by the Tories of a former generation.
The fact is, we have got into very servile days; there is no question of that, and days of reckless extravagance. When any sum is proposed to be provided for the Navy, for the Army, or for the Court, we tumble over each other in our zealous approval of it. I am opposed to all this lavish expenditure on the Army and Navy, or armaments, and on the Court; and as long as I have the honour to be a Member of this House I shall do in the future what I have done in the past in regard to the Civil List and other demands made on the public purse for the Court and the Royal Family. I am quite ready to give them a reasonable sum. I believe the late Sovereign carried out her official duties in a way that was perfectly satisfactory to the country. I have shown in Committee that we are 743 positively increasing the amount of the Civil List and at the same time reducing the charges on it, with the result that the Civil List is swollen to something enormous. It now amounts to £110,000; but, besides that, there are the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, which bring it up to £170,000. Anyone has only to look through the different arrangements made to see that the reductions which have been made in different classes will not go to the benefit of the country, but to the benefit of the Civil List. I shall certainly vote against the Bill, not that I think for one moment that there ought not to be a Civil List, but because I think the Government ought to take back the prosent Civil List and bring in another more reasonable.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
My hon. friend has invited me to express an opinion on this subject, and to deal with a statement which I have not heard—a statement made, as he alleges, by the First Lord of the Treasury. I was not in the House on that occasion, and, therefore, I must make my observations on a statement reported at secondhand by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Northampton. If it be correct that the First Lord of the Treasury has asserted that the hereditary estates of the Crown are held by the Sovereign personally, in the same character as any private person holds his estates, then I absolutely dissent from that doctrine altogether. The Crown holds the hereditary estates, as it holds all its prerogatives and all its rights, as trustee for the State and the people. That is the situation of the Crown with reference to hereditary estates. If I had thought that this question was to be raised I would have read to the House extracts from an extremely able and trustworthy work, Mr. Spencer Walpole's "History of England," where he deals with the Civil List, and where he states expressly the absurdity of such a doctrine that there is a personal and private right in the hereditary revenues of the Crown. The constitutional practice is accurately stated in that book. If the estates are personal property to be bargained away by Parliament, why should the proprietor receive and the 744 public give more than the estates yield, which has been the case on all occasions on which the Civil List has been settled? Parliament grants the Civil List solely out of consideration for what appertains to the dignity of the Sovereign of these realms. If the hereditary estates yield less than that, the House of Commons is not governed by that consideration to give a smaller Civil List. If they yield a great deal more the House of Commons is not bound to give a great deal more in the form of a Civil List. Of course, if it were true that these estates could at any time he resumed by the Crown, they could only be resumed, as my hon. friend has properly said, subject to the obligation under which the Crown lies of maintaining the civil charges of this country, which, I believe, which be a very bad bargain for the Sovereign. But it is quite plain that a right which has never been exerted for a century and a half is not likely to be asserted now. No doubt the technical form is retained, as in the exercise of many other prerogatives of the Constitution. A great many rights are asserted, and properly asserted, in the name of the Crown, but to deal with the hereditary estates of the Crown as if they were the estates of a private individual would be an entire error and, in my opinion, absolutely contrary to the constitutional principles of this country.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydfil)
There is one matter which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to enlighten us on before we proceed to a division. I find in the Report presented to the House in 1899, in connection with grants to the Royal Family, the following paragraph: "The revenues of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster were not included in the surrender of the hereditary revenues." The question I want to ask is, why was an exception made in the case of these two estates when the Crown lands were being surrendered in exchange for a very generous Civil List? Why should estates which are now yielding something like £130,000 a year be reserved, apparently as private property, by the Crown? I join issue with the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark in his statement 745 that the present Civil List is not too large. I need not remind the House that from my point of view any Civil List would be too large; but admitting the necessity for a Civil List, I submit that the amount proposed to be given is exorbitant. When this matter was last under discussion a statement was made as to the enormous income enjoyed by the President of the United States. I have taken the trouble to learn the actual sum paid to the President of the United States, and I find it is 50,000 dollars, or about £10,000 in British money per annum; and yet the President of the United States rules over seventy millions of people, whereas the King of England rules over only fifty millions. The President has to maintain a state consistent with the dignity of his high position, and, although the cost of living in America is not less than in England, he yet finds £10,000 amply sufficient. If that can be done in America, why not in England? Are all the functionaries who attend on the Court necessary to the maintenance of the dignity of our ruler? The many supernumeraries who attach to the Court add neither dignity nor grace to the proceedings connected with royal functions. May I point out also that the sum voted for the Civil List does not exhaust the amount spent by the nation on royalty. The total amount of the Civil List is £548,000, but in addition to that there is spent on the upkeep of royal palaces £18,000, on royal yachts £23,000, and further, there is the income from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster of £130,000, making a total of £719,000. It would be an abuse of language to say that that is a moderate sum to pay for the duties performed by His Majesty the King at a time when, as I have said before, the nation is entering upon a period of trade depression, and when hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of His Majesty's subjects—the life of every one of whom is quite as valuable as that of the King—are living not only on the verge of poverty, but actually in poverty itself. It is an outrage upon all our forms of government to propose a sum of this kind for the maintenance of the head of the State. I shall vote against the Third Reading, because 746 I think the amount is too large, and because it is the only way open to me of entering my protest against the continuance of a hereditary ruler over a nominally democratic people.
§ *MR. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)
It was not my intention to take any part in this debate, but as several references have been made to the question of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, I should like to say a few words on that subject. It seems to me that the Civil List Committee acted with great wisdom in not taking into account the increase in the revenues of the Crown. If, on the one hand, it left out the increase in the revenue from Crown lands, on the other hand it left out the increase in the revenue from the Ddchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. I concur very much with what fell from my hon. friend the Member for Mid-Lanark, that at some future time it may be desirable to apply to the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster a similar principle of commutation to that which has been applied to other Crown lands. But that question does not arise on the present occasion. It is not a question of urgency, and does not form any part of the present Civil List arrangement. Moreover it is a question which requires very great consideration. With reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton as to whether the King is or is not bound to surrender the Crown lands on his accession to the throne, that has been very clearly dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. Surely that is a question of no great practical importance, although no doubt it is one of historic interest, because it is perfectly obvious, apart entirely from the question whether the King could or could not refrain from surrendering these revenues, that if he did not he would incur liabilities infinitely greater and more onerous than the benefits that would be derived from retaining them in his own possession. Therefore the question is not of great practical importance. The hon. Member who has just sat down asked why the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster had not been surrendered in the same way as other Crown lands. There is, no doubt, some 747 difference of opinion as to the precise status of these estates, and it seems to me that these properties have been differentiated to some extent from Crown lands, but on the other hand they certainly cannot be regarded as private property. If they had been private property in 1688 it is perfectly clear that they would have been put in a very different position. Moreover, the Duchy of Lancaster is represented by a Minister, and it is quite evident that that property is not on the same footing as any ordinary private property. If the Duchy of Lancaster cannot be properly classed with other Crown lands, it is perfectly certain that it is not the private property of the Sovereign, not being the subject of bequest. As to the precise terms of the will of John of Gaunt there is a great difference of opinion between historians. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a strong reason why this question should be fully considered, and some attempt made in future years to assimilate the conditions under which the Duchy of Lancaster is held to those of the Crown lands. It is clear that there are a number of difficulties which surround the subject, which would have to be met, and that is a good reason why it should not have been considered by the Committee upstairs, and that the Civil List should be passed without importing into it a question very much wider in its bearing and its scope. No doubt there is one current of opinion which holds that the amount of the Civil List is too large, and another which considers that it is by no means excessive; but I think, having regard to the increase of population, and the calls upon the Sovereign and his responsibilities in one way and another under the conditions which now prevail it is only right and proper that the matter should be considered with the utmost regard to the convenience and dignity of the Sovereign. I think the amount at which the Committee arrived was a fair amount, and it certainly was arrived at after sufficient consideration had been given to all these matters. At the same time, I do wish to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are other matters with regard to the revenues of the Crown which deserve careful consideration at a future date, and I hope that 748 during the period the right hon. Gentleman occupies his present position he will be able to devote some time to this complicated question.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACH
There are only two points upon which I think it is necessary for me to occupy the time of the House. In the first place, the hon. Member for Northampton has attributed to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury a statement which I am sure he did not make, with regard to the position of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. I understood the hon. Member to say that my right hon. friend stated that the hereditary revenues of the Crown could be dealt with by the Sovereign precisely as if they belonged to a private person.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE
What the right hon. Gentleman said was that it belonged to the Sovereign in the sense that if he did not surrender his life interest he had a perfect right to retain it, and in that case he could spend it as he liked.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
I said he held it as the Sovereign, and that is so.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACH
The hon. Gentleman has only repeated to-day, as he has on previous occasions, his view as to the historical position of these revenues. I do not think it at all necessary to follow the hon. Member into that question. I am content with the Parliamentary title to those hereditary revenues which was certainly conferred on the present King by the Civil List Act of the late Queen. By the second section of that Act it was enacted that those hereditary revenues "from and after the decease of her present Majesty shall be payable and paid to Her Majesty's heirs and successors." Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire said, the King takes those hereditary revenues subject to the performance of the duties which belong to the Crown. How far that implies or involves the maintenance of the civil administration of the State is a matter on which I do not think I should be quite prepared to 749 accept what fell from the right hon. Gentleman; but it is really nothing more than an academical discussion, because, as a matter of fact, His Majesty, on the advice of the Government, has followed the action of his predecessors, and surrendered those revenues on the condition that a suitable Civil List is provided for him. In my judgment, it seems absolutely clear, by the second section of the Civil List Act of the late Queen, that it was perfectly open to His Majesty, if he had so desired, to retain those revenues in place of having a Civil List provided for him by Parliament. Now a question has been raised as to the position of the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. I do not think it can be alleged that those revenues are on the same footing as the hereditary revenues of the Crown. There is a clear distinction, because nobody could contend that the performance of any public duties attached to the possession of the revenues of the two Duchies. On the other hand, there is a distinction between them and the private property of the Crown, such as Osborne and Balmoral. The question has been raised whether the revenues of those two Duchies ought or ought not to be surrendered by the Sovereign and the Heir-Apparent. That matter has been very carefully considered from time to time, and I believe was discussed at the time of the accession of her late Majesty, and it was decided then that it was better for every reason that those estates should remain the appanage of the Sovereign and of the Heir-Apparent, as they had been for many generations, and many hundreds of years. I differ entirely from the view that it is contrary to public policy that the Sovereign or Heir-Apparent should own the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.
§ MR. CALDWELL
I think it would be contrary to the public interest that they should be in the position of landlords having tenants under them.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACH
I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, I think it greatly for the public advantage that in both cases the Sovereign and Heir-Apparent 750 should themselves have some personal experience of the duties and rights and position of an owner of property, whether in the country or in London, and we all see what an admirable example our present King has set in that capacity to his subjects.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rendered it unnecessary for the debate to be prolonged, for he had explained away the false impression which existed in the country. The words of the First Lord of the Treasury had been universally misunderstood by the press—namely, that the Crown lands were in some peculiar sense the private property of the Sovereign. It was the invincible ignorance of the press which led to this. He agreed that the second section of the Civil List Act of the late Queen did convey a reversionary interest in those lands to the present King. On this subject he quoted a statement written twenty years ago by one whose authority would be acknowledged by the whole House. This writer stated that—It is a fallacy that the Crown lands are in some peculiar sense the private property of the Sovereign…. The title of the Crown to the Crown lands is indisputable, but it is only entitled to them subject to the somewhat onerous obligation of defraying the whole of the ordinary expenditure of the State…. The reversionary interest of the heir to the Crown is saddled with an annual burden of 70 millions. It is therefore practically valueless, and may be disregarded.That burden was now 140 millions. The writer he referred to was the accomplished and learned lawyer who drafted this Civil List Bill.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
He was responsible for it if he did not. He was the head of the Department respon- 751 sible for the drafting of this Bill, and he was an historical lawyer of great knowledge and high personal authority.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided.—Ayes, 370; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 258.)755
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gore, Hn G R. C. Ormsby- (Salop|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Aird, Sir John||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Colville, John||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Graham, Henry Robert|
|Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Craig, Robert Hunter||Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry||Cranborne, Viscount||Groves, James Grimble|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Cripps, Charles Alfred||Gunter, Sir Robert|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John||Crombie, John William||Guthrie, Walter Murray|
|Austin, Sir John||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Hain, Edward|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Haldane, Richard Burdon|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Crossley, Sir Savile||Halsey, Thomas Frederick|
|Bain, Col. James Robert||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hamilton, Rt Hn L d. G. (Midd'x|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cust, Henry John C.||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.|
|Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch||Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Harwood, George|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Denny, Colonel||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Haslett, Sir James Horner|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Dickson, Charles Scott||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol)||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Dimsdale, Sir James Cockfield||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Dorington, Sir John Edward||Helder, Augustus|
|Bigwood, James||Doughty, George||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Bill, Charles||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Black, Alexander William||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)|
|Bond, Edward||Duncan, J. Hastings||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Dunn, Sir William||Holland, William Henry|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Brigg, John||Edwards, Frank||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Hoult, Joseph|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)|
|Brookfield, Col. Montagu||Emmott, Alfred||Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.|
|Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)||Hudson, George Bickersteth)|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Hughes, Col. Edwin|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Fardell, Sir T. George||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)|
|Burt, Thomas||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies|
|Butcher, John George||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Jacoby, James Alfred|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Caine, William Sproston||Finch, George H.||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Caldwell, James||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow||Fisher, William Hayes||Johnstone, Heywood- (Sussex|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Fison, Frederick William||Joicey, Sir James|
|Carlile, William Walter||Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Fletcher, Sir Henry||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Flower, Ernest||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ||Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co,)||Kenyon, James (Lancs, Bury)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Kenyon-Slaney. Col. W (Salop)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Fuller, J. M. F.||Keswick, William|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm||Garfit, William||Kimber, Henry|
|Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r||Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)||Kinloch, Sir John George S.|
|Chapman, Edward||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||Kitson, Sir James|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Law, Andrew Bonar|
|Coddington, Sir William||Godson. Sir Augustus Frederick||Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Lawson, John Grant|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H||Myers, William Henry||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham||Newdigate, Francis Alex.||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart|
|Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead||Newnes, Sir George||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Nicholson, William Graham||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Strachey, Edward|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Stroyan, John|
|Leng, Sir John||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Levy, Maurice||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxf'd U.)|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Paulton, James Mellor||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Percy, Earl||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham||Pierpoint, Robert||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)||Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Pirie, Duncan V.||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.||Plummer, Walter R.||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Pretyman, Ernest George||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)||Purvis, Robert||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Pym, C. Guy||Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield|
|Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert||Wallace, Robert|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Randles, John S.||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Ratcliffe, R. F.||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Reid, James (Greenock)||Wason, E. (Clackmannan)|
|M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wason, John C. (Orkney)|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornw'll)||Renshaw, Charles Bine||Weir, James Galloway|
|M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)||Rentoul, James Alexander||Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton|
|M'Crae, George||Renwick, (George||Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)|
|M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W.||Rickett, J. Compton||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne|
|Majendie, James A. H.||Rigg, Richard||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Malcolm, Ian||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Roe, Sir Thomas||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Ropner, Col. Robert||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm|
|Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigton||Round, James||Wilson, Chas. Hy. (Hull, W.)|
|Mellor, Rt. Hon John William||Russell, T. W.||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Mitchell, William||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Simeon, Sir Harrington||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd|
|Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Morris, Hon. Martin H. F.||Smith, H C (North'mb., T'neside||Wylie, Alexander|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)||Soares, Ernest J.||Younger, William|
|Mount, William Arthur||Spear, John Ward|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Muntz, Philip A.||Spencer, E. (W. Bromwich)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)||Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Cullinan, J.||Labouchere, Henry|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Delany, William||Leamy, Edmund|
|Ambrose, Robert||Doogan, P. C.||Lundon, W.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Duffy, William J.||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.|
|Blake, Edward||Ffrench, Peter||M'Dermott, Patrick|
|Boland, John||Field, William||M'Govern, T.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Flynn, James Christopher||Murnaghan, George|
|Cameron, Robert||Gilhooly, James||Murphy, J.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hammond, John||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jordan, Jeremiah||O' Brien, Kendal (T'pp'r'ry Mid.|
|Crean, Eugene||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||O'Malley, William||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||O' Mara, James||Sullivan, Donal|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||White, Patrick (Meath, N.)|
|O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||O'Shee, James John||Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Power, Patrick Joseph||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|O'Dowd, John||Reddy, M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Sir Thomas Esmonde and|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Redmond, Wm. (Clare)||Captain Donelan.|
Bill read the third time, and passed.