§ *(11.4.) MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley)
The question of South Africa is one of great importance, but we have also important interests in the Far East, and I do not think that in considering the Consolidated Fund Bill, No 1, it is unsuitable that I should ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for some statement as to the present situation in China. Early last year we were told by the Under Secretary of State that His Majesty's Government had assurances from the Russian Government that their occupation of Manchuria was of a purely temporary character, and that although a guarantee was expected by them that upon their withdrawal the disturbances should not break out again, yet that guarantee would not take the form of an acquisition of territory or of a virtual or actual protectorate in Manchuria. I should be glad if the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs can give us tonight any further information in regard to this particular point. It will be within the memory of the House that the Russians assumed the military and civil administration of Newchwang and that they still occupy and control that port, through which the British nation does £3,000,000 sterling a year in trade. It is the only treaty port in Manchuria, and with regard to that we had in February last a statement from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that—In respect to Newchwang His Majesty's Government have received assurances at least equal to those which have been given us in respect to the province of South Manchuria. We understand that the Russians are prepared to restore Newchwang at the end of their occupation precisely to its former condition.It would be satisfactory to know that negotiations are now proceeding for handing over Newchwang to the Chinese. Then, as the House knows, there is the question of the Shan-hai-kwan and Newchwang Railway, which was also taken possession of by Russia. The net earnings of this railway are part of the security held by the British bondholders, and it is 662 therefore of importance that the Chinese Government should receive back the railway, and the British bondholders should have restored to them the net earnings of the line. I should also like to hear something from the noble Lord as to the objection raised by Russia to the connecting of that railway with the city and port of Newchwang itself. It is difficult to understand what right a foreign Power has to dictate to the Chinese Government in this manner, and prevent them from doing what they consider desirable in extension of their railway system. I hope the noble Lord will be able to confirm the report that his Majesty's Government have proposed the appointment of Commissioners to consider the claim of Russia to the land at Tientsin, which is the property of the Northern Chinese Railway Company. I advocate the transfer back to the Chinese authorities of Tientsin and Newchwang, and also the Shan-hai-kwan Railway.
There is also another important question which has arisen recently, and that is the action of the Legation ladies in Peking. It is well known to the House that the Dowager Empress is almost wholly responsible for the massacres which took place during the recent crisis, not only of men and women but of many little children, and I say that it reflects no credit up on the Peking Legation ladies that they should feel it consistent with their duty to accept invitations to tea and presents of jewels for themselves and their children from the Dowager Empress. I believe that this kow-towing by the Legation ladies to the Dowager Empress will do much to detract from any effect that has been produced on the Chinese mind by the military operations in that country, and to prevent the reform of the Administration. Such practices ought to be strongly discountenanced.
As to Wei-Hai-Wei, I have always held that, while we debar ourselves from connecting it with the Hinterland behind it, that port is a mere white elephant. The First Lord of the Treasury said on the 29th of April, 1898—I am convinced (referring to Wei-Hai-Wei) that in any case, it must he, if naval complications should take place in the northern 663 China seas, a secondary naval base of infinite importance to this country.The real secret, of course, of the move of 1898 was contained in the famous telegram: Russia has taken Port Arthur. We want compensation. Take Wei-Hai-Wei.The acquisition of Wei Hai-Wei was announced with a great flourish of trumpets, as a sort of counterpoise to Port Arthur, and because it was thought it would give courage to the Chinese Government at Peking. Lord Salisbury, referring to Wei-Hai-Wei at a Primrose League gathering, after speaking upon the situation in China, said—I have asked you to judge by results, and I say that the possession of Wei-Hai-Wei, which we could defend, in place of Port Arthur, which we could not, is in itself a great result.What about the situation today, when we are told that, strategically considered, we ought not to undertake the defence of Wei-Hai-Wei at all? I hold the same opinion which I have always held, and it is that it would have been infinitely better if we were to hand back Wei-Hai-Wei to China, and acquire a secondary naval base at the mouth of the Yang-tsze River, where our interests predominate. I should be glad if the Under Secretary could hold out any hope in this direction.
As to the position of affairs of the great Yang-tsze Valley, originally supposed to be a special sphere of British influence, we made two agreements. There was the Anglo-Russian agreement, under which Russia was to have priority of right in the matter of railway construction north of the Great Wall of China, whilst she accorded to us similar priority of right in the Yang-tsze Valley. Then came the Anglo-German understanding, under which the Germans were accorded priority of right in Shan-tung and other districts, and Germany on her part agreed that Britishers should be accorded similar priority in the Yang-tsze Valley. Then came what the Germans call the Yang-tsze Valley agreement, but which we know as the Anglo - German agreement. That was entered into in order to maintain the territorial integrity of China and equal opportunities for the trade of all nations. The objects were excellent, but, 664 unfortunately, the German interpretation of that agreement has been very different from our own, and she has always held and indicated in the negotiations that she did not contemplate that Manchuria was included within the scope of the agreement.
The Anglo-German Agreement accorded to Russia the exclusive right of making railways north of the Great Wall, and accorded to Germany in Shan-tung the confirmation of existing treaty rights which were based, so far as Germany is concerned, upon the treaty of the 6th of June, 1898. Article 4 in that agreement, Count Von Bülow said, was the basis of their position in China. That Article stipulates that—If at any time the Chinese should form schemes for the development of Shan-tung, for the execution of which it is necessary to obtain foreign capital, the Chinese Government, or whatever Chinese are interested, shall, in the first instance, apply to German capitalists; also before approaching the manufacturers of any other Power application must first be made to German manfacturers for the necessary machinery and materials, and the Chinese shall only be permitted to obtain money and materials from sources other than German, after German capitalists and manufacturers have declined to undertake the business.What position does this leave us in? We, a great manufacturing nation, are told in this Article that whereas Germany has been professing the creed of the open door, German manufacturers are to be given a preference. I ask, have we the open door in any sense under the clause which I have read? It simply states that in any enterprise in that region German manufacturers must have the first right to supply the materials, and it is only when they do not see their way to undertake the business that British manufacturers will have a look in at all. That is a most unfortunate position, having regard to the importance of our commercial interests, for us to occupy as regards that great province of Shan-tung, with its population of 30,000,000. Naturally the German capitalists will take the cream of the enterprises, and we shall only got the skimmed milk.
Then there is also the very important question as to the Yang-tsze Valley and as to exactly how we stand there in 665 regard to Germany. Germany has disclosed that she claims this extraordinary exclusive and preferential right in the province of Shan-tung. Germany also claims that the Anglo-German Agreement secures to German commerce and shipping free entry into the Yang-tsze River, and that it asserts equal economic rights for Germany in the Yang-tsze Valley. What becomes, then, of our claim of priority of right in railway construction in the Yang-tsze Valley which we have always been led to understand was set up and maintained under the several agreements concluded between us and Russia, and between this country and Germany? Germany considers that it is necessary to have a garrison at Shanghai on account of the importance of that place as a base for Germany. It is difficult to understand exactly what they mean by this. I think, however, that what I have said indicates that our commercial interests in the Yang-tsze Valley are threatened in a way and to a degree that we did not anticipate. What is our position in regard to China as a whole? We do not desire any preferential right as regards the commerce of that great Empire, but we desire that all nations should have an equal opportunity. If Russia and Germany are to have preferential rights in their own spheres, then I think we ought to claim to have a difference made in the Yang-tsze Valley in our favour in the matter of railway construction, whilst at the same time we seek to maintain the open door of commerce generally throughout the whole Empire of China.
Another matter to which I should like to call the attention of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs is the question of this somewhat serious rebellion which has arisen in Southern China. With regard to Hong Kong, with the hinterland of Kwang-Tung and the adjoining Yang-tsze valley there has arisen in these provinces a somewhat serious rebellion, the end of which, or the extent of which, we do not yet know, but I trust the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be able to assure us tonight that by the effective patrol of the West River by a sufficient number of His Majesty's gunboats British interests in that important region are being sufficiently safeguarded 666 and protected. It is within the memory of the House that there have been repeated attacks by pirates, even upon British ships, on the West River. For the protection of our commerce in the present emergency there should be an adequate number of British gunboats in Cantonese waters and patrolling the West River.
Another important matter under consideration in China is the revision of the commercial treaty. I rejoice to know that we have representing this country a man of great business capacity and experience in Sir James Mackay to negotiate for the revision of that particular treaty. I am glad to gather from the noble Lord in his answer to one or two questions, that in return for the increase in the import duty into China, His Majesty's Government are fully alive to securing the total abolition of likin, so that the payment of the import duty shall free goods altogether, no matter what part of China they go to. Again there is a question which, I am sure, the Under Secretary has by no means lost sight of, and that is the extreme importance of having the inland water ways of China completely open to trade. There is one point I should like the Under Secretary to note which is not receiving attention, and that is the question of taking care that under the new treaty the same increased import duty shall be put on all goods, whether passed over the land frontiers of China or entered by sea. At the present moment both Russia and France have their goods which are passed over the land frontiers admitted at two thirds the rate of duty which is charged on goods entering China by sea. Supposing we agree finally to a 15 per cent. import duty, and that the goods of France and Russia coming over the frontiers were admitted at two thirds the sea-board rate of duty, that would place British commerce and the commerce of Japan and other nations except France and Russia at a considerable disadvantage. Then, again, in connection with the revision of this commercial treaty, I should be glad if His Majesty's Government would at the time of negotiation and settlement secure from the Chinese Government a definite undertaking in regard to all British railway 667 concessions in respect of which preliminary contracts have been obtained that the final contracts shall be concluded on equal terms and conditions as I previously granted to any other Power. I think that this, in the interest of British commerce, is a point of extreme importance.
There are other questions which I believe are having very careful consideration, and one of them is the establishment of international conservancy boards to remove obstructions of navigation in the great rivers of China. Boards are being constituted already in connection with giving an effective 5 per cent. duty on goods. Boards have been formed to improve the Pei river up to Tientsin and the waterways leading to Shanghai. I think we should go further, and we should increase the duty from 5 per cent. to a higher rate, condititionally on the establishment of International Conservancy Boards to deal with the obstructions to navigation on the Yang-tsze and the Yellow and West Rivers. On all the great rivers of China, trade might be enormously developed. Then there is the extension of the postal and telegraph system in China on a reliable basis. It is of the highest importance that the postal and telegraph system should be in the hands of the Chinese themselves, and I would venture to suggest to the Under Secretary—it is not my own suggestion, but that of an hon. Member whom I see on the other side, the Member for Epsom—that an easy way of having the postal service of China improved would be that every Imperial Maritime Customs Station should have a telegraph and post office. The reason that I advocate this so strongly is that the Germans, Russians, and French are doing all they can to extend postal services of their own in China. I will tell you what happened to me in Persia as an illustration of how dangerous it is to allow the postal service of a country to pass into the hands of a foreign Power. I am distinctly informed that since my visit to Persia it is unsafe for me to send letters which are carried by the Russian post to Teheran, and that it is unsafe to have letters sent to mo by that 668 means from Teheran to England. I wish that we should safeguard ourselves in China so far as we can from circumstances of this sort applying to British letters. I notice in connection with the allocation of the Chinese indemnity that, strange to say, out of the eighteen million taels which China is to pay, no less than nine millions have to be found by the Yang-tsze provinces, where the viceroys throughout the crisis maintained perfect order and safety for life and property. It is a very hard tax upon them, and will do much to create an anti-foreign feeling in the-part of China which hitherto has been friendly. Whilst this huge impost has been placed on those well-ordered provinces, the great province of Manchuria has not to pay a single farthing. That looks very suspicious, and I regret to notice that it is so.
There is the question of the settlement of private indemnity claims. Many of those who have lost their all are in dire straits because they can get no assurance whatever from his Majesty's Government as to when these indemnities are to be paid. If the Government would give some sort of assurance that the claims which have been established will shortly be paid, and state the amount agreed upon in each-case, it will enable those people to-obtain advances from bankers on the security of the amounts which are to come to them.
There is only another point I will refer to, and that is the question of the Anglo Japanese Agreement. How much bettor it would have been if the Government had taken the strong advice which I ventured to give them over and over again years ago. How much better it would have been if, instead of concluding this Agreement just the other day, we had joined hands with Japan at the time when Russia ordered our ships of war out of Port Arthur. If we had joined hands then, the situation would have been vastly different today. I am personally rejoiced at the conclusion of this Agreement, which is a measure of precaution for safeguarding the great commercial interests of the country by creating a balance of power in the far East. It will do much, in my opinion, to guarantee peace, to maintain the territorial 669 integrity of China, and the open door to the trade of all nations on equal terms. We know that since this Agreement was concluded the United States of America heartily support the principles laid down, and if they are not formal parties to it, we shall have their strong moral support in maintaining the state of things in China contemplated by the agreement. I am extremely glad to see from this morning's papers that the Governments of France and Russia have issued a Note in which they also say that after examining the Anglo-Japanese Agreement they—Have been fully satisfied at finding therein an affirmation of the essential principles which they themselves on more than one occasion have declared to constitute, and which remain, the basis of their policy.That is a most satisfactory statement on the part of the Governments of Russia and France. They also announce that they will act together as allies in the far East. I do not think that is any news at all. We have for years regarded them not only as allies in Europe but in the far East. We have England and Japan on the one hand allied not to support a policy of menace and aggression, but merely to uphold the territorial integrity of China and the open door. We have the United States of America strongly in favour of this policy, and we have Russia and France declaring that this is what they have desired all along and that it is still the basis of their policy. I think, therefore, I was justified when the first announcement of this Agreement was made in stating in this House that in my opinion we should heartily congratulate His Majesty's Government on having concluded so wise and statesmanlike an Agreement for safeguarding British interests in the far East.
*(11.40.) THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CEANBORNE,) Rochester
I will endeavour to answer the questions which in very moderate language the hon. Gentleman opposite has asked in respect to China. With regard to several of these subjects I have had the honour of answering questions put in the ordinary course and of dealing with them in some detail. I need not say that in respect of Manchuria, the policy of His Majesty's Government is the same as it has always 670 been, and that we look to the Russian Government to fulfil the policy which they have declared to be theirs, which consists, as the House is aware, of restoring Manchuria under certain conditions to the position in which it was before the late troubles began. I have no reason to suppose that the Russian Government have altered or have receded from that view. I am well aware that negotiations are proceeding at this moment between the Russian and the Chinese Governments with a view to carrying it into effect. We most reluctantly admit that we are still in, as it were, a transitional period between the state of war which existed immediately after the troubles and the re-establishment of the normal state of things in China. What I have said, of course, of Manchuria generally applies to the port of Newchwang in particular, and also to the important railway which goes from Newchwang north of the wall. As far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we see no reason why the Chinese Government should not be entitled to arrange their railway system in the way they think right, and that view represents the policy which His Majesty's Government will pursue.
The next question of the hon. Gentleman had reference to the evacuation of Tientsin by the allied forces. I believe almost every Power in Europe is exceedingly anxious to evacuate Tientsin, and to reduce the number of European troops generally in Chili to the figure which has been fixed upon as the proper garrison on the part of the European Powers during the next few years. It has been suggested, no doubt, that it would not be well to evacuate Tientsin until we are assured that the arrangements for the military occupation of Chili are complete, and until the regulation of the waterway of the Pei-ho is further advanced. But I do not think that these reasons need arrest the process of evacuation, because for a long time back the arrangements for the distribution of the European troops in Chili have been fixed upon, and the improvement of the approaches of the Pei-ho is in a forward stage, both of investigation and, indeed, of works begun. So that the Government look forward at no distant date to the evacuation of 671 Tientsin, or rather to a reduction of the troops at Teintsin to the figure fixed upon by mutual agreement with the Powers as a suitable garrison during the next few years.
The hon. Gentleman then spoke of the action of certain ladies in Peking in attending an audience given by the Empress of China. It was not only the ladies who attended the audience, but the Ministers themselves also attended at the Court. The hon. Gentleman thinks that was a very improper proceeding.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTON
Of course it is necessary for our diplomatic representatives to attend the Court in China; but it is not necessary that the ladies and children of the Legation should go to afternoon tea with the Empress who is responsible for the recent massacres in China.
§ * LORD CRANBORNE
I think I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, and I beg his pardon. I am glad he recognises the fact that it is proper, and, indeed, inevitable that those accredited to the Court of China should recognise, as all envoys do, the proper observances due to the Court to which they are accredited. Diplomatic relations would be impossible under any other circumstances. The ladies of the Legation, as the House is probably aware, are really a part of the Legation, and a large portion of the duties of the Legation, on the social side, fall of necessity upon the wives of the Minister and his staff. To attempt to draw a distinction between the ladies and gentlemen of the Legation in such circumstances is, I think, rather stretching the matter too far.
The hon. Gentleman next spoke of Wei-Hai-Wei, and he asked me to give him some explanation on that head. As far as I can understand, the hon. Gentleman himself has never been in favour of the occupation of Wei-Hai-Wei. I think I might almost have left the matter there, and have congratulated the Government and myself, that the foreign policy of the Government had 672 commended itself to the hon. Gentleman; but the hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the reason why the fortifications of Wei-Hai-Wei are no longer proceeded with, is that those who advise the Government in naval matters have come to the conclusion that strategically such a course would be a mistake. Whether at some future date these works shall be resumed, is, of course, a matter for future consideration, but for the present, I have no doubt that those who are experts in this matter are well advised in having induced the Government to abandon an expenditure which in their judgment would be unprofitable.
Then the hon. Gentleman spoke of our position in the Yang-tsze Valley, and the Province of Shan-tung and he cited, first of all, the terms of the Anglo-Russian understanding, and he cited them quite correctly. Then he referred to the Anglo-German understanding, but he did not refer to the terms of that understanding quite correctly. According to the Anglo-German understanding, which was merely an understanding between two syndicates, countersigned by the respective Governments to which they belonged, a particular line which passed through Shan-tung, or which was proposed to be carried through Shan-tung to the Yang-tsze Valley, was allotted in part to the German syndicate, namely, that part in Shan-tung, and in part to the British syndicate, namely, that part which was proposed to run to the Yang-tsze Valley. The understanding went no further than that.
§ * MR. JOSEPH WALTON
I have the quotation from the Anglo-German understanding which defines the respective spheres of interest of the two countries with regard to railway construction, the Germans undertaking not to compete with England in the English sphere, which is the Yang-tsze Valley, and certain connecting lines, and the English agreeing not to interfere in the German sphere, which is described as the Province of Shan-tung and the Hoang-ho Valley.
§ * LORD CRANBORNE
The hon. Gentleman will observe that the understanding was between these two syndicates and had no general reference to the two countries which countersigned it. It was an ordinary trade arrangement between two competing syndicates, and it acquired much greater importance than would otherwise have belonged to it, because it was endorsed by the two Governments. But because the Governments endorsed the agreement, that did not extend it beyond the subject matter of the understanding, which was strictly limited, and which was never intended to extend to the whole Province of Shantung on the one hand, or to the whole of the Yang-tsze Valley on the other.
Therefore I submit that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect, and that being so, I find no declaration of the German Government which is inconsistent with the view I have stated. Indeed, we have the Gorman view as to the province of Shantung on the highest evidence. As the hon. Member, who pays great attention to these subjects, is aware, the German Chancellor, in a speech a short time ago, described in some detail what the commercial claims of Germany in the Province of Shan-tung really amounted to, and he used these words—Germany demands in Shan-tung as elsewhere only the open door; that is to say the same liberty for commercial activity that we do not challenge in the case of any other States in the Province of Shan-tung and other portions of the Chinese Empire.It will be observed that the German Chancellor stated that all nations are to be in the same position in Shan-tung, as all nations are in other parts of the Chinese Empire. He went on to describe the nature of the concessions enjoyed by certain syndicates in Shan-tung—very limited concessions—and he concluded that passage of his speech by saying—There is, therefore, no question of exclusive German rights in Shan-tuug.Those are the observations of the German Chancellor, and, as was stated on my behalf a short time ago, there is no doubt all concessions are in their nature and essence of an exclusive character, but that applies to all concessions, and it cannot be said the German claim extends beyond that limited interpretation or that Germany has closed the "open door" in respect of the Province of Shan-tung.
674 The hon. Gentleman asked me as to the patrolling of the Yang-tsze. There are now three gunboats on the river. He also spoke of the rebellion in Southern China. We have reason to believe that the reports are very much exaggerated, but we are making further inquiries. Then he asked me about trade facilities. At this late hour it is not necessary for me to go into that question specially, as I had an opportunity of stating the position of the Government with respect to it on the Supplementary Estimates a few weeks ago. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to private claims for compensation in China. The Government, as well as the hon. Gentleman, feel the greatest concern and sympathy with the poor people who have made these claims. I think there will be no difficulty in their getting the amounts they have claimed, and the Government are seeking some method by which the most deserving claims should be satisfied before the others.
The only other matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman was the Anglo-Japanese Agreement, on which I made a very long statement not very long ago. I can only congratulate the House on the way that Agreement has been received in the country and by Europe, including the two foreign Powers who have published in the public Press this morning so warm an assent to the principles embodied in the Agreement.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)
I think the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has not given us a very correct account as to the position of this country with regard to Manchuria. For instance, he stated that we are in the same position as we were before the disturbances broke out. But what I wish to point out to the noble Lord is that, apart altogether from the disturbances, it is undoubtedly the intention and the right of Russia to fortify her railway against attacks from the Manchurians; and, more especially, Russia is entitled to fortify her railway to Port Arthur in view of the possibility of war with Japan, because if war breaks out between Russia and Japan, Port Arthur will be the first point that Japan will attack. You cannot have a railway in China 675 without protecting it. Does the Government imagine that Germany will not protect her railway in Shan-tung, and is Russia not quite as justified in protecting her railway down to Port Arthur? It is a different question from annexing Manchuria, or undertaking the government of that country. I believe Russia is quite willing not to attempt to interfere with the government of Manchuria, but she is determined to insist on a protective
§ force for her railway. I hope, therefore, the Government will not consider that they have any right or title to object to Russia fortifying her railway or making herself impregnable at Port Arthur.
§ (12.0) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 240; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 83.)677
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Chapman, Edward||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)|
|Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden||Charrington, Spencer||Goschen, Hon. George, Joachim|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Gretton, John|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Greville, Hon. Ronald|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Austin, Sir John||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Groves, James Grimble|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Guthrie, Walter Murray|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cranborne, Viscount||Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Crossley, Sir Savile||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Cust, Henry John C.||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Bignold, Arthur||Dickson, Charles Scott||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)|
|Bill, Charles||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Black, Alexander William||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon||Henderson, Alexander|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dorington, Sir John Edward||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Bond, Edward||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hope, J. F. (S'effield, Brightside|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Dunn, Sir William||Hoult, Joseph|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Howard, John (Kent, Favers'am|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Hudson, George Bickersteth|
|Brymer, William Ernest|
|Bull, William James||Edwards, Frank|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick|
|Butcher, John George||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Johnston, William (Belfast)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Caine, William Sproston||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Caldwell, James||Finch, George H.||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.|
|Carlile, William Walter||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Keswick, William|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Knowles, Lees|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Flower, Ernest|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire||Forster, Henry William|
|Cawley, Frederick||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick. S. W||Lambert, George|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Garfit, William||Lawson, John Grant|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Parkes, Ebenezer||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Partington, Oswald||Spear, John Ward|
|Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Pemberton, John S. G.||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Percy, Earl||See wart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Lang, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Plummer, Walter R.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Lowe, Francis William||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Stroyan, John|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Priestley, Arthur|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Purvis, Robert|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E)|
|Randles, John S.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|M'Crae, George||Rankin, Sir James||Thornton, Percy M.|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Ratcliff, R. F.||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Majendie, James A. H.||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Malcolm, Ian||Rensbaw, Charles Bine|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Renwick, George||Valentia, Viscount|
|Martin, Richard Biddulph||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Massey-Mainwaring. Hn. W. F.||Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green|
|Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Rigg, Richard|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Middlemore, J'hn Throgmorton||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Milvain, Thomas||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Mitchell, William||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Moon, Ed ward Robert Pacy||Robson, William Snowdon||Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne|
|More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Morgan, David J (Walt'amstow||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Round, James||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.|
|Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Moss, Samuel||Russell, T. W.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Moulton, John Fletcher||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Mount, William Arthur||Wood, James|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Myers, William Henry||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight|
|Seton-Karr, Henry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.|
|Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Nicol, Donald Ninian||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Smith, H C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Donnoll, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Joyce, Michael||O'Dowd, John|
|O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Labouchere, Henry||O'Malley, William|
|Blake, Edward||Lundon, W.||O'Mara, James|
|Boland, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Clancy, John Joseph||M'Cann, James||Reddy, M.|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Govern, T.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Mooney, John J.||Roche, John|
|Delany, William||Murphy, John|
|Doogan, P. C.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Ffrench, Peter||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.||Tully, Jasper|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|White, Patrick (Meath, North|
|Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
Bill read the third time and passed.