HC Deb 02 March 1903 vol 118 cc1186-203

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum. not exceeding £69,600. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the Grant in Aid of the British Protectorate in East Africa."

MR. M'KENNA said when the business of the Committee was interrupted he was pointing out to the Committee that the total value of British trade, imports and exports, with British East Africa during the first six years of our occupation was £540,000, and that our grants in aid during the same period had far exceeded in extent our total trade. The grants in aid during the year ended March 1900-1901 had amounted to £227,000, or one and a half times as much as the whole value of our exports and imports during the same period with the protectorate. One of the advantages we derived from having such protectorates was the expansion of our trade, but what was the price we were paying for it? From the point of view of pounds shillings and pence, he asked the noble Lord to consider whether the character of the expenditure which we undertook in these protectorates was warranted by the commercial advantages we obtained from them. The total amount of this Vote now asked for, £313,000, was about three times as much as was asked for three years ago, and about four times the amount of the grant asked for last year, and although he had not the figures for the trade of the present year he was inclined to think it would amount to twice the value of the imports and exports between this country and British East Africa. That was the amount the Committee was asked to vote without a word of explanation or without a Paper being laid on the Table of the House.

The noble Lord would no doubt reply that we were doing a great work in East Africa, and that the money the House was now asked to provide was for good administrative work in that country. He would not dispute that: he was prepared to believe that every penny of the money would be well spent for the object for which it was asked. But that was not the only point of view from which this matter ought to be regarded. The noble Lord in a previous debate had spoken of the revenue of East Africa as a trifling sum in relation to the whole cost of the Empire, and that was true, hut this was not the only place for which £313,000 was being asked. We were spending money in Uganda and Somaliland and other parts of Africa, and although such a sum was a mere trifle as compared with the whole cost, all these items totalled up to an enormous sum. The cost of British East Africa amounted in all to over a million and a quarter. Under those circumstances he submitted that the Committee were entitled] to ask whether it was a wise policy to carry on a form of government in these protectorates which the protectorates themselves could not pay for, and which, naturally, placed so heavy-a burden on the people of this country. If these expenses were so trifling, we should not have to pay for them by an income tax reckoned by shillings, but by pence, and a bread tax that fell most heavily on the poorest of the poor. Although the work being done might be admirable work in itself, he would ask the noble Lord to consider whether it was work he should allow the British people to pay for, and whether it was work which was contemplated when British East Africa was taken over as a British Colony. The policy the noble Lord advocated then was that it should be administered at a cost of £30,000, it was now £300,000. He asked the Committee to say that the time had come to review this policy as a whole, and to keep their' eye on the question of strict economy. On these grounds he begged leave to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £69,500, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. M'Kenna.)

MR. BAYLEY (Derbyshire, Chesterfield),

in supporting the Amendment, asked the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he could assure the Committee that no magistrate whose salary was covered by this Vote was administering a law which acknowledged the legal status of slavery. He also desired to know whether any part of the Vote was going, either directly or indirectly, in payment of amounts which had been already passed for the making of the Uganda Railway. He would also like to know whether there were any arrears of pay due to our Indian soldiers in East Africa as would appear by the Vote, as he thought this was a thing which in a rich Empire like this should, never be allowed to occur. In his opinion, the Committee ought to be furnished with a Report from the Foreign Office showing what had been done in this immense territory in the twelve months so that they might discuss the Vote with knowledge.

SIR ROBERTREID (Dumfries Burghs)

said that, if they desired to effect any economy at all, it was necessary that they should examine, not only the large, but the small items of expenditure. He should regard this Vote rather as an illustrative case. The first thing he had got to say about it was that within the last three years they had about doubled the amount of expenditure upon the administration of this particular protectorate, and that the greater part of it was absolutely unproductive. The second thing was, what had they got in return for that expenditure? He put aside for the moment the moral dignity and the civilising influences which accrued to this country because of money spent in the administration of a savage territory like this.

What was the return in pounds, shillings, and pence for the money spent in respect of that country? He found that for a period of six years the surplus outlay of the taxation of this country upon this particular protectorate exceeded the total value of the imports and exports which passed between Great Britain and British Hast Africa. And let the Committee get rid of the cant phrase of "making markets." This was a rather serious matter. It meant, that we were working at an absolute dead loss in respect of this one particular protectorate. The Committee had no means whatever of checking the expenditure from the particulars which were furnished in the Vote. They were told that £09,000 was required in aid of the expenses of administration, and that was all. Considering the enormous sums of money involved, if any private business were conducted with the kind of audit by means of which they were expected to carry on the affairs of this country, it would go to pieces, and be in bank ruptcy in the course of a few months. It was impossible to dwell too often on the fact that while they were constantly complaining of this state of things, it was even now impossible to put a tinker on any particular item. Although they often heard complaints in their constituencies of increased expenditure and increased taxation, hon. Members were powerless to protect themselves against it. Even the statement of the noble Lord would not enable them to come to any satisfactory conclusion. The system was one under which Parliamentary control had become practically ineffective.

*LORD CRANBORNE said the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction really brought an indictment against our position in East Africa. That, of course, called in question a policy for which this Government was not in the least especially responsible, a policy deliberately adopted by the country at large and endorsed by vote after vote of the House of Commons. He thought it was a little too much to ask the Minister in charge to defend an indictment of that kind at that time of the day. Governments drawn from both sides of the House had felt that it was our duty to own these protectorates, and if they owned them he could not believe that any House of Commons would doubt that it was their duty to develop them, and as the policy was adopted not on purely commercial grounds it was not fair to charge the Government with ill success because it was not already commercially successful. It was adopted partly on humanitarian grounds, and partly on political grounds of the highest order. Surely the hon. Member would not wish them to have stood aside when the great modern development of Africa took place. We were bound to develop the property we had acquired; that we should stay like a dog in the manger in East Africa, and allow the protectorate and population to look after themselves was a policy unworthy of any British Government, and it was one which the present Government were certainly not prepared to adopt. In estimating the progress of the protectorates it was almost impossible to separate East Africa from Uganda, because they had a common Customs union.

MR. M'KENNA said if he had used the figures for Uganda his case would have been much stronger.

*LORD CRANBORNE said the combined volume of trade in 1899, 1900 was £452,000, while in 1902-3 they estimated it at about £1,000,000. But the latter figure was not one on which they could argue as to the natural progress of trade, as great deductions must be made from it in respect of the Uganda Railway, of Government stores, and of specie. But, after the deductions had been made, the total volume of trade during the time the protectorates had belonged to this country had been far in excess of the hon. Gentleman's figures. The interests of this Protectorate were not limited to trade with the United Kingdom, and there was a very considerable trade with India. Therefore, it was only fair, in calculating the trade value to include India. The trade with Great Britain and India amounted to 63 per cent. of the whole trade in Uganda and East Africa. That was a very large figure and he did not think that, at any rate as far as proportion went, anyone would say that the trade with the protectorates showed up badly. Did the British House of Commons only represent the taxpayers? Were they to shut out all the rest of the Empire? As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton once said, every Member of Parliament was Member for India. That statement had a great effect on the House at the time and he quoted it in aid now. He had a right to calculate the Indian as well as the English trade. Making all deductions for the Uganda Railway, for Government stores, and for specie, he could still show that 29 percent. belonged to the United Kingdom and 34 per cent. to India. This showed that great progress had been made in the trade with the British Empire.

The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries spoke of the great increase in the grant in aid. It was true that it was increasing; but there were very considerable deductions to be made from the figure that had been given. There were the working expenses for six months of the Uganda Railway, which were estimated at £50,000; the cost of the two steamers amounted to £57,000, and at a later period of the year he was afraid he should have to ask for a little more money in respect of them; and the surveys of the lake cost £6,000, these items amounting altogether to £113,600, or about £114,000, which was the figure he had given. He was now dealing with East Africa and Uganda combined, but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries dealt with East Africa alone. He would point out that when the hon. and learned Gentleman compared the grant in aid for East Africa last year with that for the present year, it should be remembered that a large portion of Uganda had been transferred to East Africa. The expenditure on East Africa in the two years he was considering rose from £180,000 to £330,000, but the grant for Uganda fell from £205,000 to £170,000, because of the transfer which had taken place. East Africa of three years ago was not the East Africa they were dealing with in the present Estimates. As to the details of the present demand, there was a demand by the Indian Government in respect of Indian troops which had been lent on several occasions. It seemed that it was a, very complicated matter to ascertain this indebtedness, and year after year it was found that a little more was due. There were one or two other items which he wished to give to the Committee. There was a sum for compensation for moving the bazaar in Nairobi, in consequence of the plague. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment called the Government to account for that, but they were not responsible for the plague. The plague was not conveyed by His Majesty's Government, but probably by rats, and the Government could not be held responsible for that. They had to suppress the plague at considerable cost, amounting to £l3,000. Then there was a sum of £4,000 for the rehousing of troops. It was found that the huts for the troops at Nairobi had been erected in unsuitable places, and fresh accommodation had to be found. Hon. Members did not always select the most suitable places for houses.

The East African Protectorate went as far as the Juba river, where there were some very turbulent tribes who had given a great deal of trouble. After two expeditions against these tribes, the Government made up their minds that they must take precautions to prevent difficulties of the same kind in the future. For that purpose mobile troops were required, and a camel corps was formed, the cost of which was £7,700. Of that amount £3,800 was now asked for. Then there was a sum of £2,900 due to the Uganda Railway for the carriage of mails, and a sum of £1,400 for law courts at Mombasa and Jubaland; and lastly there was the sum of £11,000 due to a falling off in the revenue. They estimated for a very slight surplus, and they were disappointed. All these accounts had to go before the Controller and Auditor-General; and although the Committee might differ from the policy that produced this expenditure, he did not think they would accuse the Government of spending money that was not fully and properly due in the estimation of the Controller and Auditor-General. He was quite certain that the Government would not he borne out by the House of Commons or the country if they forsook the Protectorate. Now they were in the country the Government were bound to develop it, and he did not want the Committee to carry away the notion that they were at the end of this expenditure. To make their possession fruitful and profitable they must spend money in its development, and he very respectfully warned the Committee of that, so that they might not accuse the Government of deceiving them on the subject.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said he did not intend to touch upon the important point raised by his hon. friend, namely, the slavery on the strip of mainland. The noble Lord was entitled to say that under present conditions the Committee could not discuss that. He had no doubt they would have another opportunity of discussing the subject in the course of their debates. He complained that in these African matters no explanation was given to the Committee before the debates took place. For the last five or six years Supplementary Estimates had been presented which made it impossible for the Committee to check the expenditure. The bulk of the items the noble Lord had mentioned certainly ought to have been foreseen, if not by the Foreign Office, at all events, by those administering the country. He instanced the camel corps as a matter on which there could not have been such great urgency as to necessitate a Supplementary Estimate. The additional grant now asked in aid of the British East Africa Protectorates amounted to nearly £70,000. That, he held, was excessive, and he did not think there was any excuse for the bulk of the items of which it was made up.

With regard to general policy and principle, he thought there was really no difference of opinion in any quarter, of the House. What many hon. Members were beginning to feel was, that the way in which these Colonies were being developed was not the right one. They did not grudge the money necessary for the proper development of the countries, but what they felt was that the Foreign Office in attempting to administer these enormous tracts were going too far, and were not taking proper precautions to avoid conflicts and wars. As his hon. friend had pointed out, the cost of administration this year was £800,000 as against £500,000 last year. Surely that enormous expenditure required more justification than had yet been given on behalf of the Government. He did not believe the Committee were really aware of the enormous increase that had taken place. Surely that was an expenditure which could hardly be said to be a question of general policy. Not a single sixpence had been spent for the benefit of the Colony in the matter of our trade, and so far as that was concerned all this money had practically been sunk in the African desert. He was surprised at the figures which had been given, in regard to the financial position of this enormous tract of country. The Under Secretary boasted that the total volume of trade in these East African colonies had now risen to £415,000, but the noble Lord should look at the other side of the account. He should also take the liabilities and the expenditure of those Colonies. Including the cost of the Uganda Railway, the whole annual cost of these Colonics was £710,000, while our total volume of trade—not the profit—was only £415,000.


That was the total volume of trade with the British Empire.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said that made it worse and worse, for he thought that there was the Indian trade besides. It was time to call a halt to the unlimited and unchecked expenditure of the Foreign Office. If the administration of Uganda were taken out of the hands of that Department, and put under the Colonial Office, many economies might be effected.

*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL asked whether, in relation to the loan for the building of the Uganda Railway, any allowance was made for a sinking fund.


Not in the Supplementary Estimate.

*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL called attention to the outbreak of plague at Nairobi, and stated it was felt that this was partly due to the insanitary position and condition of the bazaar. That bazaar had been burned, and compensation had to be paid to the owners of shops there. There was in the Estimates an item for the moving of the troops from the situation in which they had been placed at Nairobi. He wished to know whether it was proposed to remove the whole of the railway population to more healthy houses on a higher site. The town had now a population of about 8,000; and if there was nothing in the accounts to pay for their removal, he believed the House of Commons would be called upon later to vote money for that purpose. This expenditure was entirely due to an error on the part of the railway engineers, for whom the Government were indirectly responsible. He asked whether there had been any receipts from the sale of Government lands, and whether the colonisation of the higher lands had progressed. He asked further, whether the Government had yet made any provision for a paper currency in East Africa. That was a matter on which the success of trade in East Africa in some measure depended, and with trade, necessarily the increase of the revenue. His hon. friend had referred to the necessity for transferring the administration of these protectorates from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office. There was undoubtedly a strong public opinion in East Africa and Uganda in favour of the transfer. He knew there was a difficulty in the way in connection with treaty obligations with regard to Zanzibar; but he asked the noble Lord whether he could not hold out any prospect in the future of this being overcome and this transference being made to the Colonial Office. He also wished to know when the annual report of the condition, prospects and revenue of this Protectorate would be laid before Parliament. He had been unable to obtain a Report in the library later than 1901.

*LORD CRANBORNE said that it had been done already.

*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL said he knew there was a paper giving figures which covered the imports and exports, but there was no Report from the Chief Commissioner himself as to any measures that were being taken for developing the territory as a whole. In Sir Charles Eliot the Foreign Office had an exceedingly able servant, whose administration had given extreme satisfaction to all classes of the community.


Sir Charles Eliot belongs to the Foreign Office.

*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL said no doubt, but there was equally no doubt that if Sir Charles Eliot were transferred to the Colonial Office his efficiency would be increased. That was the prevalent opinion in East Africa itself.

MR. LOUGH said he could not second the appeal for the transfer of these protectorates from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, for he thought it was just six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. The last instance was that of Nigeria.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN said the hon. Member could not discuss on this Vote the transfer of Uganda to the Colonial Office.

MR. LOUGH said he had only referred to it as two hon. Members had been allowed to develop the argument, and he wished to enter his protest against it. This was the third time within the year that large Estimates had been produced for these protectorates and the Uganda Railway, and he desired to protest in the strongest way against the additional Supplementary Estimate of £70,000. There was not one of the items on the Paper which might not have been left over until the new Estimates were prepared and laid before the House for full discussion. The meaning of the Supplementary Estimates was to get from the Com- mittee more money than was necessary, by taking large amounts in separate bits instead of in one sum. The noble Lord had given quite inadequate explanations as to the reasons for this enormously increased expenditure. Jle, for one. did not want explanations; he wanted economy. The noble Lord had practically said that he was not the man for economy; that if we had these Colonies we must develop them; and he went the length of declaring that the Committee must expect still greater expenditure in the future. But what he contended for was that these countries should be developed with some regard to the trade we got out of then. The noble Lord had said that the trade of these territories with Great Britain and India amounted to 63 or 64 per cent. of the whole trade. But the greater part of the trade was with India, and the point was, who should pay the expense? India certainly did not pay the expense. The pettifogging share of the trade to Great Britain was only 29 per cent., but that was on the gross volume of the trade. If the profits on the trade were estimated at 20 per cent. there would be only a return to Great Britain of £28,000 a year for all this enormous expenditure. No country could be' expected to stand that. The noble Lord seemed to be of the belief that this bad affair might be bettered by extravagant expenditure.

The Colonies, of which we were all so proud, had not been developed by the expenditure of this country, but by cautious and wise expenditure by the Colonies themselves. This new feature in the development of the Colonies of the British Empire had only been introduced into the African Colonies and protectorates. The lavish and wasteful policy of the Foreign Office was constantly revealing new extravagances. The noble Lord had told the Committee that the mean city of Nairobi, which they had founded, would have to be re. moved altogether because it had been put in an insanitary situation. He protested in the most indignant way against all this extravagance, and he was glad that hon. Members opposite were beginning to ask for some economy in expenditure.

MR. M'KENNA said that the noble Lord had stated that this Government was not responsible for taking over East Africa, or for the present expenditure. He would remind the noble Lord that British East Africa had been very well administered until three years ago: that was to say that for the first six years it had only cost on an average £90,000 a year. What he complained of was not that the British Government was there, but that the expenditure had been increased from £90,000 to over £200,000 a year.

SIR JOHN GORST said that the noble Lord had very properly warned the House that, having undertaken the management of these territories, we had to develop them, and spend a certain amount of money upon them. He agreed that we could not go back from our obligations, and that it was absolutely necessary on our part to do everything to develop these countries. But what he wanted to press on the noble Lord was, that this development ought to take place on a definite plan, and that the Foreign Office should not drift into one expenditure, and then another, without a definite plan of development. The Government ought to take the House of Commons into its confidence and give them information as to the condition of the country. Egypt had got the Sudan on its hands very much in the same way as we had got Uganda and the East African Protectorate, but the Government of Egypt, under the advice of Lord Cromer, proceeded in the development of the Sudan on a clear and definite plan. The whole circumstances of the country had been taken into consideration, its resources, and its possibilities for producing revenue. Why should not Uganda and the East African Protectorate be dealt with in a similar manner, and why should not the Government plainly state to Parliament what they intended to do with these countries, what their plans were and their expectations as to the future revenues and prosperity of these territories? Though, no doubt, they might criticise the Government plans, he was sure that the House of Commons as a whole would cheerfully vote without wrangling the money necessary to carry out a clear and definite plan.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)

said that there was a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated. This was not a question of giving up these territories, but of spending this money on business principles. In large private concerns people often spent money in extending trade, quite content to bear a loss for some years to come. But when doing that it was done on sound business principles; some development of profit was looked forward to in the course of a few years. If the Committee was satisfied that the Government were spending this money economically and efficiently on development, he was certain that the House of Commons would not complain; but any one who had examined the Estimates from year to year could not be satisfied that that was being done. There were two arguments which indicated that there was something wrong. 'He did not say that because the present expenditure exceeded the trade that that was conclusive; but at all events it formed a prima facie case that the Government were not running these territories on purely business lines. We had a falling revenue and an increasing expenditure, which showed that our attempts to develop these countries had not been successful.

His second point was that a man running a business of this sort would carefully examine his estimates before expenditure; but these Estimates had been exceeded in expenditure by from 20 to 30, and sometimes 100, per cent. in the course of a single year. That showed that whoever was responsible for the expenditure had not carefully calculated beforehand what was wanted, although he did not say that the expenditure could be estimated to a penny. The rats had been blamed, and his hon. friend thought that the way to cure that was to hand over the administration of these territories to the Colonial Office. He should have thought that that was the last extremity in the world, except on the principle of setting a thief to catch a thief. Then, it was said that there were not merely rats, but some bad Mohammedan gentlemen, a sort of Church party, in these territories; but the right hon. Gentleman must have known perfectly well that in countries of that sort they might anticipate the opposition of these Mohammedan gentlemen. The noble Lord had said that it was not necessary to set down the interest on loans and the sinking fund when reckoning up this business, but that only showed the notions of the Foreign Office about business principles. He wanted to know what were the prospects of these territories, and what they were spending this money for. He had listened with great interest to the noble Lord in reference to development, but the Committee had no idea vet as to what was the policy of the Government with regard to development; and if the House of Commons was asked to sanction this huge expenditure they were entitled to know what the plans of the Government were.

*LORD CRANBORNE said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and his right hon. friend below the Gangway had both told the Committee and the country that if the Foreign Office could point to a policy to show for this expenditure, the House of Commons would vote the money. Of course, the Foreign Office had a plan, but he did not think that a Supplementary Estimate was' the proper occasion on which to speak of their plans for development. There were large agricultural prospects, in addition to large mining ones, and in respect of these they had issued a considerable number of concessions. He would not like the debate to close without assuring the right hon. Gentleman that the policy of the Foreign Office was being pursued with great vigour. Of course that cost money, but he hoped that later on he would be able to show good results for the expenditure. With regard to the sale of lands, they had only just been sanctioned, and consequently there was no return under that head. In reference to Zanzibar, the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division had asked what steps had been taken to transfer the territories to the Colonial Office, but he could only point out that, undoubtedly, there would be great convenience in keeping them in the hands of the Foreign Office so long as that Department had control of the foreign relations in connection with that territory. With regard to reports, there were the Diplomatic and Consular Reports for the year ending March, 1902, containing statistics with regard to trade in the Protectorate; and there was Sir Charles Eliot's general Report on the Protectorate, to which reference had been made.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.) Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Joyce, Michael Power, Patrick Joseph
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Kearley, Hudson E. Reddy, M.
Boland, John Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Layland-Barratt, Francis Redmond, William (Clare)
Burke, E. Haviland Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Rigg, Richard
Buxton, Sydney Charles Levy, Maurice Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Caldwell, James Lloyd-George. David Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Campbell. John (Armagh, S.) Lough, Thomas Shackleton, David James
Causton, Richard Knight Lundon, W. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Channing, Francis Allston MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Condon, Thomas Joseph MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Soares, Ernest J.
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) MacVeagh, Jeremiah Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants)
Crean, Eugene M'Govern, T. Stevenson, Francis S.
Cullman, J. M'Kean, John Strachey, Sir Edward
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Sullivan, Donal
Delany, William Murnaghan, George Tennant. Harold John
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) Murphy, John Thomas, Uavid Alfred (Merthyr)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Tomkinson, James
Donelan, Captain A. Norman, Henry Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Doogan, P. C. O'Brien Kendall (Tipperary Mid) While, Luke (York, E. R.)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whitley, I. H. (Halifax)
Ffrench, Peter O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) Yoxall, James Henry
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Dowd, John
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Thomas Bayley.
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas, Seale O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. O'Mara, James
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Haslett, Sir James Horner
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Cranborne, Viscount Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Crossley, Sir Savile Hay, Hon. Claude George
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert J.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)
Atkinson, Right Hon. John Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Johnstone, Heywood
Austin, Sir John Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George
Bailey, James (Walworth) Duke, Henry Edward Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Knowles, Lees
Baird, John George Alexander Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r) Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lawson, John Grant
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Finch. Rt. Hon. George H. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Bignold, Arthur Fisher, William Hayes Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Blundell, Colonel Henry Flannery, Sir Fortescue Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)
Bond, Edward Flower, Ernest Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Forster, Henry William Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Brassey, Albert Galloway, William Johnson Macdona, John Cumming
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gardner, Ernest Maconochie, A. W.
Bull, William James Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. M'Arthnr, Charles (Liverpool)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn) M'Calmont, Colonel James
Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.) Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop) Mitchell, William
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc) Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Chapman, Edward Gretton, John Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w)
Clare, Octavius Leigh Groves, James Grimble Morrell, George Herbert
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx) Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy) Parkes, Ebenezer
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.) Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm. Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd) Percy, Earl
Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge Harris. Frederick Leverton Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 79; Noes, 141. (Division List No. 12).

Plummer, Walter R. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Thornton, Percy M.
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Tomlinson, Sir Win. Ed. M.
Pretyman, Ernest George Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Valentia, Viscount
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Seely, Mj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Purvis, Robert Sharpe, William Edward T. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Skewes-Cox, Thomas Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R)
Ratcliff, R. F. Smith, H. C. (Northmb, Tyneside.) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Reid, James (Greenock) Smith, James Parker (Lanarks) Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N)
Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge) Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Wylie, Alexander
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Spear, John Ward Wyndham, Rt Hn. George
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Royds, Clement Molyneux Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Original Question put and agreed to.

Forward to