HC Deb 21 October 1902 vol 113 cc425-41


Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th October], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed.

(9.0.) MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

resuming the speech he was delivering on Monday when the debate was adjourned, said the Bill, at first sight, seemed a very small matter, but it was nothing of the kind. It was a hardy annual of the most improper character. The bringing in of the Women's Franchise Bill year after year could be understood, but this Bill was a most delightful example of the illogical nature of the British Constitution and the illogical nature of the British Parliament. Some of the Acts in this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill were good Acts, but there were some very, very bad ones. If there were good Acts in the Schedule they ought in a frank and honest way to be placed upon the Statute Book, while the bad ones should not be renewed. There was the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Act. That might or might not be a good Act, but it was an Act of enormous importance, and one which the majority of the Irish people believed to be a good Act. Why should a measure of that kind be held in a state of suspended animation? If it was an Act good for Ireland, an Act of which the majority of the Irish people approved, it should have a permanent place on the Statute Book. At present they did not know whether it was going to be the law of the land from year to year, for an Amendment might at any time be moved by a clever and ingenious Parliamentarian to strike it out of the Schedule of this Bill. There were a number of Acts in this Bill which ought to be dealt with at once. There were Acts going back to 1855, with Amendments carrying them on to 1885. The Linen Manufacturers' Act of Ireland had been carried on by fragmentary and most unsatisfactory legislation of this kind. Would not the proper thing be to consolidate these Acts once and for all and bring them into one short Act, and make them the Statute law of the land?. There were many Acts to which he might refer, but there was one—the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act—1881, the continuance of which by the Government required some explanation. What was the position with regard to that Act? Rightly or wrongly it was passed twenty-one years ago. Certain arguments wore brought forward in favour of it, but would those arguments prevail now? It was not a Peace Preservation Act, but an Act relating to the carrying and possession of arms, and in Ireland it was commonly called the Arms Act. That Act remained in force in Ireland. As the outcome of the War, they had rifle clubs established in England and Scotland. Why should they not have rifle clubs in Ireland? With this Act they could not have rifle clubs, and could not even carry a revolver, sword, or dagger.


Order, Order. It is not open to the hon. Member to discuss the merits of the Acts. That can be done by moving an Amendment to omit them on the Committee Stage.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N)

There is a precedent in 1874.


Whatever may have been done in 1874, it was not allowed in 1887.


The rule was broken by Mr. Disraeli.


said the Arms Act might have been a good Act twenty years ago, but was it right that no one should be allowed to carry arms now without the consent of a magistrate? These Acts were passed as temporary measures in exceptional circumstances, but they had never been reviewed since, and had been carried on from year to year without any addition to the argument which gave them birth. In session and out of session they must raise their protest against this archaic method of legislation and this slipshod manner of dealing with the people. He knew the one thing a British statesman abhorred was that thing called logic, but, as a logician, he protested against the frame of mind which induced them to legislate in this haphazard manner. The measure he had last referred to worked great mischief, and ought to be altered, and he protested against an Act which prevented the people of Ireland as freemen having the right to carry arms, a right enjoyed by every freeman in every civilized country.


said he had no intention of discussing the merits of any Act in the Schedule of this Bill, but he did think the time had come when the House should ask itself whether that Schedule ought not to be revised. He had risen with the sole purpose of pointing out that among the Acts in the Schedule of the Bill was the Ballot Act of 1872. The explanation of the inclusion of that Act in the Schedule was that an Amendment was moved in the House of Lords—an unconstitutional Amendment, in his opinion—which made the Act temporary; but to call the Ballot Act, which had been on the Statute Book thirty years, a temporary measure was a monstrosity. Ho thought that the next time the Bill was brought in the Schedule should be revised, and such Acts as the Ballot Act be made perpetual. He hoped that the Government would give this matter consideration.


wished to say a few words in support of the suggestion of his hon. friend the Member for Dundee, for this Bill was the means of constantly bringing before the House two classes of Acts-—one class which ought to be permanently on the Statute Book and the other a class of legislative lumber which ought to be cleared away as rapidly as possible. Among the Acts in the Schedule which ought to be made perpetual was the Poor Rate Exemption Act of 1840, under which personal property, such as stocks and shares, were exempted from poor-rate. That Act was the basis at this moment of our system of taxation, and it was astounding that for so many successive years it had only been kept alive by means of an annual measure. Among the lumber in the Schedule which should be removed was the Linen Manufacturers Act, which laid down regulations absolutely inconsistent with the present character of the business; the Promissory Notes Act, and the Militia Ballot Act, and another measure of an equally obsolete character, viz., the Act for the regulation of locomotives on the highways. Under it locomotives were restricted to a speed of four miles an hour in the country and two miles an hour in towns. If that meant anything it meant that the motoring of today was illegal. The fact was the laws of this country required consolidation and codification, and he earnestly hoped that the Government would take this matter in hand.

(9.30.) MR. T. M. HEALY

said that Lord Carnarvon in 1873, in the House of Lords, entered an emphatic protest against this system of legislating by means of an expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Bill to which Lord Carnarvon referred contained the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, and thirty-four other measures, exactly the same number as were contained in the present Bill. Since the noble Lord's protest was made in 1873 they had not got a bit further in the way of a reform of the system. It was formerly the practice of this House never to pass a Bill of this kind except after it had been carefully considered in Committee. In 1873, Mr. Disraeli and Lord Salisbury were rather coquetting for the Irish vote, and Lord Salisbury also entered a strong protest against the inclusion in the Continuance Bill of the Peace Preservation Act. He said that he objected to the vicious practice of including so many Acts in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which afforded the Government an opportunity of smuggling Acts, against which there was very considerable objection, too quietly through the House. In the following year they had the pledges of Mr. Disraeli, Lord Salisbury, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Sir M. Hicks-Beach, who was then Irish Secretary, that the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act would not be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. When the Bill was brought in in 1874, Mr. Disraeli had taken office, and of course everybody remembered the protest that had been made by Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, and how he had been answered by Lord Kimberley. Mr. Butt, who was a great constitutional lawyer, was allowed to move— That in the opinion of this House it is inexpedient that when important Acts of Parliament have been passed for a limited period, any of such Acts, especially those conferring on the Executive extraordinary powers, should be included in a general Bill for the continuance of expiring laws, brought in at the close of the session, without affording any fair opportunity of considering the propriety of their discontinuance or their modification. Motions were afterwards made by Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Butt to omit parts of the Act which were objected to. He was well aware that since that time successive Speakers by successive rulings had attempted to restrict the right of this High Court of Parliament to discuss the Acts contained in the Continuance Bill, but with regard to the pledges which were given in 1874 by the Conservative Ministry as to Irish exceptional legislation, he maintained that the whole of the Conservative party were bound by these pledges. On July 25th, 1874, Captain Nolan moved that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be read a second time that day three months. He would not go into the hon. Gentleman's argument, but it turned largely on the point that there was no crime in Ireland. Sir Stafford Northcote in reply said, as reported in (3)Debates, ccxxi., 725— That he quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that care ought to be taken that measures should not be introduced unnecessarily by a Bill of the kind, which must lead to a discussion of various subjects. … It was possible that they might find that that system was carried rather too far, and that point he undertook to say should receive careful consideration. And then he went on to suggest that hon. Members in Committee might very properly move Amendments for the purpose of striking out certain portions of the Acts to which they objected. The Attorney-General of the day justified the continuance of the Peace Preservation Act on the ground that a murder had been committed. Mr. Disraeli came into the House later in the debate and apologised for his absence. He said— He would be happy to make a suggestion which he thought would meet the case. He remembered very well the remarks of his colleagues (Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon) in the House of Lords, and he could not say that he disagreed with them. He was perfectly ready to say that those two Acts [the Arms Act and the Master and Servants Act] should no longer be contained in a Continuance Bill It was twenty-eight years since that promise was made, and he was sorry to say that successive administrations had not adhered to it. Mr. Disraeli went on to say— That if any continuance were wanted, which he should regret, they should be brought in separately at an early period of the session, when there would be an opportunity of discussing their merits. When the Bill got into Committee later on there was further discussion on it, and the Attorney-General for Ireland said on July;30th—(reported in the same volume at page 982)— The Prime Minister had given a distinct assurance that if it should be proposed to renew these Acts in another session a separate Bill should be brought in to effect such renewal.… He was prepared to say that the whole of this subject ought to be reviewed, and every one of these Bills examined by the Government, with a searching inquiry into the different places at present proclaimed. There had been no such suggestion in regard to the present Bill, which the First Lord of the Treasury had moved by a simple nod of the head. Another promise was made by Sir Stafford Northcote, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that, in point of fact, the expressions he had used in regard to this kind of legislation were in strict conformity with the remarks made by Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon in the previous year. He entirely agreed—and he spoke for his colleagues as well as for himself—that it was important that they should put a check on what appeared to be an abuse of their system, of renewing Acts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say— There was a decided feeling on the part of the Government that a check ought to be put on that system of legislation. But with regard to those Irish Acts, his right hon. friend at the head of the Government had promised that they should not on any future occasion be put into an ordinary Omnibus Continuance Bill, but if it was desirable to renew them that they should be dealt with separately. Then Mr. Henley, the Member for Oxfordshire, who was the parent of the remark that when he could not argue against a particular Bill he would lie on his back and cry "fudge," said— It was a grave question whether the list of expiring laws contained in the Annual Continuance Bill had not grown to an inconvenient length and did not contain many Acts which had better be left out of it. In the course of the same debate in Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said— In accordance with the statement which he made early in the evening, the Government did not desire to carry this practice of continuing important laws by a mere Continuance Bill further than it has been hitherto carried, but rather to restrict it, and on proper occasions, at a future time, to bring laws which are of importance more directly and conveniently under the notice of the House. Sir Stafford Northcote wound up by saying that— It was not the intention of the Government to propose a continuance of these Irish Acts again, and he asked the Irish Members to believe— that the Government were speaking in good faith. Were they speaking in good faith? Sir Stafford Northcote was dead, Mr. Disraeli was dead, and Lord Salisbury had retired from political life, but though the question had been reverted to again and again during the past twenty-eight years there, were still exactly the same number of Acts included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill as there were at that day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who got up on the hustings and swore by the memory of Lord Beaconsfield, when reminded of dicta of this description, would probably turn round and say that they were only speaking in an Irish sense ‡ Mr. Disraeli said the same thing over and over again, and on the Third Reading of the Bill in a speech reported in the same volume of Hansard, p. 1076, he dealt, first, with the question of the general policy of expiring laws, and next with the general policy of exceptional legislation for Ireland, and then went on to say— Now, leaving the question of Continuance Acts, I come to the much greater question of Coercion Acts. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, I will not say pressed the Government for an expression of their policy on that subject, but he has very frankly announced that the time will come, and is not far distant, when we must, of course, express our opinions on the matter. When the time comes we shall express our opinion. And he gave a pledge again that these Acts should not be renewed. When dealing with Ireland, whose members must always be in a permanent minority in this House, he thought that if England could not keep faith with them at the time of the Treaty of Union, or the Treaty of Limerick, they might fairly expect the Conservative Government not to back out of the promises made twenty-eight years ago in regard to measures relating to Ireland, admittedly exceptional in character. By the ruling of the Chair it was impossible for them to discuss the merits of those Acts on the Second Reading of the Continuance Bill, and it was a denial of justice that Irish Members should be asked to discuss questions of great constitutional importance in a fragmentary way when a measure like the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was introduced. Lord Salisbury in a moment of darkness for this country two years ago recommended his fellow countrymen to form rifle clubs; the noble Lord did not say that Ireland was excepted; his general recommendation was that his fellow countrymen should be brought up to the practice of arms. He thought, especially when they knew that there was one particular corner in Ireland which had not been subjected to this particular form of legislation, although it was the most turbulent portion of Ireland, where men had sackfuls of arms, and on 12th July had sometimes even fired cannons——


Order, order‡ the hon. Member is not in order in making these observations.


said that this was a portion of the great difficulty in which the Irish Members were placed. He respectfully said that the mere fact that such a ruling had been given by the Chair was the best condemnation of this class of legislation. They were not allowed to discuss the Acts embraced in the Continuance Bill, and he respectfully made his protest against this system of legislation, and against the practice of relying on those great constitutional authorities.

(9. 55.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member has had a long Parliamentary experience, and he possesses great Parliamentary ability, but the task he has set himself to perform tonight is nothing more formidable or difficult than to show that our present system of continuing, from year to year, a large number of statutes which no human being expects or desires to see repealed, is by no means a reasonable or rational method of carrying on public business. I agree, and I do not believe there is a single Member of the House who dissents from that view. I cannot imagine, for instance, that anyone should suppose that the Ballot Act should really be regarded as a temporary measure, to be continued casually, year after year, or to be dropped if the passing mood desires it; for, manifestly, it has now become an essential part of the constitution of the country, not again to be changed except after mature deliberation and careful debate. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he knows well enough that the Parliamentary difficulties of successive Governments in long succession, lasting far beyond the memory of probably every man I am now addressing, have forced that course upon us. These Parliamentary difficulties are not diminishing, they are increasing. There are thirty-five measures included in this Bill, the greater part of them very important, some of them very controversial. We have now been, I am afraid to say how many months, discussing seven clauses and a quarter of one single Bill. How is the business of the country to be conducted if it takes you so long to deal with a measure, controversial in its substance but very modest in its proportions, if, in addition to new legislation which from time to time the House may require to discuss, you are to have a controversial debute upon the thirty-five measures embodied in this Bill? The thing is not business, it is not practicable, it cannot be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ‡"] I gather from that cheer that hon. Members think the task would be easy if they were removed to a happier sphere, and were to have their own Expiring Laws Continuance Bill at College Green. It might be easier. I make full tribute to the contribution of hon. Members to our debates, but I do not think it would be easy even with a Parliament so relieved. The truth is, if you really mean in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to discuss the merits of the measures continued—and that is what the hon. Member means—not only the whole system of Parliamentary work would be dammed up, but you would have a stagnant lake instead of a moving and health-giving current. You would always go over the old ground, and you cannot carry on your work in that way. The problem which the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill raises is part of the larger problem connected with the codification and statute law revision and other matters; and with one of the objects, at all events, I have put down proposals for general acceptance in the new proposed Standing Orders which we have not yet had time to discuss. If the House is content to delegate some of its powers to a Committee of its own, and to restrict its own interference in its full corporate capacity to certain clear and definite issues not to be debated at great length, but to be divided upon, then this evil can be got over. But it cannot be got over at all if you are to go through the Bills seriatim, to state all that is to be said for and against them, added to suggestions to omit great portions of individual measures, and coupled with a general survey of the policy, as a whole, which they involve.


Why not make them perpetual?


You cannot make them perpetual. It would be easy to bring in a Bill to make them perpetual; but is the House prepared to do that without preliminary examination?


"Some of them."


Yes, but who is to select the some? Of course, there are some upon which we are all agreed; but you cannot deal with these matters in an off-hand manner, and certainly you cannot deal with them this session. Government after Government have failed to find the necessary time, and I say these matters can only be dealt with if the House consents to preliminary examination and consents not to revise clause by clause these thirty-five measures, or any large number or portions of them by subsequent discussion. I do not know that we have reached that period yet; the present session certainly is not available, and a plan for remedy cannot be found until the House is less occupied with first-class measures than it is at present. We cannot for some time to come attempt any remedy of the kind. We must follow the expedient, illogical, unjustifiable method adopted by our predecessors for carrying on the work of the country. This will not commend itself to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I do not ignore the difficulties he has stated and I associate myself with condemnation of the system. I do not, however, see a remedy until some preliminary examination can take place and the House is prepared so to arrange the issues to be discussed that they shall not take too large a portion of any particular session. No Government with large measures to bring forward can give up a session to the subject. We must find a method, not yet discovered, for dealing with the subject, and I greatly fear, after the experience we had at the beginning of the session, in regard to the amount of opposition we met with in our attempt to simplify procedure—I greatly fear, even if I were able to find a remedy, I should not be able to got the House to adopt it without prolonged fighting, which painful experience has taught me may compel Members to sit at times when they would rather be on holiday—for dealing with measures in which the country at large is deeply interested.

MR. FLETCHER MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)

said that the First Lord of the Treasury had defended an abuse by the method known to lawyers as "confession and avoidance." He frankly admitted that it was quite impossible to avoid the abuse. He himself had a very strong objection to such a method of legislation, but he quite agreed that if they were to waste a large portion of the time of the House in each session in dealing with the matter, it would be a great hardship. If the Government would, however, only take the responsibility on its own shoulders, there was a very easy method of putting an end to the abuse. They ought to have two Bills, one an Expiring Laws Perpetuation Bill, and the other an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Such Acts as the Ballot Act, and a number of other Acts in the Schedule ought, on the responsibility of the Government, to be extended not for one year, but perpetually, until the House had changed its mind in regard to them and had repealed them. There would be no more difficulty in passing an Expiring Laws Perpetuation Bill than there was now in passing an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Perpetuation Bill would include measures on which the country had from long use made up its mind, and the Continuance Bill would include measures on which the country was still in doubt, and which deserved only to be regarded as settled in a temporary way. He hoped that there would be a division on the Second Reading of the present Bill, as a protest against the slovenly method which heaped together in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill measures which ought to be rendered perpetual. The First Lord of the Treasury asked who was to decide; but what had they a Government for if it was not to decide such matters? If there were an Expiring Laws Perpetuation Bill, he was satisfied that it would be passed practically with the assent of the entire House, and even if there were some dispute, it would not be greater than that connected with the present Bill, and in this way work would be cleared for future sessions.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said he thought the House would feel that they were justified in raising a debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. The Government would not have put down the Bill as the first Order, if they had not expected a debate; and it was perfectly obvious that the question which had been raised was a very important one. The First Lord of the Treasury himself admitted the difficulty and importance of the matter, but he said that it was impossible to effect a remedy. His hon. and learned friend had pointed out a very simple remedy in regard to certain of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to the perpetuation of which the House would unquestionably unanimously assent. There were two classes of Acts which he thought might be taken out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There was for instance the Corrupt Practices Act, regarding which no less than five expiring laws were continued in the Bill. That was an Act which required codification; it was already practically the law of the country; and the House would pass it without any difficulty at all. Then there was another class of Acts which had been amended, some of them eight times and others five or six times, by subsequent Acts. One of their great difficulties as Members of Parliament was legislation by reference, which made it almost impossible to understand how a particular Act actually stood. In the schedule there were Acts passed fifty or sixty years ago, which were still referred to in Acts recently passed. Surely a very simple remedy for such a state of things would be to codify the various amending Acts in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and remove the difficulty of legislation by reference. He admitted that there was a third class of Acts which could not be dealt with in the manner suggested. He thought the House was not dealing fairly with such an Act as that which had been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth in continuing it year after year. That measure was passed on a distinct pledge being given to the House of Commons that it would be a temporary Act, and it was not fair or just that an Act of that kind, which affected the personal liberty of the person, and which was passed as a temporary Act, should be rendered permanent. He was very glad that the Government had given the House an opportunity of discussing the matter, and he hoped that the debate would lead to the removal of an abuse from their system of legislation.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said he did not intend to unduly prolong the discussion, as he was especially anxious to please the Leader of the House, who, during the absence of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford, who was attending Irish meetings in America and receiving telegrams from the President of the United States—in Ireland it would have been the plank bed; in America it was the hospitality of the White House—had admirably led the Irish Party. The acting Leader of the Irish Party on the Treasury Bench made a speech which was quite worthy of his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford, because it was a most admirable and well-conceived, though subtle plea for devolution and Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted the case against the present Bill. The Bill perpetuated a number of laws, which were obsolete and absolutely inapplicable to present-day conditions. It included measures which formed part of the indestructible and irrevocable law of the nation, and they were brought forward as if they were only temporary measures. Therefore the Bill had the double vice of perpetuating the obsolete, and of representing as temporary what was permanent. The First Lord of the Treasury admitted the case, but he made no reply to the main objection to the Bill from the Irish point of view. In addition to the obsolete laws which were perpetuated, and the perpetual laws which ought not to be represented as temporary, the Bill included fundamental and vital measures dealing with primordial liberties, which ought to be the subject of special legislation and duo discussion in this House. He was not going to discuss the merits or demerits of the peace proclamation measure, especially as they would have an opportunity of doing that in Committee; but he would say that an Act which was a restraint of the liberties of one part of the Empire in comparison with other parts of the Empire, was of such fundamental and supreme importance that it deserved butter than to be bundled among a number of obsolete measures. That was his point. He also thought he was entitled to say that an Act which the leaders of the Conservative Party solemnly pledged themselves to exclude from such a measure as the Ex-piring Laws Continuance Bill should not be included, and that the pledge which was given ought not to be nullified or negatived. He held that the Government of the day was as much hound in that manner as the Government of yesterday, or often or twenty years ago. They would divide against the Second Reading of this Bill, not because they were opposed to some of the measures mentioned in it, but because they wished to protest against that method of dealing with measures in restraint of the liberties of the Irish people. Those measures should not be bundled with the flotsam and jetsam of the antediluvian rubbish of

past legislation. The Crimes Act in Ireland, which was now in full operation, was a perpetual Act as far as legislation could make it perpetual. Supposing it was a measure which had been enacted for five years, would it be fair or tolerable that in the sixth year it should take its place among the other thirty-five measures in the present Bill. As he had said, in gratitude to the services which the Prime Minister had rendered to the Irish Party in denying them one day and giving them several, he did not propose to prolong the debate, but would content himself with voting against the Second Reading.

(10. 20.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes. 98. (Division List, No. 403.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Doughty, George Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th
Anson, Sir William Reynell Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Duke, Henry Edward Lawson, John Grant
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Arrol, Sir William Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Bailey, James (Walworth) Faber, George Denison (York) Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Balcarres, Lord Finch, George H. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lowe, Francis William
Balfour, Rt. HnGeraldW (Leeds Fisher, William Hayes Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Banbury, Frederick George FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Bignold, Arthur Flower, Ernest Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison
Bigwood, James Forster, Henry William Macdona, John Cumming
Blundell, Colonel Henry Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Brassey, Albert Gardner, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh W
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Goulding, Edward Alfred M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Greene, SirE W(B'ry S Edm'nds Malcolm, Ian
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Milvain, Thomas
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs. Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cavendish, V C W (Derbyshire Gretton, John More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Greville, Hon. Ronald Morrell, George Herbert
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Groves, James Grimble Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm Gunter, Sir Robert Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Worc Hall, Edward Marshall Murray, Rt Hn AGraham (Bute
Chapman, Edward Hamilton, RtHnLordG (Midl'x Myers, William Henry
Charrington, Spencer Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Nicol, Donald Ninian
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Parker, Sir Gilbert
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf o'd Pemberton, John S. G.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hare, Thomas Leigh Percy, Earl
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Colomb, SirJohn Charles Ready Hay, Hon. Claude George Plummer, Walter R.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Heath, ArthurHoward (Hanley Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Hoare, Sir Samuel Pretyman, Ernest George
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hogg, Lindsay Purvis, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Randles, John S.
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hoult, Joseph Rankin, Sir James
Crossley, Sir Savile Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm Rasch, Major Frederic Came
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hudson, George Bickersteth Reid, James (Greenock)
Denny, Colonel Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Remnant, James Farquharson
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Renwick, George
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Ritchie, Rt. HonChas. Thomson
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk Welby, SirCharles G. E. (Notts.
Robertson, Herbert, (Hackney) Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset Whiteley, H.(Asht'n-und-Lyne
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) William's, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Waller Stone, Sir Benjamin Willox, Sir, Jhon Archibald
Round, Rt. Hon. James Stroyan, John Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Royds, Clement Molyneux Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Rutherford, John Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw. M. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew Valentia, Viscount Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Skewes-Cox, Thomas Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWillamH.
Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside Wanklyn, James Leslie TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Spear, John Ward Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Horniman, Frederick John O'Malley, William
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Jordan, Jeremiah O'Shee, James John
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud Joyce, Michael Pirie, Duncan N.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Kennedy, Patrick James Power, Patrick Joseph
Bell, Richard Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.) Reckitt, Harold James
Black, Alexander William Layland-Barratt, Francis Rickett, J. Compton
Brigg, John Leamy, Edmund Roe, Sir Thomas
Broadhurst, Henry Leigh, Sir Joseph Runciman, Walter
Burns, John Leng, Sir John Shackleton, David
Buxton, Sydney Charles Levy, Maurice Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Caldwell, James Lough, Thomas Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Lundon, W. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cawley, Frederick MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Soares, Ernest J.
Condon, Thomas Joseph MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants.
Crean, Eugene MacVeagh, Jeremiah Sullivan, Donal
Cremer, William Randal M'Govern, T. Taylor, Theodore Cook
Cullinan, J. M'Kean, John Thomas, Sir. A (Glamorgan, E.)
Delany, William M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Delvin, Joseph Mansfield, Horace Rendall Thomas J. A (Glamorgan, Gower
Doogan, P. C. Markham, Arthur Basil Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings Moss, Samuel Tomkinson, James
Edwards, Frank Moulton, John Fletcher Wason, Eugene
Ellis, John Edward Murphy, John White, George (Norfolk)
Ffrench, Peter Nannetti, Joseph P. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Gilhooly, James Norman, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Harrington, Timothy O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Young, Samuel
Healy, Timothy Michael O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Yoxall, James Henry
Helme, Norval Watson O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Holland, Sir William Henry; O'Dowd, John Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Cald-well)—put, and agreed to.