HC Deb 02 April 1903 vol 120 cc975-89

Resolution reported.

"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of an annual sum not exceeding £185,000 for providing a special grant to be used for the purposes of the Development of Ireland."

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

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)

said he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Grant, or of proposing any reduction in it, but there were circumstances connected with this grant which showed there was a change in the principle in dealing with Scotland and Ireland which had been introduced for the first time in this Resolution. This grant of £185,000 to Ireland was the equivalent to the grant given to England under the Education Act. As had already been pointed out by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, these grants were very unsatisfactory in their operation. One country having got a certain sum which it required for a particular purpose, the other two countries had to take an equivalent share whether they wished it or not for the same purpose, and whether they were prepared to spend it or not. As the Chief Secretary had pointed out, that system had lent itself to a great deal of extravagance; but that had always been the contention on the Liberal side of the House. From the very first they had opposed these grants in aid, and it had been pointed out repeatedly with greater emphasis than the right hon. Gentleman had laid upon it, that these grants led to extravagance owing to Scotland and Ireland having to take this money for a particular purpose whether they were prepared to spend it or not. The Liberal side of the House had always opposed these grants and when in power had never made them, which showed the view they took of the matter. The first dealing of the principle of the equivalent grant with regard to Scotland was in 1888, when Mr. Goschen was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Goschen calculated that out of every £100 raised for Imperial purposes, £80 was raised by England, £11 by Scotland, and £9 by Ireland. Those were the proportions in which Mr. Goschen satisfied himself the revenue of the Imperial Government was contributed, and accordingly when England got money out of the Imperial purse for a particular purpose, for every £80 Scotland got £11 and Ireland £9, that being the proportion by which these respective countries contributed to the national purse. Upon that principle there had been about £10,000,000 of money coming year by year from the Imperial purse and being distributed among the local authorities. That was the principle almost universally acted upon. But the Government now introduced a very great change into the principle of applying the equivalent grant. The whole of these grants had been hit her to calculated on the basis of the proportions in which the money was raised for Imperial purposes. Up to the present that principle had never been called into account, but the Chief Secretary for Ireland had now introduced a new measure of calculation, between the three countries, for getting money out of the common purse, by calculating it on the basis of population. The Liberal side of the House had always opposed these grants, but if these grants were to be made, then he contended that the principle which Mr. Goschen adopted was the sound one. The Chief Secretary had told the House that in order to make up this £185,000 the principle was to be changed, and the calculation was to be made on the basis of population. The right hon. Gentleman in denouncing the principle of the calculation being made upon the percentage of the amount raised, had denounced his own Government, who were the persons who had introduced it. It was in operation with regard to £10,000,000 of money at the present moment, and if the right hon. Gentleman now said this principle was wrong, and that the basis of calculation in future should be on the basis of population, then he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether that should apply to the whole of these grants.


said he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would dissipate some uncertainties which had arisen in regard to this proposal. In the first place there was some uncertainty as to the amount of the grant to England. The Chief Secretary had stated that he thought it was £1,400,000 but figures had been referred to to show that it was a great deal more. He would be glad to know the real amount that was to be given to England, and how the proportion for Ireland was arrived at. This £185,000 which Ireland was to receive, and which was the equivalent of the grant to England under the Education Act, was not to be used for education until after a certain sum had been taken from it to be used for the flotation of the loan of £100,000,000. That suggested that it should be a charge for one year only, because the charges of flotation could not continue for ever, for there would be a time when all charges for this flotation must cease. But this Report which was before them to-day was to put this charge of £185,000 for ever on the Consolidated Fund. He submitted that that was a most improper and irregular way of charging the money. The Chief Secretary had told them that Ireland's share was to be regulated on the basis of population. The population varied from year to year; but, if they decided that a fixed sum should be issued annually for ever, they would depart from that principle. The proper way of granting money to the Sovereign was to grant it by yearly amounts. That was the only proper method known to the Constitution. There were certain charges, such as the Civil List and the salaries of the Judges, which were properly placed on the Consolidated Fund in order that they might be withdrawn from criticism in that House. They might be regarded as sacred, and they must be the first and indefensible charge on the revenue of the Empire. But that was not so in this instance. This was a charge which evidently required the control and criticism of Parliament. This money was not for any limited, definite and specified purpose; it was not to be expended in any definite limited way. It was suggested that the money should be handed over to the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary of the day. That meant that the money might be employed for a purpose which Parliament would not sanction if they had an opportunity of discussing it. The proposal to establish a Roman Catholic University was strongly resisted by many Members of that House, and it ought to be discussed before it was agreed to. But this sum might be employed for that very purpose. It was extremely dangerous to place in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary this permanent sum, of which they would never get an account. Every argument pointed to the propriety of making this an annual charge on the Estimates. The grant to England was on the Estimates, and was subject to the control of Parliament. Why should not this sum granted to Ireland not be put on the Estimates? He saw no reason whatever. He thought the demand made by the Government that this sum should be placed on the Consolidated Fund was most unconstitutional, and the House, if it agreed with the Resolution, would one day bitterly regret it.


said it was not out of any disrespect to the House that he was not present yesterday when this matter was discussed. He had an important engagement upon public matters at he time, and only heard that the matter was under discussion after the debate had taken place. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the system of distribution which had been adopted was different from the system under which these grants had been distributed previously. No doubt he was right. The Government thought the system of division according to population was a much more convenient and simple way of dealing with this question than by the contribution system. He did not think it was possible really to defend in all its details distribution by contribution. It was impossible to follow taxation in any particular country and to say hew much one part of the country contributed and how much another. The Government therefore thought that the better plan was to adopt the population basis. So far as Scotland was concerned the effect was the same, but undoubtedly Ireland was more favourably treated by the population system than by the other. But, having regard to all the circumstances of Ireland and the character of its population, he thought the House would not grudge Ireland's receiving rather more by taking the population basis than by taking the contribution basis. His hon. friend asked him what was the amount Ireland would receive and what was the amount that England would receive. He presumed his hon. friend meant "What was the extra amount that would be received?" There were certain grants which would be discontinued, and therefore they had to be added to the amount given in the new grant. The additional amount given to England would be £1,350,000, and the amount given to Ireland would be £185,000. Scotland would have £186,000 by either system of distribution. They had added to the Scottish grant £26,000. That carried out an arrangement which was assented to in 1897. He came to the conclusion after a great deal of discussion with the Scottish Office, that they had made out a good claim for granting this additional £26,000, and, therefore, he added it it to the sum based upon population.


Will the grant to Scotland be put on the Consolidated Fund?


said it would not. The Government had a very good case for putting both the English and the Scottish grants upon the Estimates, and for having a Bill for the Irish grant. Both the English and Scottish grants were to be devoted to educational purposes.


Will Scotland not be able to spend a part of their money in floating loans?


said he was happy to think that Scotland did not require them. The alternatives were to put the money on the Votes, to give it as a grant-in-aid, or to do as was now proposed. If additional money was given for the purposes of education, the whole educational system in Ireland ought to be considered. It would be wasteful in the extreme if, simply because England and Scotland had this money for educational purposes, there was given to Ireland for educational purposes an equivalent sum which could not properly be devoted to those purposes until the whole educational system in Ireland had been overhauled. The Government therefore did not adopt the plan of placing the money on the Votes. To have done so would have led to extravagance. Having regard to the fact that money on the Votes has to be expended in the year, it was pretty certain that the money would have been spent in one way or another, and, in all probability, wastefully expended. Another way in which the money might have been given was as a sort of grant-in-aid. However much his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn might object to the plan adopted by the Government, he would certainly have objected to a grant-in-aid much more strongly, because in the case of a grant-in-aid the money need not necessarily be spent in the year in which the grant was made, and that in a matter such as was now under discussion would be a most reprehensible principle. The only other alternative was that adopted by the Government, viz, to proceed by means of a Bill. He did not wish to disguise from the House his feeling that the objections which had been taken to that method of procedure were in a large measure sound objections. It was not a good method, but it was one which under exceptional circumstances might justifiably be adopted. For instance, it had been adopted in exceptional circumstances in, he thought, 1891, when a sum of £40,000 was charged on the Consolidated Fund to assist local authorities in dealing with certain questions arising under the Land Purchase Act of 1891.

The purposes for which this money was to be granted had already been stated. First of all, there was a certain sum for the Irish Land Bill for four years. Secondly, it was to be used for whatever purposes the Irish Office might satisfy the House of Commons were legitimate and proper. The hon. Member for King's Lynn seemed to think that the Government desired to take this large sum away from the knowledge and control of Parliament. Nothing was farther from their intention. As the Chief Secretary had stated, they proposed to present to Parliament full particulars annually, before the money was spent, of the particular purposes on which the money was to be expended. A section of the Bill was as follows— Before any money standing to the Irish Development grant is so applied in any year by the Lord Lieutenant, an Estimate, approved by the Treasury, showing the amount, proposed to be applied, with a statement showing the purposes to which and the manner in which it is proposed to apply the money, shall be laid before the House of Commons for a period of not loss than thirty days. If the House before the expiration of that period shall present an Address to His Majesty against any proposal, that proposal shall not be proceeded with, but without prejudice to the making of any new proposal. His right hon. friend stated yesterday that the Government would consider the suggestion that the House should be enabled to express its opinion upon the proposals at a more convenient time than would be possible under the provision of the Bill. That practically amounted to a promise so to alter the clause he had just read as to bring within the purview of the House at the proper time the proposals for the expenditure of this money. That promise would be carried out, so that before the money was spent there would be full power and opportunity of discussing the purposes to which it was proposed to apply the money. The House would therefore see that the Government had no desire whatever to keep from the knowledge or control of Parliament any portion of the money allocated under this Bill. Their only object in proceeding by way of a Bill was to secure that the money should not be wasted, but applied to purposes that would best serve the interests of Ireland. Although as a general rule he did not approve of Bills for this purpose, he felt certain that the circumstances under which this money was to be given and spent for Irish purposes fully warranted the Government making the present proposal

MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

We have been glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer make an authoritative statement of the grounds which have induced the Government to adopt this method of procedure—a method which, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I will not say he justified, but one which he apologised for and admitted to be an unusual and primâ facie regrettable departure from well-established practice. I wish to make the position so far as we on this side are concerned perfectly clear. No one objects, as far as I know, to Ireland receiving her fair share, whatever may be the proper criterion by which you are to determine it, corresponding to the grant made to England under the Education Act of last year. There is no objection in any quarter of the House to that. But while making that admission, let me pause for a moment to point out what an extraordinary revolution characterises the action of His Majesty's present advisers in relation to this money. Equivalent grants were started a long time ago, when Mr. Goschen was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The theory, then, was that the three parts of the United Kingdom ought for this purpose to be treated as separate entities, but the basis on which the division was made was that of their relative contributions to the Exchequer. Then followed the era of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who was the determined foe of the principle of equivalent grants. He denied that there was any such thing as a separable fiscal entities in the United Kingdom, and set his face steadily against any recognition of the claim, either of Ireland or of Scotland, to a substantial grant simply because an additional sum had been given to England. Now we come to the third stage in the evolution of the Government policy; we have a new Chancellor of the Exchequer who differs from both his predecessors. He agrees with Mr. Goschen as to the principle of equivalents and treating the three countries as separate fiscal entities, but he differs from him as to the basis of the division. Throwing aside the precedents of the last twelve years he has adopted as the basis on which the division is to be made in the future, or at any rate so far as the present proposal is concerned, not relative contribution but relative population. A more confused and illogical condition of things it is hardly possible to imagine. The House ought to take the opportunity afforded by this Bill of really threshing out the principle on which these equivalent grants ought to be distributed between the three countries. As a Scottish Member I am interested in the point of view of Scotland, and I am glad to hear that by some strange arithmetical process we shall receive exactly the same sum whether our share is ascertained on the basis of contribution or on that of population.


was understood to take exception to the word "strange."


Then I will substitute "happy" for "strange," because we are not damnified by the result. I am not complaining in the least because the effect of the application of the new principle is to increase the grant to Ireland, but I do say that we ought to have some definite and established principle by which the dealings between the three countries should be regulated. I started by saying that nobody objects to Ireland getting her equivalent grant. I will make a second statement which I think will command equally universal acceptance, viz., that no one considers it necessary that the sum so granted to Ireland should be appropriated to identically the same purposes as the money given to England or Scotland. It would be a most pedantic and ridiculous thing, the social conditions and economic circumstances of the countries being so different, to say that because we happened to find that the best channel for this expenditure in England or Scotland was in the improvement of our educational system therefore Ireland must devote her share to exactly the same purpose.

I now come to the third point, and here we do take a different view. Why is this method, admitted by the right hon. Gentleman to be objectionable, and for which I venture to say it is impossible to cite a precedent, being adopted? The right hon. Gentleman did attempt to justify it by what happened, I think in the year 1891, in the Land Bill of that year. You could not have a better illustration of the difference between the old Parliamentary practice and the one it is now sought to set up. There you had a definite sum charged on the Consolidated Fund. You had a definite sum allocated in the Land Bill for specific purposes described in the Bill itself. That is in strict accordance with what is reasonable and usual in such cases. But that is not what is taking place here. Here you are dealing with a sum which you will make a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund, but you leave the purposes to which it is to be applied, and the amount of it to be specifically applied as between those purposes, vague and indefinite, and subject to future change. Surely the right course to take, the course which is in accordance with sound principle and with Parliamentary precedent, was not to have this Bill at all, but to include the matter in the Land Bill, where it properly belongs, because but for the Land Bill this proposal would not have been made, or it would not have been made in anything like its present shape. It ought to have been inserted in the Land Bill, and there the Government ought to have had the purposes to which the money is to be applied specifically earmarked and sanctioned by Parliament. I renew the protest which we made at a previous stage, and which we shall continue to make at subsequent stages, against a method of procedure which is totally unsupported by precedent.


The main point of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife is that the purposes for which this money will be used should be specifically earmarked, and he suggests that this provision could have been put into the Land Bill. The right hon. Gentleman goes further and says that but for the fact that we are producing a Land Bill no such grant would have been proposed.


I did not say that.


But the claim of Ireland to a set-off against the large aid given last year would remain quite independently of the Land Bill. The ultimate uses to which this grant will be put are, as I explained yesterday, to give the Treasury an indemnity, and to give Ireland a promise that its claim against education will be met. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that this money ought to be devoted in Ireland to precisely the same object as in England. Ireland is not ready to receive this money for education. Is it to be wasted on immature plans, or is Ireland to lose it until the time for helping education arrives? We hold that it would be an injustice if Ireland is obliged so to wait until she is ready to receive public money for this purpose. One of the reasons which actuate the Government in taking this course is that it has occurred in the services of local government in England, and some of them are important services, and those services have received aid from the common Exchequer a number of years in advance of such aid being given for similar purposes in Ireland. I will not elaborate that argument, because we hold that by setting off one thing against another, no doubt substantial justice has been done. If you balance projects in one country against projects in another country, it will be found that substantial justice has been done. But last year nearly £1,500,000 went to England alone. Ireland, therefore, has a corresponding claim, and the question arises how it is to be used. Are definite objects to be specified in the Bill? Are we to anticipate what public works might be of use? In my opinion there is no alternative between forcing Ireland to waste or to lose this money, or else stating in a Bill that the money belongs to Ireland, and that it should be allocated to such projects as will be of service to that country. I will not now go into the question of parliamentary control. This grant is in a Bill now, and, as I stated yesterday, we intend to insert an Amendment in the Bill which will enable the House to discuss the whole of the matter at a more convenient time than after twelve o'clock. I do not know that there is anything else that calls for a reply. As to giving these grants in the proportion of eighty to England, eleven to Scotland, and nine to Ireland, it was no doubt a reasonable plan at the time of its adoption, after a long period of peace, when there were no sudden expansions in our national expenditure; but those figures would not stand now owing to war charges, and the proportionate amount contributed by Ireland is now less than nine. If you had passed your Education Bill before the war Ireland would have got nine against eight, and in the middle of the war six against nine. Could anything be more illogical than that? The basis of population compares favourably, I think, with the basis which has been suggested as an alternative.


said that nobody objected to Ireland having the equivalent grant, but all that the right hon. Gentleman had just stated certainly bore out the idea that those items should be put in the ordinary way on the Estimates of the year. They were going to vote £185,000 a year without any specification as to how it was to be allocated, and it appeared from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read that in any year all the Government had got to do was to frame a scheme for anything they liked—it might be for a Catholic University—they simply placed it on the Table of this House, and then they might carry it without any discussion beyond the ordinary discussion upon a claim of that sort. That was quite unconstitutional, inasmuch as the grant to England and Scotland would be put on the Estimates and debated every year. If it varied every year in Ireland there was no reason why it should not be discussed in the ordinary way, and it was upsetting the whole principle of finance that they should vote a large sum like this to the Government to use in any way they like. They were doing extraordinary things now in finance, and he was quite sure that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have been a party to such a scheme as this. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was particularly strong upon all the constitutional usages of finance, and it seemed a most extraordinary thing that they should go out of their way to form a

precedent which struck at the whole responsibility of this House in finance. The principle had always been that the item should be put upon the Estimates and discussed every year. Every item, and particularly items such as this, ought to be discussed and put upon the Estimates and voted in the ordinary way. He could not understand this principle, for by this proposal they were upsetting every rule which they had boasted of in the past as the bulwark of their financial system. He protested entirely against this sum being put on the Consolidated Fund, and against this being made a new precedent, which he thought was a most dangerous one, for it was handing over a large sum of money to the Government of the day, to do what they liked with, without, apparently, any responsibility.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 54. (Division List, No. 53.)

Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby. (Linc.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.) Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim
Arkwright, John Stanhope Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Goulding, Edward Alfred
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)
Arrol, Sir William Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Atkinson, Right Hon. John Cranborne, Viscount Hain, Edward
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H. Cripps, Charles Alfred Hambro, Charles Eric
Austin, Sir John Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy
Bain, Colonel James Robert Crossley, Sir Savile Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.
Balcarres, Lord Dalkeith, Earl of Harris, Frederick Leverton
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r Davenport, William Bromley- Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Denny, Colonel Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway. Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Beckett, Ernest William Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr Haml'ts Hogg, Lindsay
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)
Bignold, Arthur Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C. Hoult, Joseph
Bigwood, James Doogan, P. C. Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred
Blundell, Colonel Henry Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Joyce, Michael
Bousfield, William Robert Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George
Brassey, Albert Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Keswick, William
Bull, William James Faber, George Denison (York) Knowles, Lees
Butcher, John George Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Labouchere, Henry
Caldwell, James Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Campbell, J. H. M (Dublin Univ. Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)
Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.) Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lawson, John Grant
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Fisher, William Hayes Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)
Chamberlain, Rt Hon J. (Birm FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc Flannery, Sir Fortescue Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.
Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn Flower, Ernest Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham
Chapman, Edward Forster, Henry William Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S
Charrington, Spencer Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W. Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Clare, Octavius Leigh Fyler, George Arthur Lowe, Francis William
Clive, Captain Percy A. Garfit, William Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Gilhooly, James Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)
Lundon, W. Pierpoint, Robert Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Pretyman, Ernest George Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Macdona, John Cumming Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Purvis, Robert Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
M'Govorn, T. Randles, John S. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Stone, Sir Benjamin
M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Rattigan, Sir William Henry Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Majendie, James A. H. Remnant, Jas. Farquharson Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Martin, Richard Biddulph Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Valentia, Viscount
Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshir Renwick, George Walker, Col. William Hall
Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson Wanklyn, James Leslie
Mitchell, William (Burnley) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Robertson, H. (Hackney) Welby Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton
Morrell, George Herbert Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Morrison, James Archibald Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Mount, William Arthur Round, Rt. Hon. James Willox, Sir John Archibald
Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute Russell, T. W. Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Newdegate, Francis A. N. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)
Nicholson, William Graham Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Nicol, Donald Ninian Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) Sharpe, William Edward T. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
O'Mara, James Simeon, Sir Barrington TELLERS FOR THE AYES
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Sir Alexander Acland. Hood and Mr. Anstruther
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Skewes-Cox, Thomas
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Sloan, Thomas Henry
Pease, H. Pike (Darlington) Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside
Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud) Farquharson, Dr. Robert Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Ashton, Thomas Gair Goddard, Daniel Ford Strachey, Sir Edward
Barran, Rowland Hirst Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale. Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Helme, Norval Watson Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Bell, Richard Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Thomas, F. Freeman. (Hastings
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Kearley, Hudson E. Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)
Bond, Edward Lambert, George Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Brigg, John Layland-Barratt, Francis Toulmin, George
Cawley, Frederick Newnes, Sir George Tuke, Sir John Batty
Coghill, Douglas Harry Norton, Capt. Cecil William Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Weir, James Galloway
Cremer, William Randal Perks, Robert William While, Luke (York, E. R.)
Crooks, William Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Runciman, Walter
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Schwann, Charles E. Mr. Gibson Bowles and
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Shackleton, David James Sir Brampton Gurdon.
Duncan, J. Hastings Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Dunn, Sir William Shipman Dr. John G.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Wyndham, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.