§ *(4. 0.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)I do not think it necessary to detain the House at any length in proposing the Motion which stands on the Paper in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury. It is practically identical with that to which the House agreed last year on March 4th. But Easter fell a week later then than in the present 1033 year, so that the number of Tuesdays of which private Members were deprived was the same as will be the case under the Motion I am now making. There is a considerable amount of Supply to be taken before March 21st—the latest date on which that Supply can be taken —which will have to be included in the first Appropriation Bill of the year. Among the Votes to be passed are two important Naval Votes and the Naval Supplementary Estimates, the whole of the Army Estimates, which must necessarily take considerable time for discussion, and the Vote on Account, which it is proposed to take on Friday. Then there will be Excess Votes, which I fear will be of a contentious character, for military purposes. Adding the Report stage of all these Votes, which, as matters stand, cannot be taken after twelve o'clock, the House will see that there is much financial business to get through before March 21st. It has already been decided that the first and earliest work of the session must be the consideration of the Procedure Rules; and for that purpose private Members have been obliged to surrender their Tuesdays. I am therefore asking no greater sacrifice now than that which has already been made, for I am quite sure that the hon. Member for West Newington, who has placed a Motion on the Paper for this evening, could not have supposed, after the Resolution of the House allocating Tuesdays to the consideration of the Procedure Rules, that he would be in a position to discuss his Motion. I ask the House in conclusion to remember that I do not make this proposal for the convenience of the Government, but rather that the Government may be criticised, and their financial proposals efficiently examined. However important the notices of Motion standing in the name of private Members may be, the business of Supply is infinitely more urgent. As this Motion was agreed to last year, when the principal objection was that the Session ought to have begun earlier—an objection which cannot be urged now—I trust that it will now be agreed to without lengthened debate. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean has given notice that he will oppose the 1034 Motion in the interests of the Resolution standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Newington.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)When I did that, understood the Government proposal was limited to today. I did not know it was to be general.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHStill, the notice had reference to a particular proposal. The Government has only put down two Navy Votes and the Naval Supplementary Estimates for tonight, and, as there has already been two nights discussion of Navy Votes, it might be possible to dispose of this business by nine o'clock. Then there would be ample time for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for West Newington, in which the right hon. Baronet takes so much interest. I merely throw that out as a suggestion which possibly may bear fruit. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, subject to the Order of 30th January last, the business of Supply, when set down by the Government on any Tuesday before Easter, shall have precedence of all other business."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
(4.10.) SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN (Stirling Burghs)The right hon. Gentleman has submitted his Motion in that conciliatory and insinuating manner which the House is accustomed to from him. But he has used most extraordinary arguments. What is the reason that the Government wish unofficial Members, as we are told we ought to call them, to stand aside? It is that they are eager to be criticised. It is their desire to submit themselves to the scalpel that makes them submit this proposal! But there is something unusual in it, and there is inconsistency and confusion about the proposal which is not apparent on similar occasions. The Government has already taken Tuesdays, not because of any extraordinary pressure of financial business, but simply because the alteration of the Rules of Procedure is supposed to require continuous debate. The Leader of the House told us on the 28th January —"I do not think any Minister ever 1035 attempted to ask the House to deal with this question without taking facilities for the discussion of it, and that is all I propose to do." That is why the Government took Tuesdays. Now, owing to circumstances which we all deeply regret, Tuesdays are relieved from that embargo, and the right hon. Gentleman seizes the opportunity to ask for them for quite another purpose. His reasons do not appear at all conclusive. It is curious that this great pressure of financial business should only have occurred just at this time; because, if the influenza had not seized the Leader of the House, the Procedure Rules would have been discussed again, and the Government would not have thought of their financial embarrassments. We should have gone on this week and next week hammering at the Rules of Procedure, and the financial business would have stood over. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have made out a stronger case, and he must not be surprised if his Motion is regarded with suspicion under the peculiar circumstances.
§ *(4.15.) Sin CHARLES DILKEI wish to add one word to what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, and that is as to the serious nature of the Motions which are down for discussion on Tuesdays. We were told in the course of the debate on the Procedure Rules of the House that there never would be any difficulty on the part of the working classes in bringing forward, under the new Rules, any subject in which they were deeply interested. Now, the subject raised by the Motion of the hon. Member for West Newington deeply interests the working classes, and many Members on both sides have tried to find an opportunity of bringing it before the House. They were successful with the ballot in obtaining a Tuesday, which they had reason to believe after the statement of the Government they would be able to retain. This is a subject which most deeply moves the working classes throughout the country, and there are, I believe, more Members interested in this than in any other Motion. I do appeal to the House to show that favour to the rights of independent Members on both sides, which we have been told in the course of the discussion on the Procedure Rules ought to be shown, in the case of 1036 a Motion the discussion of which is so earnestly desired by so large a number of people.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)In the course of the discussion on the Procedure Rules, we have been constantly told that the arrangement of the morning and evening sittings would give so much greater facilities for Government business. I wonder, if that be the case, why the plan has not been adopted on this occasion—the first the Government have had of proving the soundness of their argument. Had they done so, they could have preserved private Members' rights, without prejudice to their own business. But I have always held that the divided day would not increase the facilities for Government business.
§ (4.18.) MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)I hope that the House will not accept the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it seems to me that the chief reason he gave for it is utterly untenable. He reminded us that about this time last year a similar Motion was carried. But on that occasion it was absolutely necessary because of the state of Supply, which, as we were then told, was due to the fact that Parliament had not met until late. But we met five weeks earlier this year than last, and yet, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are in the same position with regard to Supply. Let us consider the position in which public business now stands. Though the House met five weeks earlier than last year, the session has been spent not in discussing necessary Supply, but in the ineffective and useless consideration of new Rules, which are so crude, so ill-considered and ridiculous that the most important of them has not stood the test of debate and has had to be withdrawn. Five weeks have been wasted in the discussion of ill-considered Rules which ought to have been submitted to a Committee. And now we are in the same position as we were last year at this time. I think the right hon. Gentleman has taken up a most unreasonable position, and that he must put forward much more conclusive arguments in favour of this Motion before he will convince the House that it is either right or just. If the 1037 Government are so anxious to have their policy discussed on Supply, why have they not brought Supply on before now? If they are really anxious to enable hon. Members to criticise their policy, let them prove it. What is their position in relation to Irish affairs? The other day I asked the First Lord of the Treasury, whose absence everybody on this as on the other side of the House regrets, whether an opportunity could be given for the discussion of certain matters in connection with the action of the executive in Ireland. He admitted in reply that it was a reasonable request, but when on a subsequent day, at his request, I repeated my Question and suggested that he should take the Irish Estimates and put down the Chief Secretary's Vote so as to give us the desired opportunity, he was obliged to tell me that owing to the exigencies of public business it was impossible for him to do it. Since that conversation took place certain transactions have occurred in Ireland which render it imperatively necessary for us to have a discussion on the action of the Irish executive. We endeavoured to secure it the other night on the Motion for Adjournment, but our action was entirely misunderstood, and the Irish Government did not condescend to answer us. Since then other matters have occurred in Ireland of the gravest importance demanding immediate attention and criticism—for example, the practice which has been adopted of calling a Crimes Act Court into being, and then, when the prosecution under the Crimes Act has broken down and the charge been dismissed, holding the accused to bail under the Statute of Edward III. and sending them to prison under worse circumstances than would be possible under the Crimes Act, because there is no power of appeal. I mention this to show the kind of question we desire to discuss on the Vote on Account. Unfortunately, of late years a practice has grown up of taking the discussion on what happens to be the first item on the Vote of Account, and then closuring the rest. Last year that practice was carried out with most disastrous results, and 17 millions were voted under the Closure after only one night's debate. If the same practice obtain next Friday, we shall 1038 have no chance of discussing Irish questions, and I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, like the First Lord, he should admit the desirability of an early debate on the matters I have mentioned, and that he should undertake to give a second night to the Vote of Account, and allow us on that evening to discuss the action of the Irish executive. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet us in the fair spirit I have suggested, I shall not be inclined to press my opposition very strongly, although I must add that I think it a very great hardship to working men engaged on our railways that the House of Commons should not be able to afford a single night for the discussion of a Motion such as that which stands on the Paper for tonight. I know of no class more deserving of consideration, remembering the great risks they run in the performance of their most arduous and harassing duties, and I would be glad to do anything I could to secure them a night for the ventilation in this House of their grievances.
§ (4.27.) MR. BELL (Derby)I rise to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider what he has proposed tonight. The reason he has given for taking the time of the House, in face of so important a Motion as that which stands on the Paper, will create more criticism and give rise to more severe reflections on the action of the Government than will arise from any criticism on the Naval Estimates. Fully 100,000 men are greatly affected by the Motion which stands on the Paper, and a good many suggestions have reached me from men directly concerned in different parts of the country. Some of them have actually offered to bet that the Government would do something to prevent the Motion being discussed by the House today. I have always placed a little more confidence in the Government than that; but if this Motion is persisted in today, I shall he inclined to think that the suggestions of those who have written to me are more nearly correct than my own. It is not merely a section of working men who are interested in this subject. The general public is also affected, and I submit that this House should consider the safety and convenience of the 1039 travelling public almost before anything else. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman agree to give us until eight o'clock to discuss this Motion, seeing that he is not in a position to assure us that the Supply business will be completed by nine o'clock l I do urge him to reconsider his decision; otherwise, I shall feel bound to divide the House, in order to show the country who are in favour of the safety of working men and of the travelling public.
§ *MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)I rise to support, in a few words, the appeal of the hon. Member for Derby and I do so with all the more pleasure because I have to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom some of us who have long interested ourselves in the hours of railway servants have been specially associated on many occasions in the past, and have always found him showing great personal sympathy with this cause. Hitherto, we have laboured under the disadvantage of never having in this House a direct representative of the railway servants. Now we have one in the person of the hon. Member for Derby, but it will be a matter of deep regret that on this the first occasion they had secured by the ballot an opportunity of discussing the grievance of the men, when the railway men's representative might be heard, this opportunity should be taken from them. Further I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact of having a few hours more to discuss the Navy Estimates is of sufficient importance or of such urgency as to prevent his making this very moderate concession to one of the most deserving classes in the country. The time of the House was undoubtedly taken from private Members with a view to a series of discussions, which are now practically adjourned. It was never contemplated that it should be devoted to Supply, and I do think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman might make this little concession.
§ (4.32.) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)This is a day which was set apart for the procedure resolutions, and really the question of Supply is not involved at a11, because if it were not for the misfortune of the indisposition of the First Lord of the Treasury it 1040 would not have been given to Supply. Therefore, the whole question now is, shall this day, which was to have been given exclusively to the Procedure proposals, be given instead to this Resolution which affects so seriously one of the most important industries in the country. I cannot but think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that this Resolution is more important even than any Procedure Motion, and that that will be felt throughout the country and also by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)My right hon. friend has intimated to the House that, in his opinion, this Motion is brought forward practically at the same time as the similar Motion last year. That is not so. Last year the Motion came into effect on March 5th; this Motion is to come into effect on February 25th. Moreover, last year it was moved on March 4th, and did not come into effect until Tuesday, March 5th; that is another difference, because we had a day's notice last year, but no notice this year, and in addition there is the fact that it comes into operation eight days earlier. There is also another thing to be considered in connection with a Motion of this sort. The Government called Parliament together this year earlier than last year, and in addition they have already got more Supply than they had on March 5th last year. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to make a somewhat better case for the Motion than he has. Again, last year Tuesdays were taken for all financial business; this year they are only to be taken for that part of financial business which is represented by Supply. That does not come to very much, because, when they are taken at all, it does not matter very much what they are taken for. My object in rising was, however, to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in reference to next Tuesday. I have balloted time after time, but I have never previously succeeded. I did, however, secure next Tuesday, which I had intended to devote to a very important subject. I hope my right hon. friend may be able to offer me some compromise. He has offered one to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. He has given 1041 him the time after nine o'clock tonight, if he can get it. I think, owing to the relative importance of the two subjects, if the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to nine o'clock I am entitled to eight o'clock. Will the right hon. Gentleman hold out any prospect that, if I can get it, I can have the time after the dinner hour on Tuesday next?
§ MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)I hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the opinion of the House on this question, and that we shall be able to bless his mild rule. The importance of the subject proposed to be dealt with by the hon. Member for West Newington is very great. If the right hon. Gentleman looks into the statistics, he will find that last year non-fatal accidents and deaths among railway men considerably increased, and therefore it is incumbent on the House to give attention to the subject. This will perhaps be the only opportunity we shall have of bringing the matter before the House, and I hope, seeing the importance of the subject and the number of men concerned, that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to what is evidently the general feeling of the House, and give us at any rate some portion of tonight to discuss it.
§ *(4.38.) SIR M. HICKS BEACHAppeals have been made to me against the Motion, but I hope hon. Members will believe that no one who stands in the position I occupy today ever makes this proposal without a great deal of regret. I am aware of the inconvenience and disappointment it must cause to hon. Members who had antici pitted having an opportunity of bringing forward matters in which they are interested. With regard to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I am afraid I can only say that he could never have gravely anticipated he could get next Tuesday for a Motion of the widest possible character with reference to treaties between this country and foreign countries, which, although important, cannot be said to be at all of an urgent nature. With regard to the other appeals made to me, I can to some extent meet them. I have already suggested that, if we are able to get the Supply which we have placed on 1042 the Paper, say, by half-past nine o'clock, then the House might turn its attention to the Motion in which hon. Members naturally take so great an interest. I understand that the hon. Member for Derby and other hon. Members who have spoken have practically admitted that two or three hours would be sufficient for the case to be stated and fairly considered by the House, and the hon. Member suggested that I should allow his Motion to come on first, and then take Supply. That would be impracticable under the notice of Motion which I have given, and which you, Sir, have put from the Chair. This, however, I will undertake to do. I am aware that the hon. Member has given special attention to these matters, and I am anxious to make this proposal as little disagreeable as I can. If, as I hope, the House will consider such Estimates as we have placed on the Paper in a favourable spirit, and within a reasonable limit of discussion, I have no doubt we shall be able to report progress about half-past nine o'clock, and then the hon. Member will have an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion tonight. With regard to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, I feel I should do something to meet him, but I think he will admit that I am in a somewhat difficult position in the absence of my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend, I know, feels very strongly that the debate on the Vote on Account is really depriving the House of Commons of the opportunity of discussing the Estimates in detail, because it is clear that if we have two nights on that subject we shall have one night less to be devoted to the Estimates. But if the hon. and learned Member will consider the matter, I may be able to meet him in this way. We have placed on the Paper for Friday, in accordance with arrangement, the Home Office Vote first. I have made inquiries, and I understand that there has already been, in the course of this session, considerable discussion of important matters connected with that Vote, and that the matters now likely to arise on it are not, by any means, likely to occupy very considerable time, and we shall endeavour by means at our disposal, and I hope with the assistance of hon. Members below the gangway opposite, 1043 to limit the discussion on the Home Office Vote to a reasonable extent, and then I will place second to the Home Office Vote such a Vote as will enable hon. Members to have the discussion which the hon. and learned Member desires to initiate. Of course, if, by any mischance, we find it impossible to carry that out, although I do not see why there should be any difficulty in doing so, then the matter will stand over for consideration when my right hon. friend is able to return to the House. I am quite sine he will do his best to meet the wishes of the hon. and learned Member to have some opportunity for the discussion of a matter of great importance. I hope I have shown a desire in this matter to meet the wishes of the House, and that the House will now pass the Motion.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWill the right hon. Gentleman be satisfied with the Navy Estimates?
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHWe should like to get the Supplementary Votes also.
§ Mrs. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I do not withdraw in the least my opposition to the principle of this Motion, which is not supported on any grounds of necessity, because such a Motion could only be based on urgency, and the right hon. Gentleman made no such plea. What is
§ the urgency of the London Water Bill or of the Procedure Rules, when everybody knows that the body of the Rules cannot come into operation until they are all passed, and that they cannot be passed before Easter? The right hon. Gentleman, for the first time in my recollection, has asked the House to accept a Motion of this character without attempting to put forward any reason. He made no case for the Motion, but of course we are at the mercy of the Government majority, and being anxious to obtain some early opportunity of discussing the action of the Executive in Ireland, and recognising that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman shows he is inclined to meet us in a reasonable spirit, we would be very foolish not to accept his offer. We understand that the right hon. Gentleman has good ground for believing that he will be able to give us an opportunity of bringing forward the question we desire to raise about eight o'clock on Friday next, and if he fails in that, owing to the debate on the Home Office Vote being prolonged, that the question will remain open. Of course we might obtain an opportunity of discussing the matter on Report; but in the circumstances, and without modifying our opinion that the Motion is unreasonable, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made out any case for it, I am disposed to advise my hon. friends to accept his offer.
§ (4.44.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 48.)
1047| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex.F. | Brown, A. H. (Shropshire) | Cross, Herb, Shepherd(Bolton) |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ed. H. | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Cautley, Henry Strother | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancash. | Denny, Colonel |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire | Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Cecil, Eveleyn (Aston Manor) | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph |
| Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Dorington, Sir John Edward |
| Bailey, James, (Walworth) | Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J. (Birm. | Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers- |
| Bain, Col. James Robert | Chamberlain, J.Austen,(Worcr | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Chapman, Edward | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin |
| Balcarres, Lord | Charrington, Spencer | Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H. |
| Balfour,Rt.Hn.Ger'dW.(Leeds | Clive, Capt. Percy A. | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton |
| Balfour,Kenneth R. (Christch. | Coghill, Douglass Harry | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Cohen, Benjamin Lewis | Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) |
| Beach,Rt-Hn.Sir Mich. Hicks- | Collins, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Bhownaggree, Sir. M. M. | Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready | Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ. (Mancr |
| Bignold, Arthur | Colston, Chas. E. H. A. | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Blundell, Col. Henry | Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Finch, George H. |
| Bond, Edward | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Boulnois, Edmund | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Fison, Frederick William |
| Brodrick, Rt.Hn. St. John | Cross, Alexander(Glasgow) | FitzGerald, Sir Robert P. |
| Flower, Ernest | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.) | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Leveson-Gower,Frederick N.S | Rothschild, Hon. Li'nl Walter |
| Gardner, Ernest | Lockwood, Lt.-Col.A.R. | Round, James |
| Garfit, William | Long, Col.Chas. W. (Evesham | Russell, T. W. |
| Godson,Sir Angustus Frederick | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Godson,Hn.J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Lowe, Francis William | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Gordon,Maj. Evans (T'rH'ml'ts | Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale) | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Gore,Hn.G.R.C.Ormsby (Salop | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Gore,Hn.S.F.Ormsby-(Line) | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Macdona, John Cumming | Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight |
| Greene,SirE.W.(B'ryS Ed'mds | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Gretton, John | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E | Shaw-Stewart, H. M. (Renfrew) |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | M'Killop, J. (Stirlingshire) | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Majendie, James A. H. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Hamilton, RtHn. LordG.(Midx | Manners, Lord Cecil | Smith, H.C.(North'mb, Tyn'sde |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Hardy,Laur'nce(Kent,Ashford | Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh. | Spear, John Ward |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Milvain, Thomas | Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants | Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset |
| Hasslett, Sir James Horner | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Hay, Hn. Claude George | More, Robt.Jasper (Shropshire) | Stock, James Henry |
| Heath, Arthur How'd (Hanley | Morrell, George Herbert | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Heath, James (Staffords N.W. | Morrison, James Archibald | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel | Murray, Rt Hn.A Graham(Bute | Thornton, Percy N. |
| Hogg, Lindsay, | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside | Myers, William Henry | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry | Nicholson, William Graham | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Hoult, Joseph | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Howard, John(Kent, Favershm | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Howard, J. (Midd, Tottenham) | Penn, John | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Hozier, Hon.James H. Cecil | Pilkineton, Lieut.-Col. Rich'd | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Williams, Rt HnJPowell(Birm. |
| Jackson, Rt. Hon Wm. Lawies | Plummer, Walter R. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wilson, A. Stanley,(York, E.R. |
| Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.) |
| Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Pym, C. Guy | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh) | Rankin, Sir James | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Knowles, Lees | Rattigan, Sir William Henry | Wylie, Alexander |
| Law, Andrew Bonar | Reid, James (Greenock) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth | Renwick, George | |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool | Ridley,Hn.M. W.(Stalybridge) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Lawson, John Grant | Ritchie,Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson | Sir William Walrond and |
| Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham | Robertson, Herbt. (Hackney) | Mr. Anstruther. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) | Channing, Francis Allston | Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Fuller, J.M.F. |
| Ambrose, Robert | Craig, Robert Hunter | Gilhooly, James |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Crean, Eugene | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Cremer, William Randal | Grant, Corrie |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Cullinan, J. | Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) |
| Bell, Richard | Dalziel, James Henry | Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton |
| Black, Alexander William | Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. |
| Blake, Edward | Delany, William | Harwood, George |
| Boland, John | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale |
| Brand, Hon. Arthur G. | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. |
| Brigg, John | Dillon, John | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Donelan, Captain A. | Hope, john Deans (Fife, West |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Doogan, P. C. | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Jacoby, James Alfred |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Dunn, Sir William | Joicey, Sir James |
| Caine, William Sproston | Edwards, Frank | Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea |
| Caldwell, James | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Joyce, Michael |
| Cameron, Robert | Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Labouchere, Henry |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith) | Lambert, George |
| Carew, James Laurence | Ffrench, Peter | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Flynn, James Christopher | Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington |
| Levy, Maurice | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Lewis, John Herbert | O'Dowd, John | Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings) |
| Lloyd-George, David | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Thomas,J A(Glamorgan, Gower |
| Lough, Thomas | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R. |
| Lundon, W. | Pickard, Benjamin | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| MaoVeagh, Jeremiah | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wallace, Robert |
| M'Govern, T. | Power, Patrick Joseph | Walton,Jno.Lawson(Leeds, S.) |
| M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Rea, Russell | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Reddy, M. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm. | Rickett, J. Compton | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Mooney, John J. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Whiteley, George (York, W.R. |
| Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Murphy, John | Runciman, Walter | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Schwann, Charles E. | Wilson, FredW.(Norfolk, Mid.) |
| Newnes, Sir George | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R. |
| Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) |
| Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | Woodhouse,Sir J T (Huddersf'di |
| Norman, Henry | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) | Young, Samuel |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Soares, Ernest, J. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Nussey, Thomas Williams | Spencer,RtHn.C.R.(Northants | |
| O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | Stevenson, Francis S. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid | Strachey, Sir Edward | Mr. Herbert Gladstone and |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Sullivan, Donal | Mr. M'Arthur. |
| O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Tennant, Harold John | |
| O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) | Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E. |