HC Deb 06 August 1902 vol 112 cc858-73


Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6th August], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed.

*(9.0.) MR. WEIR,

continuing his speech, complained of the inaccuracy of the Deer Forest Returns, asserting that one forest of 75,000 acres was returned as containing only 35,000 acres. Surely steps ought to be taken to secure greater accuracy. On one occasion he appealed to the Secretary for Scotland to take action with regard to a farm in Rossshire which it was proposed to convert into deer forest. That farm formerly supported many a crofting family, and he suggested that instead of allowing it to be converted into a forest it should be acquired by the Congested Districts Board. The Secretary for Scotland on the 29th April last, said he knew nothing about the matter, and did not propose to make any inquiries! Was it fair to Members of the House that when they obtained information, and laid it before the Department, they should be thus treated? Surely they had a right to complain of such apathy and indifference on the part of the Scotch Office. The Congested Districts Board had £60,000 in hand for purposes such as this, but do not use it, and the consequence was that dissatisfaction and poverty were increasing in the Highland districts. He hoped that before long they would have a Secretary for Scotland with a seat in the House of Commons, so that they would be able to deal with him directly. He hoped, too, that in future the Lord Advocate would not charge him with "vague declamation" when he was bringing forward real cases of grievance. Again, in the matter of the suppression of illegal trawling the Department was guilty of a lack of energy. They had a few cruisers at their disposal, but they were seldom at sea, and too often remained in harbour. What use were they there? Take the case of Stornoway. When a cruiser visited that district, she was usually in harbour, where it was absolutely impossible for her to see the trawlers in Broad Bay which came there on their illegal errands, especially on Sunday. The cruisers, if they were to do any good, ought to be out of the harbour. Now the war was over there were a good many small vessels free which might be usefully employed in watching the operations of trawlers, and he would suggest to the Scottish Office that it should make application to the Admiralty with a view to secure the services of additional cruisers. His complaint was that not enough trawlers were captured. The waters around Scotland, were simply infested with them. The British trawler was excluded—and rightly so—from the Moray Firth, but the law, unfortunately, allowed free access to the Firth of foreign trawlers. Some time ago, a number of Grimsby trawlers arranged to sail under the Norwegian flag, and they were now infesting the Moray Firth Had any steps been taken by the Scottish Office? for this was a matter of serious importance to the fishing industry. He thought they ought to have some information as to the Hydrographic Conference which sat at Christiania in 1901. Did that Conference do anything, or did the whole thing end in smoke? Again, he wanted some information as to the Copenhagen Conference, and what was done there. Did any of the foreign Powers subscribe to the cost of the North Sea Fisheries Scientific Investigations, or was Great Britain alone bearing: the burden? Next, there was the question of harbour accommodation. He had time after time appealed for the construction of more harbours. In 1891 a Parliamentary Commission was appointed for the purpose of inquiry into the harbour accommodation on the north and north-west coasts of Scotland. It reported that a suitable harbour of refuge might be constructed at Portnaguren, Island of Lewis, at a cost of £30,000, but nothing whatever had been done. Was it not the business of the Secretary for Scotland to make representations to the Treasury for funds to carry out these necessary works? A quarter of a million was readily voted for the support of the blacks in the West Indies. Why was not something done for the starving populations of the Highlands? What they wanted were larger harbours for the larger boats which are coming into use. He did hope that in the future the Scottish Office would display more energy in this matter. As to Ness Harbour, it was gradually silting up, and the fishing industry was being ruined. It was the duty of the Government to assist that industry, and to encourage the growth of the fishing population, for in the event of our being engaged in naval warfare it would supply good recruits. Passing on to the Scottish Local Government Board, he complained that, contrary to law, parochial medical officers were appointed who did not hold the diploma of Public Health. An inquiry had been promised into the case of the Ben Nevis and Fort William observatories, but it was necessary to press matters forward, as those establishments were to be closed on October 1st for want of funds. Admirable work had been done at Ben Nevis, and he hoped funds would be provided so that it need not be closed. Travelling farther afield, he had to complain that, although the Kowloon hills in the New Territory were secured some years ago for the purpose of protecting Hong Kong, not a single gun had yet been put on them, and they were still unfortified. He would like some information as to the naval defence of Hong Kong, and also as to the hospital accommodation there for British soldiers. His final point was as to the hut tax in Rhodesia. Formerly it was 3s. per hut exclusive of the number of occupants, now it was 10s. per adult male, and he considered that the impost was too heavy and likely to lead to disturbances.

MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire)

I should like to make a few remarks with reference to the new Commercial Treaty with China. The hon. Member for the Barnsley Division used his customary stereotyped phrases of disparagement of the action of the Government in connection with China, but the fact that our trade has very largely increased is, I think, sufficient proof that the policy has been a reasonable one. The Government has maintained the principle of the open door and have quite recently concluded a new Commercial Treaty, which I believe will be of the greatest benefit to this country. The treaty abolishes the Likin duties and I think that a step in the right direction. The hon. Member for Barnsley seems to be under the impression that the other Powers get special advantages over this country, but that is not so. These Likin duties have been a serious drawback to English trade with China, and I believe that their abolition has been cheaply purchased by the surtax of 6¾ per cent. The Foreign Office deserves the greatest credit for the action it has taken. It is also to be commended upon the abolition of the sugar bounties, which lave exercised a very prejudicial effect, not only on the West Indies, but on the working men of this country, for they lave taken the bread out of the mouths of tens of thousands of families, and have rendered desolate and uncultivated normous tracts of laud in our West Indian dependencies. Successive Governments have endeavoured to get these bounties abolished, but they have feared wounding the susceptibilities of the so-called Free Traders. I am glad to see that better counsels have at last prevailed, that the present Government have taken the matter up in the most energetic fashion, and have arranged that the bounties shall cease in 1903. The credit for this must be shared with the Foreign Office by the Secretary of State for India, who in 1899 carried the Indian Tariff Act, which imposed a countervailing duty on sugar in our Indian dependencies. Continental countries knew that if we restored this weapon to our armoury, and applied it on a larger scale, the game was up. So long as we were able to resort to such practical measures, there was no danger of the re-imposition of these duties. In the debate on the West Indian subsidy, doubt was cast on the capacity of the West Indies to prosecute the sugar industry successfully. I think the success of the United States, where they are in possession of countervailing duties, proves the contrary. I believe that there is in store for the British West Indies, and for the workmen connected with the sugar-refining industry, and all trades relating thereto, a very bright future indeed. It is a great satisfaction to the people of this country that in two years the Foreign Office has been able to secure the abolition of the sugar bounties and of the likin in China. Both these reforms will confer the greatest benefits on the trade of this country and its dependencies.

There is another matter, not connected with treaties, but closely connected with our comfort and convenience, to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the ventilation and sanitation of this House of Commons. It is a subject intimately connected with the health of each and all of us; and immediately before the Easter recess I called attention to the matter, and moved a Resolution that a Committee should be appointed to investigate the subject. That was assented to by the First Commissioner of Works That Committee has been sitting for some time investigating the subject, and I believe that the result of its inquiries will end in much practical good. The practical suggestions which I made in the Easter recess have not been attended to "but in the interval between now and the Autumn some of these matters might be carried out. The atmosphere of the House under the present circumstances with the windows open above us, is not seriously incommoded with microbes; but when there is a large attendance, the air becomes very much deteriorated, and when you ascend to the Press gallery it is worse, and in the ladies' gallery still worse. In October the windows will be closed. I suggested that there should be electric fans, which would improve the.-air in all parts of the House. The library and dining-room would be much better for the same treatment. But it is not so much to the condition of the House itself that I desire to call attention as to certain sanitary arrangements attached to the House. I have no hesitation in saying that if Parliament was subject to the Factory Acts one of the first duties of an inspector would be to see that the House of Commons was placed in a proper condition in respect of its sanitary arrangements. Bacteria, so detrimental to the health of hon. Members, could be destroyed by a plentiful supply of fresh air. Occasionally the House is subject to stormy gusts of passion, and, according to the science of bacteriology, this is due to deleterious and defective material surroundings. By better means of ventilation, the temper of the House would be so improved that the new Rules of Procedure as to apology and suspension would be rendered superfluous.

(9.40.) MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

I desire to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the Report of the Committee on Military Education, which contains a general condemnation of the system of education now prevailing at Sandhurst. I should not have found it necessary to trouble the House this evening but for the fact that it has been, in my opinion, shown that there is no intention on the part of the Government to take action upon this Report. It appears to me that there were two reasonable courses which might have been taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State might have suppressed the Report on the ground that he disagreed with it or because he considered the conditions did not admit of his acting upon it, or he might have published the Report and have acted upon it. That he should take the third course of publishing the Report and not acting upon it, appears to me to be an action that is not reasonable, and which I think I shall show the House is not the course that should have been taken on a Report of this kind. By publishing the Report and not acting upon it, the charges contained in it are reduced to the level of mere gossip. But these charges destroy the discipline of the military colleges, which become extremely onerous to the persons incriminated, and incapacitate them from doing their work, and bring our system of military education into disrepute. This is not the only instance in which this policy has been followed. There have been indications before that the action of the present Secretary of State for War tended to stir up all things in the War Office, and reform nothing. The right hon. Gentleman has brought before the House, on more than one occasion, several reforms, but they have not been followed by persistent or consistent action with a view to giving them effect. What was the charge alleged in the Report of the Committee with reference to military education? With regard to Woolwich the Report was fairly satisfactory, but with reference to Sandhurst the condemnation was complete. The Report states on page 2— In the course of their investigations, the Committee have been impressed by the widespread dissatisfaction—a feeling expressed by practically all the witnesses—with the present state of education, both military and general, among the officers of the Army as a class. That is a general summary of the conclusions of the Committee. We are told that there was no inducement to work, and that, in consequence, the students did not work; that there was no inducement to instruct, and that consequently the instructors did not instruct. On page 28 the Committee sate that the evidence laid before them brought out in the strongest light the grave fact that the military education of junior officers in the Army was in a most unsatisfactory condition. It is further stated— The witnesses are unanimous in stating that the junior officers are lamentably wanting in military knowledge, and, what is perhaps even worse, in the desire to acquire knowledge and in the zeal for the military art. The Committee have been informed on very high authority that the majority of young officers will not work unless compelled; that "keenness is out of fashion"; that it is not the correct form; the spirit of fashion is rather not to show keenness; and that the idea is, to put it ill a few words, to do as little as they possibly can. There could be no stronger condemnation of the system of education at Sandhurst than that. The Committee proceed— By no part of the evidence laid before them have the Committee been more impressed than by that which shows in the clearest manner the prevalence among the junior commissioned ranks of a lack of technical knowledge and skill, and of any wish to study the science and master the art of their profession. We cannot be surprised at the recent episode which occurred at Windsor, when we are told by a responsible Committee, in language such as I have quoted, that the system of education at Sandhurst cannot be too severely condemned. In view of that Report, it would have been expected that the Secretary of State for War would have assured the House that it was the immediate intention of the War Office to reform that system, and that the recommendations of the Committee would be acted on. What I have quoted refers perhaps, more to what may be described as hook learning at Sandhurst, than to practical work; but the Report also states that practical work, such as training in musketry and revolver practice, and riding, has as little opportunity for education given to it as the other branches of educational work. There is in the Report the extraordinary statement that even for candidates for the cavalry branch, only thirty-nine hours a year on the average is given to practising riding, and that, in spite of the fact that not more than a fifth of the students had even ridden before they entered the College. It is, therefore, expected that for four-fifths of the students, thirty-nine hours practice in the year is sufficient to enable them to learn the art of riding and the management of horses under fire. That is only one of many illustrations in detail of the evil methods pursued at Sandhurst.

The Report of the Committee contains many suggestions. I will only refer to one or two, because they have a direct bearing on the work of public schools in the country. There is in most schools a class which specially prepares boys for Woolwich or Sandhurst, and all these schools have to alter their syllabus in order to meet the requirements which, for the time being, exist at the military colleges; and they are waiting to see whether the Secretary of State will adopt the recommendations of this Committee. That Committee suggested, that the number of subjects of examination should be reduced; that the examinations for Sandhurst, Woolwich, and the Militia should be amalgamated; that the age should be raised; that Woolwich and Sandhurst should be enlarged: and that the course at Sandhurst should be extended from one to two years. Each of these recommendations vitally affects the action of the schools. This Report is flung at their heads, and they are uncertain as to what is going to happen. Not only the military colleges, but the schools throughout the country are, therefore, concerned. I would ask the Secretary of State to give the House some definite assurance that it is his intention, having published the Report, to act upon it, and to give immediate effect to the recommendations which have been made.

(9.57.) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,) Surrey, Guildford

The hon. Member has touched upon a very important subject in rather a controversial manner. I do not in the least complain of the hon. Member's bringing before the House the Report of the Military Education Committee. Although that Report took the Committee many months to consider and to compose, the hon. Member falls foul of me because, that Report having been presented in March last, I have not already pronounced judgment upon it. I have no apology to make for that. I am not going, at the bidding of the hon. Member, to deal with a subject that vitally affects the whole future of the Army, and which may change the whole system of education which has existed in the Army during the last thirty or forty years, merely because, in the opinion of the hon. Member, it reflects on my character that I have not in a few weeks come to the conclusion to make drastic changes. I cannot imagine anything which would have a worse effect on education in the Army than, without deliberation, to decide matters of such grave importance as those touched upon in this Report. When we consider the question of the education of officers of the Army, we have a great deal to consider besides the mere system as it stands. There have been great changes in the habits of the class who enter the Army in this country. There has been enormous progress in the education of that class. In one respect alone there is a very important item which, I suppose, has not occurred to the hon. Member. As regards the various classes of officers who are involved in this Report, it is essential that we should know, not merely what is the opinion at which people may arrive as to their qualifications, but that we should know from those who are best qualified to judge what has been the experience with regard to the different classes of officers who have entered the Army either through Sandhurst, through Woolwich, through the Militia, or through other channels. I have had the advantage only within the last few days of seeing Lord Kitchener and obtaining his judgment upon some of these points. I think a Secretary of State would he gravely wanting who proceeded to devise a totally new course of education, to lay down totally new views as to what should be the system of promotion, and to what extent it should be left in the hands of the colonels and regimental authorities, or should be guided by examinations from without, without taking the opinion of the officer, who of all men in the British Army at this moment, having served as chief of the staff of an army of 240,000 men, and subsequently for a year and a half as Commander-in-Chief of an army in the field of the same number, was peculiarly qualified to give guidance on the subject. I should be gravely wanting in my duty if I had neglected to obtain that guidance which can be better secured from active service in the field than from the deliberation of any Committee, however excellent that Committee may be. Personally I have felt that among all the grave questions which have come before mo since I took office there is none which so seriously affects the character of the British Army as that which materially concerns the class of officers to be obtained.

A great deal has been said in regard to Sandhurst. I admit that the opinion expressed by the Committee on the subject is one which leaves it very little open to us to form a different judgment. As a matter of fact, both Lord Roberts and I have formed a judgment with regard to Sandhurst. The hon. Member speaks as if the Government were to blame because they did not immediately reform Sandhurst in the middle of the term. I quite admit that, in the interval, events have occurred which justify the strictures passed by the Committee on the state of Sandhurst. I do not wish to enter into that unfortunate series of events, except to say that there was one point beyond controversy, and that was that four or five deliberate cases of fire occurred in the cadets' quarters, and that the state of discipline, or, I would rather say, of feeling, at the college was not such as to cause the cadets heartily to co-operate with the authorities in endeavouring to discover the origin of those fires. That, I think, justified the Commander-in-Chief in feeling that very severe measures ought to be taken in order to make men who were about to become officers of the British Army understand that they had a collective responsibility in taking care that such scandals did not take place in their midst without every effort being made on their part to discover the offenders. I hope that what the Commander-in-Chief has done has been effectual in that respect. At all events, we have been able to clear the great majority of those concerned, and, by means of these strong measures, to bring very closely home to others these unfortunate occurrences.

The hon. Member speaks as if I had been endeavouring to avoid speaking on this matter. I have never been asked before to give my opinion, and Members on this side, who realised the difficulties of the position, have been anxious not to force the Government to a premature decision. I fully realise that a very great change must be made in the organisation of Sandhurst. The Governor, some time ago, intimated his desire to retire from the command at Sandhurst. We shall begin the new term with a fresh Governor and a fresh second in command, and we shall also make considerable changes in the method of administration. But as to the actual educational changes necessary, there are great divergences of opinion, and I am carefully weighing the question. I have had a number of personal interviews with those chiefly concerned, and I think one thing is clear, viz., that, as a number of cadets have gone through a certain course with a view to a certain examination, we cannot make any sudden changes in regard to them, and, for the next examination at all events, we must proceed on the old lines. It is a matter for consideration whether, even in the following examination, we ought not, in justice to the cadets, to proceed on the same lines; but, following upon that, there will be a great change. We are determined to make the education practical. I appeal to the House not to press us to give a premature decision on matters which require a really mature consideration. I make no apology for not having yet acted. This Report was signed four months ago. At that time we were actively carrying on the war, and were also engaged on the terms of peace. We have had since then to demobilise an army of nearly 250,000 men, and have had to pay attention to a variety of other matters of enormous importance. This question of the education of the Army is mixed up with a number of other subjects, such as the

difficulty of getting a sufficient number of officers, and the question of the expense of living in the Army. These matters must be dealt with pari passu. It is not the slightest use opening the doors to men of good education, if at the same time the profession is not one which they would find it worth their while to pursue. There is also the question of how far we can, not merely through Sandhurst and Woolwich, but through the Universities and other seats of learning, obtain the men we require without unduly pressing them on the question of ago. Sufficient time must be granted for the consideration of all these questions, but I will undertake that nothing shall be wanting in thoroughness and completeness in the decisions at which we arrive.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.)

rose to continue the discussion, when


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

(10.8.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 379.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Fisher, William Hayes
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire) Fison, Frederick William
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Cayzer, Sir Charles William Cecil, Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Anson, Sir William Reynell Evelyn (Aston Manor) Flower, Ernest
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.
Arrol, Sir William Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Chapman, Edward Gardner, Ernest
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Charrington, Spencer Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Balcarres, Lord Coghill, Douglas Harry Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gore, Hn. G. R. G. Ormsby- (Salop
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Goulding, Edward Alfred
Banbury, Frederick George Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Cranborne, Lord Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Cripps, Charles Alfred Groves, James Grimble
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cross, Herb, Shepherd(Bolton) Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Beresford, Lord Charles William Dalkeith, Earl of Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Davenport, William Bromley- Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x
Bigwood, James Denny, Colonel Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Bill, Charles Dickson, Charles Scott Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford
Blundell, Colonel Henry Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bond, Edward Duke, Henry Edward Haslett, Sir James Horner
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.
Bousfield, William Robert Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Hay, Hon. Claude George
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Faber, George Denison (York) Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley
Brotherton, Edward Allen Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Henderson, Sir Alexander
Brown, Alexander II. (Shropsh. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)
Bull, William James Finch, George H. Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)
Butcher, John George Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Hornby, Sir William Henry
Houston, Robert Paterson Molesworth, Sir Lewis Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Spear, John Ward
Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) Morrell, George Herbert Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Mount, William Arthur Stone, Sir Benjamin
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute Stroyan, John
Keswick, William Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Knowles, Lees Nicol, Donald Ninian Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Parker, Sir Gilbert Tollemache, Henry James
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Parkes, Ebenezer Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw. M.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Penn, John Valentia, Viscount
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Platt-Higgins, Frederick Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Plummer, Walter R. Walker, Col. William Hall
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Warde, Colonel C. E.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Pretyman, Ernest George Warr, Augustus Frederick
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Webb, Colonel William George
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Purvis, Robert Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Randles, John S. Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth) Rankin, Sir James Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm.
Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison Reid, James (Greenock) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Macdona, John Cumming Renshaw, Charles Bine Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Wilson, John (Glasgow)
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Majendie, James A. H. Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Malcolm, Ian Ropner, Colonel Robert Wylie, Alexander
Manners, Lord Cecil Round, Rt. Hon. James Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Maxwell, W. J.H. (Dumfriessh.) Rutherford, John
Melville, Beresford Valentine Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Middlemore, John Throgmorton Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Sir William Walrond and
Milvain, Thomas Seely, Maj. J.E. B. (Isle of Wight Mr. Anstruther.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Edwards, Frank Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Elibank, Master of Leigh, Sir Joseph
Ambrose, Robert Emmott, Alfred Levy, Maurice
Ashton, Thomas Gair Farrell, James Patrick Lewis, John Herbert
Atherley-Jones, L. Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Lloyd-George, David
Barran, Rowland Hirst Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Lough, Thomas
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Flavin, Michael Joseph Lundon, W.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Flynn, James Christopher MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Brigg, John Fuller, J. M. F. M'Crae, George
Broadhurst, Henry Furness, Sir Christopher M' Govern, T.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Gilhooly, James M' Kenna, Reginald
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Grant, Corrie M' Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Burke, E. Haviland- Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mather, Sir William
Caldwell, James Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Mooney, John J.
Cameron, Robert Harmsworth, R. Leicester Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Harwood, George Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Cawley, Frederick Hayden, John Patrick Moulton, John Fletcher
Channing, Francis Allston Helme, Norval Watson Murnaghan, George
Craig, Robert Hunter Holland, Sir William Henry Murphy, John
Crean, Eugene Horniman, Frederick John Nannetti, Joseph P.
Cremer, William Randal Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Cullinan, J. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Norman, Henry
Dalziel, James Henry Jacoby, James Alfred O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Jameson, Major J. Eustace O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Delany, William Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Kearley, Hudson E. O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Kitson, Sir James O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Dillon, John Langley, Batty O'Malley, William
Donelan, Captain A. Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Doogan, P. C. Layland-Barratt, Francis Paulton, James Mellor
Dunn, Sir William Leamy, Edmund Perks, Robert William
Power, Patrick Joseph Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Price, Robert John Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Rea, Russell Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.)
Rickett, J. Compton Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Tomkinson, James Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd
Roche, John Toulmin, George Yoxall, James Henry
Roe, Sir Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Tully. Jasper
Shipman, Dr. John G. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) Mr. Causton and Mr. John
Strachey, Sir Edward Weir, James Galloway Sinclair.
Sullivan, Donal White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Bill read a second time, and committed for tomorrow.