HC Deb 18 June 1902 vol 109 cc1066-88

Resolution reported:—

"That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to Lieutenant General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa, in recognition of his eminent services during the war in South Africa."

Resolution read a second time.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

(10.50.) MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he would refrain from moving the Amendment of which he had given notice to reduce the Vote to Lord Kitchener of Khartoum by £40,000, because he was quite satisfied with taking a vote against the grant as a whole in Committee. The last time this matter was before the House he was prevented from making the speech he intended to deliver by a very painful and deplorable outbreak of disorder. On that occasion, because he had expressed an opinion at variance with the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was clamorously prevented from making the speech he had intended to make, the closure was moved, and other hon. Members were prevented from speaking also. He passed from that incident, and would merely observe that, on that occasion, he was distinctly in order, and that the Chairman had ruled—

Mr. SPEAKER

I hope the hon. Member will not enter upon that. It would not be in order to discuss the Chairman's ruling.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he did not intend to discuss the Chairman's ruling, except to say that he was in order, and that the tumult which arose was not of his making, but the making of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who could not exhibit sufficient toleration to hear views which did not coincide with their own. He had only to say now what he had intended to say when the Vote was before the Committee, and if what he was about to say did not meet with the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he submitted that that was no reason why they should not listen to him; because after all one of the greatest characteristics of the House of Commons was that it was supposed to represent all shades of public opinion in the country. However hon. Gentlemen opposite might regard the matter, there were tens and hundreds of thousands of people, not merely in Ireland, but in Great Britain, who were opposed to the granting of such a large sum of money to Lord Kitchener for performing what was, after all, only his duty as an officer, for which he was paid. He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it was not in accordance with what they considered good taste that any objection should be raised on an occasion like the present. But after all, if hon. Members did not represent the opinions of those who elected them, they must occupy a very false position in the House of Commons. In opposing this Vote he undoubtedly expressed the opinions not only of the 12,000 electors in Clare that he represented, but the opinions of the vast majority of the inhabitants of Ireland; and, therefore, he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would consider that in expressing his opinion on the Vote he was only doing his duty. Sometimes the Irish Members were severely criticised for the strength of the language which they used from time to time in expressing their opinions; and sometimes the Irish newspapers were condemned because of the vehemence with which they expressed their views. He could only say that, having had considerable political experience, and having been nineteen years a Member of the House of Commons, he never, either in the House, or in England, or in Ireland, experienced anything at all approaching the violence of the expressions used by the Press of England against himself, and against men like him who felt it their duty to oppose the grant. The newspapers of this country published language of a character such as had not been used in the strongest days of the Irish agitation by any Irish newspaper. Several newspapers in this country and city incited people to violently attack himself and his colleagues, because they had the courage of their convictions One newspaper in London, not very important, and only noticeable, as a rule, because of the violence of its language—he referred to the Globe—expressed the opinion that he, and men like him, who opposed the grant to Lord Kitchener should be hunted through the streets of London like rats. He could imagine the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh or some other strong supporter of the Government in Ireland, quoting with gusto language of that kind if they found it in an Irish newspaper. Irish newspapers had been suppressed, and Irish editors had been sent to gaol, for publishing language not nearly as violent, and not nearly as likely to lead to a breach of the peace, as the language of the Globe. He would only say with regard to comments like that, that they would not complain as long as they were spared the humiliation and disgrace of having to undergo what the editor and manager of the Globe underwent, when they were obliged, like whipped curs, at the bar of the House to withdraw an infamous insult winch had been levelled against the representatives of Ireland.

As he had intended to observe when he was interrupted by the disorder in Committee, he objected to the grant to Lord Kitchener, principally because he held him responsible for what had occurred in the concentration camps in South Africa during the war. In those camps, 15,000 children were, as he believed, foully, wantonly, and unnecessarily done to death. He had heard it stated that those camps were really provided, in order to protect the women and children of the Boers; and that if they had not been provided, the women and children would have died on the veldt. But before those camps were provided, the homes of those women and children were burned to the ground, their crops were destroyed, and all means of livelihood were taken from them. Therefore, if they were in a position of starvation and destitution it was because of the action of the Army under Lord Kitchener in wantonly burning the homes, and destroying the property of the families of the men in arms; and it was absurd to say that any credit was due to the Government or to the Army for providing camps for people who were rendered helpless and homeless by the conduct of the Government. He was quite prepared to admit that Lord Kitchener was not the man who originated the policy of those camps. As far as he knew, that policy was initiated by Lord Roberts, but if Lord Kitchener did not originate that policy, he carried it out; and he would repeat what he said in Committee, that, as far as Lord Kitchener was responsible for those camps, he held him personally responsible for the deaths of 15,000 innocent and helpless children. He was not going to review at any length the conditions and circumstances under which the campaign was carried on by Lord Kitchener; but when he was asked to vote Lord Kitchener £50,000, he could not refrain from reflecting what had happened in those camps. It was admitted in this House that the women and children of the Boers in arms received only half rations; they were practically starved, while the women and children of the men who had surrendered received full rations. He said deliberately that a more cowardly and a more contemptible policy than that was never indulged in by any Army or any Power against an opponent. What could be more contemptible than that the news should reach men in the field that their women and children were receiving half rations because they were still fighting, and that if they only surrendered their wives and little ones would get full rations? That system was exposed and denounced by the Irish Members in the House of Commons, and a stop was put to it; but it was not stopped until a number of miserable women and children, underfed and placed in most unsanitary surroundings, were done to death. It was mainly because of those camps, organised and controlled by Lord Kitchener, that he opposed the grant.

He did not understand the idea of such grants at all. He quite admitted that in some instances junior officers in the Army were not, perhaps, paid as they ought to be paid, although they were paid quite what they were worth, but the generals in the field and the senior officers were well paid. What, therefore, was the idea in giving a general, who was already well paid for doing his duty, a special grant of £50,000? Either he was already sufficiently paid or he was not; if he was not, then let his pay be increased, but let them not, at the end of a campaign, single out one man out of an army of 250,000 and give him £50,000. He should like to ask what money grant was to be given to the men of the rank and file. Since the matter had been in Committee, he had received a large number of letters from wives of men in the Reserve, who said they were glad that notice had been taken in the House of the fact that, while money was being lavished on Lord Kitchener and other military swells, absolutely nothing had been done to compensate the men of the rank and file, especially the Reserve men, who had left their employment and their wives and children practically in destitution when they went to the war. He could understand a special grant to Lord Kitchener, if it were proposed side by side with a grant for the rank and file. It was unjust and unfair that two men should be singled out from an army of 250,000 and should receive between them £150,000 at a time when he knew, and he was prepared to prove it, that a number of men who had fought in the war had been obliged to enter work-houses in Ireland. The fact was that the system of granting large sums of money under such circumstances was a bad system, and a system which he believed was not approved by the majority of the inhabitants of the country. What did Lord Kitchener do, anyway, for his £50,000? At the end of two and a half years, with an army outnumbering the Boers by something like ten to one, he succeeded in bringing about peace by recommending the Government to give the Boers a grant of several millions to rebuild their farms. He was not prepared to deny that that must have been a matter of great gratification and relief to the majority of the people of this country and the Empire at large. He naturally would have liked to have seen the Boers retain their independence. He had always said that, and would repeat it; but the peace which had been concluded was not a peace won, but a peace bought. The Boers were given £3,000,000 to rebuild their homes, and they were promised what was denied to Ireland, a full measure of self-government in the future. If instead of these terms the Government had proposed to set up a sort of Dublin Castle over the Boers, they would be fighting still; but, whether the peace was good or bad, one thing was certain; that was, that no honour or glory, or no great military achievements marked the British conduct of the war. Lord Kitchener, for all he knew, did as well in the circumstances as any other general would have done, but he certainly did nothing to distinguish himself, or to show that he was possessed of any particular military genius, nor had he anything to show in the way of victories won, that would justify such a great reward. In the very last engagement of importance in the war, the British troops were defeated and overwhelmed; and how they could arrive at the conclusion that Lord Kitchener deserved £50,000 was more than he could understand. Lord Methuen, who was defeated before the war was concluded, was, he had heard, a very capable man. As a military leader, he believed he was not a success; but for hard, unremitting work in the field, without grumbling or complaining, he certainly merited a reward a great deal better than either Lord Roberts or Lord Kitchener. He fought the best he could with complaining, without coming home, and without having his family, with their baggage, sent up to him to Pretoria. But because, at the end, he happened to be overwhelmed, when, perhaps, any other general would have been equally overwhelmed, he was ignored. Then what about General Buller? He did more than Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener put together. He fought hard, and he fought long, but because he did not suit his action to the opinions of the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary for War, he was passed over and got no reward whatever. The people of Ireland regarded the whole of the matter as a piece of hypocrisy. They believed the best men were not getting the rewards. What, he might ask, was to be done for the rank and file? They could come home and go to the workhouses. It was perfectly well known that thousands of men who had given up their employment to join the Reserve, found on their return that their places had been filled up, and that no employment was open to them. It would be much better to divide the £50,000 among them than to lavish it on Lord Kitchener, who, a few years ago, received £1 a head for every unfortunate Arab he slaughtered in the Soudan.

He opposed the grant from the Irish point of view, because they objected from the first to vote any money in connection with the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer only today acknowledged the misery and destitution of a large section of the people of Ireland; and they ought not to be expected, through their representatives, to allow Votes of this kind to be passed without a protest. How much good could not be done towards improving their condition, and promoting industries, by the amount of this grant! From the Irish point of view, both on account of the poverty of the country, and of the war, this grant of money was altogether detestable, and ought to be opposed. But what of the English point of view? Every night the streets of London were filled with men and women, who, through no fault of their own, but through sheer misfortune and the want of honest employment, were in the direst necessity. It was impossible to take up any London newspaper with-out reading accounts of the most appalling misery and destitution; and so it was in every large centre of population throughout the length and breadth of the country. There was want and destitution everywhere, and yet it was impossible to get hon. Members opposite to seriously attempt to alleviate distress, or to help men who were in straitened circumstances through no fault of their own. Whenever any proposal was made to legislate for the benefit of the masses, or to relieve those who deserved to be relieved, a deaf ear was turned to it; but the moment the Government proposed to shower tens of thousands of pounds on men who were already paid by the State for their work, it was cheerfully voted by hon. Members opposite. He renewed the protest he made in Committee against the grant. In Committee, he would not have attempted to supplement the masterly statement of the case, from the Irish point of view, made by his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo, were it not for the greatest possible provocation which was given to himself and to every Irish Member, by the most unwarranted and uncalled-for attack levelled against them by the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire. If the hon. Member had not practically insulted the Irish Members by saying that they did not represent the people of Ireland, and had denied their right to speak on behalf of the Irish people, he himself would not have spoken, and the tumult and disorder which followed would not have occurred. It was all due to the uncalled for attack of the hon. Member, who never lost an opportunity of pro yoking the Irish Members. He was glad that what he had to say had been listened to, and the moral of the incident in Committee was, that hon. Gentlemen opposite should try on all occasions to keep cool, and to calmly listen even to opinions with which they did not agree. He was glad that he had been able to make his protest without interruption, and also very glad that Mr. Speaker had been spared the humiliation of being present on the previous occasion.

(11.15.) MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

said that in entering his protest against the grant he desired to do so without the slightest personal feeling, but simply in order to discharge his duty to his constituents. Every word he would utter would be governed by the consideration that he would be unworthy of his position in the House, if he were to vote £50,000 to Lord Kitchener when the food of the people in his constituency was being taxed for it. He might have to say things which would be distasteful to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would be a sad day for the House of Commons and its liberties when the shouts of a domineering majority would be able to drown the voice of a Member saying distasteful things. They had only to remember how many men had said distasteful things in the past which had been proved to be right. Lord Chatham spoke distastefully when he appealed for American independence; Cobden and Bright said distasteful things when they protested against the Crimean War; and the day would come when the balance of public opinion would incline to the men who had said distasteful things in connection with the war in South Africa, and who had proclaimed the faith that was in them. If he were a British Member, he would oppose the grant on the general principle that such grants were not right or proper. Although he would oppose the grant, at the same time they all felt grateful to Lord Kitchener for being the means of ending this abominable war. That was as clearly a feather in Lord Kitchener's cap, as the war itself was a feather in the Colonial Secretary's cap. He did not know from what bird the Colonial Secretary plucked that feather. He believed it must have been a moulting vulture, or something of that sort. He would also recall the fact that Lord Kitchener had nothing to do with the series of abominable and base intrigues which began the war. Further, Lord Kitchener won his spurs for himself. He was not sent out us long as the game was to be a mere march to Pretoria, Then the favourites of Society were sent out; but whatever Lord Kitchener did he did as a hard-working officer. There was another thing in Lord Kitchener's favour. He actually danced on the War Office, and he was delighted at it. He told the War Office that they were sending him men who could neither shoot nor ride; and the War Office did not venture to tell him to rewrite his despatches. He was not bullied by the War Office, and, in spite of the favouritism prevailing there, he got everything he wanted.

Having said so much, he would now say why he held that Lord Kitchener should not be voted this grant. First of all, Lord Kitchener was well paid already. He had £5,000 a year, and was Commander-in-Chief elect in India at a salary of £7,000 a year. Only three years ago he received £30,000, and in view of the fact that they did not know how much was to be given to the widows and children of the 20,000 men who had lost their lives in the war, or to the 80,000 men whose lives had been ruined, he could not understand why one man should have been selected for such a large grant. He was certain that the 80,000 men who had suffered in the war would not receive one-hundredth part of the grant to Lord Kitchener, who, he was happy to say, had not suffered physically in the war at all. He was already well paid for doing his work, and it was an outrage that he should be given a bonus in addition. There was one thing in the grant which differentiated it from every other military grant. On no occasion had a grant of public money been voted so soon after the conclusion of operations. On other occasions, grants had only been given after a full inquiry had been held into the war. On the present occasion peace was concluded on Saturday, and on the following Thursday the First Lord of the Treasury proposed this grant. That was quite unprecedented. The grant to Lord Roberts was proposed on the 31st of July, although he declared the war over on the 15th of September previously. The battle of Omdurman was fought in September, 1898, but the grant to Lord Kitchener was not proposed until the 5th of June in the following year. Why was there such haste in giving this grant to Lord Kitchener? Was it because the War Office did not want a thorough and comprehensive inquiry into the war? He would not say a word personally disparaging to Lord Kitchener, but he was responsible for every act of war, and charges in connection with very great atrocities had been made, and until they had been inquired into the grant ought not to be voted. There were in twenty-four actions fought in the war in reference to which no despatches had been published, except simply the tale of the wounded. There was an important action at Standerton in which eight men were killed and twenty-two wounded. He asked the Secretary for War for an account of what occurred in that engagement. If the right hon. Gentleman's answer was right, it did not reflect credit on Lord Kitchener, and if it were wrong it did not reflect credit on the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said that no information beyond the list of casualties had reached the War Office, and he added that if Lord Kitchener attached any importance to the engagement he would have telegraphed particulars. Lord Kitchener ought to have attached importance to loss of life. There was one thing that Lord Kitchener could not be personally acquitted of, and that was that he prevented Miss Hobhouse from visiting the concentration camps when she went to South Africa a second time. The Secretary for War told him that it was owing to Lord Kitchener's action that that benevolent lady was not allowed to investigate the condition of the camps. Then again, Lord Kitchener could not be acquitted of responsibility for the order which was given on many occasions, with a refinement of cruelty, that the friends and relatives of men sentenced to be shot should be present at their execution. He had a preliminary notice with reference to an execution at Craddock which stated that all adults were ordered to attend the market square to witness the promulgation of sentences of death. That was utterly improper and utterly wrong. There was another point which ought not to be omitted. Until Lord Kitchener furnished a full account of all the circumstances connected with the execution of Australian officers for the murder of Boer prisoners of war, the grant should not be voted. Those murders took place on the 31st of August last year, the circumstances were known to Lord Kitchener on the 16th of October, and yet in November the Secretary of State for War made speeches in which he brought charges of wholesale murder against the Boers, and stated that he had asked Lord Kitchener for specific particulars. They did not know what took place even now, but they did know that the Secretary for War had particulars of these murders in his pocket, but suppressed them from the public.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must not make this an opportunity of attacking the Secretary of State for War.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

I was not doing it.

MR. SPEAKER

When I interrupted the hon. Gentleman he was saying that the Secretary for War had information in his pocket which he had suppressed from the public. That is an attack, not on Lord Kitchener, but on the Secretary of State for War.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said that full information with reference to the murder of the Boer prisoners of war should have been given. Three of the Australian officers concerned had the Distinguished Service medal, and the defence was that they only did what they were ordered, and what others did; and it was only because one of the victims was a German missionary that the murders were inquired into. All these matters should be investigated, and not drowned in Coronation fireworks. Then, again no fewer than 600 farms had beer burned, two of them belonging to De Wet and two to Delarey; and he submitted that, until there was a proper inquiry into the war, it was utterly wrong und improper to vote £50,000 to Lord Kitchener. If an investigation was subsequently held, it would be said that all these matters were ancient history, and that they should let bygones be bygones. But they would not let bygones be bygones as long as they were asked to contribute £50,000 wrung from the vitals of a starving people. He had heard from an officer at the front that it was considered that the Australian officers were very hardly dealt with, only because one of their victims was a German missionary. The hideous system of putting the women and children on half rations in order to endeavour to strike at brave men in the field, through their families, ought also not to be forgotten. He had been listened to most patiently, and, in conclusion, would only show, by reading a few extracts, that the charges which he was bringing against Lord Kitchener had been brought by responsible persons against Lord Roberts also.

MR. SPEAKER

The question whether charges were brought against Lord Roberts, and whether they were right or wrong, has nothing to do with the Vote to Lord Kitchener.

A NATIONALIST MEMBER

Another instance of British fair-play!

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must not make reflections upon the Chair. I have endeavoured to act with fairness to all.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

I have imputed no unfairness whatever, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER

I was not referring to the hon. Member for South Donegal, but to an hon. Member behind him.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

regretted the Speaker had not permitted him to read the extract, because it would have shown that exactly the same charges as were now made against Lord Kitchener were made against Lord Roberts by no less a personage than the present Colonial Secretary. If Members doubted that, they could refer to The Times of February 9th, 1880. The Irish Members had protested against the war from the beginning, and against every outrage committed in the war. If accusations of house-burning or of starving women and children were brought against the troops, similar deeds could be found to have been committed in Ireland.

A NATIONALIST MEMBER

More British fair-play!

MR. SPEAKER

I must ask the hon. Member not to interrupt. The hon. Member in possession of the House is not in order in making this question an opportunity for discussing the events of 1798.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

said he was referring to them merely for purposes of illustration. Every story of atrocity in connection with the war in South Africa could be matched by a similar story with regard to Ireland. The Irish Members were bound to tell the British House of Commons not only what they thought, but what the whole civilised world, outside the manufactured and mammonised opinion, thought of England. He was glad that the war was over, but as he objected to Lord Roberta getting £100,000 for ending the war for a general election, so he objected to Lord Kitchener getting £50,000 for re-ending it for the Coronation.

(11.44.) MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

said it was extremely difficult to get Englishmen to take a dispassionate view of the war. He believed the majority of the House, when they expressed approval of the war, to a large extent voiced the opinion of the English people. But, at the same time, he desired to express his admiration of those brave and gallant Englishman who, in spite of mob-tyranny, held their views as against the war, and also of that brave Englishwoman who, by her own exertions, did so much to improve the wretched condition of the people imprisoned in the concentration camps. What was the position of the Irish Members? Not even their greatest enemy would say they had had one voice for the hill-Bides of Ireland and another for the House of Commons. From the beginning they had proclaimed the detestation of their people for this war.

MR. SPEAKER

The question is not as to the justice or popularity of the war, but whether or not Lord Kitchener should have this money voted to him.

MR. POWER

said he was endeavouring to show that in opposing the war the Irish Members were speaking for the people by whom they were sent to the House of Commons.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to the question of the grant to Lord Kitchener.

MR. POWER

contended that the war had not redounded to the credit of British arms, and future generations would declare that Lord Kitchener's conduct of the war, and his action in placing hostages on trains, and so forth, did not reflect any credit upon him. Irish blood had been most lavishly spilt, but it had never been spilt in a more unworthy cause.

MR. SPEAKER

I have twice called the hon. Member to order, and must have made it quite clear to him that it is not in order to go into a discussion of the rights of the war. The only question is the conduct of the general to whom it is now proposed to vote money.

MR. POWER

said that he voted against the grant to his own countryman, Lord Roberts, and he should certainly vote against the grant to Lord Kitchener. Although those who protested might be a small minority in this country, he believed they represented the view taken by the rest of the civilised world.

MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)

would not like it to be said that the only voices in opposition to this grant came from Ireland, because there was in Great Britain a strong feeling of resentment amongst the thinking section of the working classes against it. He opposed the grant on principle. Lord Kitchener was paid for being a general, and when engaged in the dirty and disgraceful work of war he was simply doing that for which he was paid. He (the hon. Member) objected to the military section of the servants of the State being singled out for these special rewards. Men who made great discoveries in science or mechanics conferred much greater benefit on the race than those who headed an array engaged in slaying and burning, but they were not rewarded in this way. Moreover, in the course of a few weeks there would be returning home 100,000 men who, in the war, had done as much for king and country as had Lord Kitchener. What would be their prospect? Trade depressed, wages going down, taxes and the cost of living going up, but no grant as a reward for their services. ["Yes, there is."] There was to be given to each man a sum about sufficient to buy a suit of clothes in which to start work again. It was more an insult than a grant when compared with the Vote to the Commander-in-Chief. In Sheffield a fund bad been opened in order to feed, by charity, the working men there who were unable to find employment. Was it a proper time, when such steps were necessary, to vote this enormous sum to a man who had done no more than his duty? Some of them thought he had done that duty in such a way as not to bring credit upon the country by which he was employed; but, apart from that, the best that could be said of Lord Kitchener simply amounted to this—that he had proved to be the one fairly satisfactory general among the ruck of incapables who had been sent to South Africa.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)

said that his objection to this Vote had nothing whatever to do with the abhorrence he had always felt for the war. Whoever was responsible for the war, Lord Kitchener was not. The House bad now to judge only of the conduct of Lord Kitchener as a soldier, and it was from that point of view he was unable to support the Vote. For a year and three-quarters he had had 300,000 or 400,000 men under his command, while the force opposed to him consisted of 30,000 or 40,000 farmers, and that fact alone suggested the question of whether this Vote was justifiable. But his chief objection was as to the methods by which Lord Kitchener had carried on the war, especially as to farm-burning, concentration camps, and the murder—he could call it nothing less—of men like Scheepers and Lotter. No other civilised army, in modern times, had been put to the work to which Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener had put the British troops in the way of farm-burning. It was not the pro-Boers alone who had denounced the practices to which he objected as making war on women and children. They had been condemned by Lord Clive and Lord Napier, and, even in connection with the present war, by the late Field Marshal Sir Neville Chamberlain. They were contrary to the usages of civilised warfare, and against the agreement of the Hague Convention. The concentration camps were the direct result of the policy of farm-burning. As to Scheepers and Lotter, they were simply charged with doing what the British army had done again and again, and it looked as though, because they were able and efficient opponents, these charges had been trumped up against them in order that they might be shot. These things were an indelible disgrace to Lord Kitchener and the honour of the British nation, and he would never vote a single farthing to an officer responsible for such deeds.

(11.57.) Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

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

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 239.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir A. F. Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Finch, George H. Macdona, John Cumming
Anson, Sir William Reynell Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fisher, William Hayes M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Arrol, Sir William Flannery, Sir Fortescue M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Asher, Alexander Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Majendie, James A. H.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W Manners, Lord Cecil
Bailey, James (Walworth) Furness, Sir Christopher Markham, Arthur Basil
Bain, Colonel James Robert Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Martin, Richard Biddulph
Balcarres, Lord Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Melville, Beresford Valentine
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml's Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Sal'p Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Banbury, Frederick George Goulding, Edward Alfred More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich'el Hicks Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morrell, George Herbert
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sb'ry Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Bignold, Arthur Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Mount, William Arthur
Bill, Charles Groves, James Grimble Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Muntz, Philip A.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Brassey, Albert Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Brookfield, Colonel Montague Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Nicol, Donald Ninian
Brotherton, Edward Allen Harris, Frederick Leverton O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Parkes, Ebenezer
Butcher, John George Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Helme, Norval Watson Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard
Cautley, Henry Strother Henderson, Alexander Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Hermon-Hodge, Robt, Trotter Pretyman, Ernest George
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Hoare, Sir Samuel Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Purvis, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Hogg, Lindsay Randles, John S.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Holland, William Henry Reid, James (Greenock)
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'd, Brightside Remnant, James Farquharson
Charrington, Spencer Hornby, Sir William Henry Renwick, George
Clive, Captain Percy A. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Richards, Henry Charles
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hoult, Joseph. Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Houston, Robert Paterson Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm Ropner, Col. Robert
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Round, James
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hudson, George Bickersteth Russell, T. W.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Johnston, William (Belfast) Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Cranborne, Viscount Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop.) Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Crossley, Sir Savile Kimber, Henry Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)
Denny, Colonel Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Lawson, John Grant Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)
Dickson, Charles Scott Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Spear, John Ward
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Dorington, Sir John Edward Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Doughty, George Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Strachey, Sir Edward
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Duke, Henry Edward Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lowe, Francis William Thornton, Percy M.
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Tollemache, Henry James
Faber, George Denison (York) Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred Valentia, Viscount
Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'd Whitmore, Charles Algernon Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Walker, Col. William Hall Willox, Sir John Archibald Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Warde, Colonel C. E. Wills, Sir Frederick
Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan Wilson, John (Falkirk) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Webb, Colonel William George Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Horniman, Frederick John O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Str'ud Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Malley, William
Ambrose, Robert Joicey, Sir James O'Mara, James
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Joyce, Michael O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Boland, John Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Power, Patrick Joseph
Burke, E. Haviland- Leamy, Edmund Reddy, M.
Caldwell, James Leigh, Sir Joseph Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Levy, Maurice Redmond, William (Clare)
Cawley, Frederick Lundon, W. Rickett, J. Compton
Channing, Francis Allston Macdonnell, Dr. Mark A. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Condon, Thomas Joseph MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roche, John
Crean, Eugene MacVeagh, Jeremiah Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Cremer, William Randal M'Kean, John Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Delany, William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Dillon, John Mansfield, Horace Rendall Shipman, Dr. John G.
Doogan, P. C. Mooney, John J. Stevenson, Francis S.
Edwards, Frank Moss, Samuel Sullivan, Donal
Ffrench, Peter Murnaghan, George Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nannetti, Joseph P. Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, Kendal (Tippera'y Mid White, Luke (York. E. R.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N)
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Dowd, John

(12.8.) Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided:—Ayes, 227; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 240.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Burdett-Coutts, W. Denny, Colonel
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Butcher, John George Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Caldwell, James Dickson, Charles Scott
Arkwright, John Stanhope Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Causton, Richard Knight Dorington, Sir John Edward
Arrol, Sir William Cautley, Henry Strother Doughty, George
Asher, Alexander Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cawley, Frederick Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Duke, Henry Edward
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Balcarres, Lord Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Edwards, Frank
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Channing, Francis Allston Faber, George Denison (York)
Banbury, Frederick George Charrington, Spencer Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward
Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks Clive, Captain Percy A. Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Coghill, Douglas Harry Finch, George H.
Bignold, Arthur Cohen, Benjamin Louis Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bill, Charles Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Fisher, William Hayes
Blundell, Colonel Henry Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Brassey, Albert Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John Cranborne, Viscount Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Fuller, J. M. F.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Crossley, Sir Savile Furness, Sir Christopher
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Goddard, Daniel Ford Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Levy, Maurice Ropner, Colonel Robert
Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Round, James
Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Russell, T. W.
Gore, Hn G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) Lowe, Francis William Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Goulding, Edward Alfred Loyd, Archie Kirkman Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Seely, Major J. E. B. (I. of Wight
Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Shaw Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Griffith, Ellis J. Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G Ellison Shipman, Dr. John G.
Groves, James Grimble Macdona, John Cumming Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill MacIver, David (Liverpool) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'sx M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.) Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Spear, John Ward
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Majendie, James A. H. Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Harris, Frederick Leverton Manners, Lord Cecil Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Mansfield, Horace Rendall Stevenson, Francis S.
Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.) Markham, Arthur Basil Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Helme, Norval Watson Martin, Richard Biddulph Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Henderson, Alexander Melville, Beresford Valentine Strachey, Sir Edward
Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hoare, Sir Samuel Molesworth, Sir Lewis Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Hogg, Lindsay More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Thornton, Percy M.
Holland, William Henry Morrell, George Herbert Tollemache, Henry James
Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Hornby, Sir William Henry Moss, Samuel Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Horniman, Frederick John Mount, William Arthur Valentia, Viscount
Houldsworth, Sir, Wm. Henry Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield
Hoult, Joseph Muntz, Philip A. Walker, Col. William Hall
Houston, Robert Paterson Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Warde, Colonel C. E.
Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Newdigate, Francis Alexander Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Nicol, Donald Ninian Webb, Colonel William George
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Parkes, Ebenezer Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Johnston, William (Belfast) Pearson, Sir Weetman D. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard Wills, Sir Frederick
Joicey, Sir James Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Pretyman, Ernest George Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Kimber, Henry Purvis, Robert Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Randles, John S. Wyndham Quin, Major W. H.
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Reid, James (Greenock)
Lawson, John Grant Remnant, James Farquharson
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Renwick, George TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Richards, Henry Charles
Leigh, Sir Joseph Rickett, J. Compton
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Joyce, Michael O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Ambrose, Robert Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) O'Malley, William
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Leamy, Edmund O'Mara, James
Boland, John Lundon, W. O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Burke, E. Haviland- MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Power, Patrick Joseph
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Reddy, M.
Condon, Thomas Joseph MacVeagh, Jeremiah Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Crean, Eugene M'Kean, John Redmond, William (Clare)
Cremer, William Randal M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Delany, William Mooney, John J. Roche, John
Dillon, John Murnaghan, George Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Doogan, P. C. Nannetti, Joseph P. Sullivan, Donal
Ffrench, Peter Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid
Flynn, James Christopher O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Gilhooly, James O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Dowd, John

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.