HC Deb 04 March 1903 vol 118 cc1366-81

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,700, 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 salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,016,000, 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 sundry Colonial Services, including a Grant-in-Aid."

First Resolution agreed to.

Second Resolution read a second time.

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


said a financial issue of the utmost importance had been raised in the debate which took place on the previous day, by the explanations given on behalf of the Government, Grants-in-aid, though they might be familiar to some Members of the House, were altogether exceptional matters; they did not represent sums of money voted in the ordinary way to be expended by Imperial officials, and it was consequently the universal opinion of all who had studied finance that they should be jealously watched and greatly restricted. He had ventured to give evidence to that effect before the Committee on National Expenditure, and what he said was corroborated by Sir Edward Hamilton, who declared that the Treasury were fully alive to the importance of restricting grants-in-aid, he cordially agreed, he said, that they ought to be jealously criticised, because they were the means of withdrawing large sums from the control of Parliament. They were not subject to the Appropriation audit, and the Controller and Auditor General did not follow them out in the same sense as he did ordinary Votes. He was far from saying that grants-in-aid were always improper; on the contrary, he held that, in certain instances—notably that of the National Gallery—it was extremely convenient that money should be granted as an out and out gift not to be inquired into further, and that it should be left in the hands of the grantees to spend or save in a particular year as they thought fit. But still they ought, as Sir Edward Hamilton said, to be jealously restricted. Were they? In the year 1900-01 the total amount of the grants-in-aid was £1,600,000; last year it was £7,683,000, and in the current year they exceeded £12,000,000 sterling. Thus, instead of the grants-in-aid being restricted, they were being enormously exaggerated, and they had now reached a point when the House should most jealously watch any further increase of them. Having laid down the general principles which should apply to grants-in-aid, he now came to the consideration of this particular grant, which was for a sum of over £1,000,000 in aid of the local revenue of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. It professed, too, to be supplementary to the original Estimate. In accordance with the financial practice of the country, the Vote was for money to come into course of payment during the current year, so that if at the end any surplus remained, it was automatically transferred to the Commissioners for the payment of the National Debt.

He understood that it would not be in order for him to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000,000—although he would be able to prove that the with holding of that sum would not cause any public inconvenience. He wished to point out, however, that with respect to every Department of the public service, in spite of the enormously increased expenditure, the greatest laxity was observable nowadays in regard to all financial safeguards. The Sinking Fund had recently been raided, and altogether a sum of £32,000,000, double Mr. Pitt's revenue, now practically escaped the control of the House of: Commons. This was, therefore, a very I serious matter. As he had pointed out, the Vote should be to defray charges coming into course of payment during the current financial year, but on the preceding day it was admitted that it was not a grant-in-aid of the Transvaal at all, and that it was not to be expended this year. These were his two objections to the Vote. It was admitted, on behalf of the Government, that it was an Imperial grant for the maintenance of the South African police—a force raised while the war was going on—and that the sum could not be properly charged to the colonies, which did not require the services of that force. The men were, in fact, remnants of the war, and as the money was required to compensate them, now that their services were no longer required, the Vote was really a grant-in-aid to the Government; it was an Imperial and not in any sense a colonial charge.

Then, again, it sinned against the rule of the House that the money was to he spent in the course of the current year. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that it would not be so spent, and that, it there were any balance unexpended at the end of the present financial year, it would not be surrendered but would be available for next year; although, when the whole transaction was completed, the unspent balance would then be handed over. But the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong when he suggested that there was any provision for surrender when the transaction was finally closed. There was no such provision in any Act of Parliament, or in any order of the House. Having shown, as he thought he had done, that this Vote was not really a grant-in-aid of the Transvaal, but that it was a grant-in-aid of war expenses incurred by the Government, and having further shown that it was not asked for in order to meet expenditure during the present financial year, but partly, at any rate, for expenses to be incurred during the succeeding financial year, it sinned against all sound financial canons which ought to influence the conduct of the House, and he ventured to express a hope that the Government would not persist in pressing the Vote. He suggested, on the contrary, that they should withdraw £1,000,000 of it, and be content with the remaining £16,000. The public service would not in the least suffer by their so doing, as, if the money were required for next year, it could easily be included in the Estimates for that year. It was pretty clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already got the million in his pocket, or he would not allow the Government to put forward that Supplementary Estimate. What would happen if the Vote were withdrawn? The money would go in reduction of the National Debt, and that was precisely where it ought to go. He appealed to the Government, in deference to the feeling displayed by hon. Members on the Government Benches on the preceding night in regard to that Vote, to withdraw it, as he, for one, did not wish that they should have again to go into the Lobby against the Ministers.


As the hon. Member says he is anxious to support the Government, I hope, when he has heard the statement I have to make he will find himself at liberty to do so. I was rather anxious to speak before him, because, in answering a question put to me yesterday, I was led into making a statement which was not quite correct—a statement to which he has just alluded—and I desired that he should be in possession of my correction before he spoke. I think it will he for the convenience of the House if I recapitulate briefly the circumstances out of which this Vote arose. Let me say first that no one on these Benches will dispute the views expressed by the Treasury witnesses before the National Expenditure Committee, that grants-in-aid should he carefully watched and should not be too readily resorted to. What are the circumstances of this particular grant-in-aid, which have led the Government to think it justifiable and necessary? During the progress of the war in South Africa, we decided to raise a force of constabulary for service in the new colonies. When the sums to he raised were under discussion, Lord Milner was of opinion that the number of men required for policing the colonies would he 6,000 men. Lord Roberts, on the other hand, held as strongly that as many as 10,000 men would be required; and after some discussion it was finally agreed that 10,000 should be raised, 4,000 of whom might he employed, if necessary, in relieving the military forces which would otherwise have to be sent out, on the understanding that no expense for these 4,000 men would fall on the colonies. The cost of these 4,000 men has been, from time to time, provided for by sums of money voted by this House. To make myself perfectly clear, I had better just say that the House will understand that the first 6,000 men were regarded as the constabulary of the colonies and are to be charged on the funds of these colonies. What we are dealing with is the 4,000 men raised in excess of the requirements of the ordinary police. The original Estimates of this year contained provision for the payment of these 4,000 men up to the close of the Transvaal financial year, in June. Then arose the questions whether it was necessary to maintain that force longer, how quickly such part of it as was not required for policing purposes could be dispensed with, and who was to bear the expenditure incurred until the men were dispersed. After full communication with Lord Milner, the Government were satisfied that these 4,000men would not be required as part of the permanent police force, and in accordance with the conditions on which they were raised, it was agreed to ask Parliament for the necessary money to pay their expense. The necessary information was not in our hands when the original Estimates were prepared, and therefore we were not able to make full provision for the cost of these men at the time. But when the Budget was before the House, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that he had to provide for a further expenditure of £750,000 not yet voted, on account of these constabulary, and in order to pay that expense up to 31st March next. That was the position at the time the Budget was passed. The £750,000 which was budgeted for by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is part of the £1,000,000 the Committee is now asked to vote. It has become apparent that it will not be possible to disband the whole of these 4,000 men before the 31st of this month, the close of the financial year. Very well, then, some arrangement had to be come to as to how much of the cost would remain open into the next financial year, in the event of the whole 4,000 men not being meantime disbanded. The Government had already admitted that these 4,000 men, having been raised, as Lord Milner pointed out, not for colonial police purposes, but for Imperial reasons, were a proper Imperial charge, and thus we ought not to throw on the colonics any expense in connection with them.

Then the question arose what exactly the expenditure would be, and how it would be provided. Lord Milner's decision was that the expenditure, in addition to the £750,000 included in last year's Budget, would amount to at least £350,000 more, making a total of £1,100,000. His Majesty's Government did not accept these figures, and some correspondence ensued as to exactly what the cost of these 4,000 men, or so many of them as remained, would be, what economies could be effected, and how the men could be more speedily got rid of. Finally Lord Milner offered, on behalf of the colonies, that if we would vote a lump sum of £1,000,000, payable before the 1st April, he would take that lump sum in discharge of all liabilities. It was the opinion of Lord Milner that the £1,000,000 would not cover the whole expense of the force, but in order to obtain an immediate settlement between the Colonial Treasury and the Imperial Government, he accepted the offer which His. Majesty's Government made. This is the only point on which I was inaccurate yesterday. It arose out of a question of the Member for Lambeth. This payment of £1,000,000, inclusive of the £750,000 budgeted for by the late Chancellor of the Ex chequer—the major portion of which has been already expended by the colonies—is a grant-in-aid of the colonial revenue in full discharge of all liabilities which would have fallen on His Majesty's Government in respect of the 4,000 men, and is not subject to the surrender of any balance if there be one.


Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this £750,000, although budgeted for by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, has never yet been voted, that there has been no Ways and Means for it, that it was not provided ' for in the Supplementary Estimates of last November, and that it was left to February of this year to make up the Vote required?


I think my hon. friend correctly understands what I said. It was not included in the original Estimates of the year, because these were prepared before the figures were arrived at; and it was not on the Supplementary Estimates in November last, because the adjustment of liability had also not then been arrived at. This £750,000 is now included in. the £1,000,000, and this £1,000,000 was offered by His Majesty's Government as a cash payment in discharge of all liabilities, and was accepted as such by Lord Milner, so that even if his anticipations were fulfilled, and this sum should not be sufficient to meet the full charges in favour of these men, who have been discharged as rapidly as possible, there still would be no further claim upon us. The one mistake I made yesterday was in respect to the possibility of the surrender of the balance. I ought to have made myself acquainted with the whole of the correspondence, but the House will appreciate the difficulty under which I am working in this matter. I had not seen the closing letters of the correspondence, and was not then informed of the nature of the bargain come to, and that it was a final and definite settlement of all liabilities that had accrued or might accrue. Therefore no additional Vote would be asked for even if the expenses of maintaining these 4,000 men are exceeded, or, what is much less probable, of a saving being made. If the House understands the position as I have now explained it, they will see that a large portion of the speech of my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, is not applicable to the situation I have expounded. My hon. friend complains that we were providing for a grant-in-aid in this way, for an expenditure that would only become due by us next year. That is not so. In essence, instead of this bargain being left open till next year, a cash payment would be made this year in settlement of all our liabilities. I hope that my hon. friend will now feel assured that no financial irregularities are being committed, and that he will find it in his power, as he always does, to support the Government on the present occasion.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said that the right hon. Gentleman had thrown a very different complexion on this matter from that presented when they were discussing it in Committee of Supply. He was quite sure that nobody blamed the right hon. Gentleman for not being then in possession of all the facts. The right hon. Gentleman, in addition to his labours as Postmaster General, was very ably carrying on the work of the Colonial Secretary, and it was not his business to know either the Colonial Office or the Treasury point of view. But there was a representative of the Treasury in the House on the previous day, and he must say that in the whole course of his Parliamentary life, now extending over many years, he had never known of a question discussed when the Member responsible for the Department concerned was present, and when that Member did not speak on a question regarding his Department, but allowed the Committee to get into a fog without affording any light or leading on it. They acquitted the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, but they did not acquit the Secretary to the Treasury for not putting the Committee in the possession of the most elementary information. Apart from the Secretary to the Treasury, he had listened with care and interest to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and his explanation in regard to the policy of the Government was quite clear. There were a certain number of constabulary which the War Office thought ought to be kept in excess of those approved by Lord Milner, and the Government, in their discretion, disagreeing with Lord Milner, said that 4,000 of the constabulary were to be kept at the expense of the Imperial Government. The question before the House that afternoon was not that of bargaining with Lord Milner, but of a grant to the War Office for the services of these 4,000 men. Now they were told that the Government had made a speculation on the matter. The Government thought that £750,000 was enough, while the Transvaal Government thought it should be rather more, and that if the Government gave them £1,000,000 they might make a profit out of it, and that if so that would be to their advantage: if they made a loss they would have to stand the racket. He did not think that was the basis upon which their financial position ought to be put.

Apart from the question of the laxity to which the hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred, it did not seem to most Members of the House that they ought to lose the present very slight control which they exercised over the different Government Departments. Under the Vote as it was presented to the Committee this afternoon, their control had entirely disappeared, and, as far as he was concerned, their position had not been improved from a financial point of view by the statement which had been made. As the hon. Member for King's Lynn had pointed out, although this Vote was called a grant-in-aid to the Transvaal, really the Transvaal had nothing to do with it. At all events, it was entirely outside and different to any other grant-in-aid which this House had been asked to consent to, and he did not think it was to the advantage of their financial position that such a Vote should be put practically out of the power of the Committee to express any opinion in regard to it. He did not think that in a matter representing such a large sum, upon which there had already been two or three miscalculations, it was quite right that they should make a gamble. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Oldham that a great deal might legitimately be said in favour of giving these men bonuses, or inducing them to leave at an earlier period. If they were to vote this £1,000,000, was it not possible that the Transvaal Government might carry out some such policy as that, and make £200,000 or £300,000 out of money which was intended to relieve the military forces? On the ground that the House should not part with its financial control, and because he was dissatisfied with the information, he should certainly support the proposal which had been made.


said he could not allow the hon. Member for Poplar to say that he had neglected his duty either to the Treasury or to the House of Commons. It had been said that he had not made the best bargain for the taxpayers of the country. He had watched these proceedings throughout the winter, and his very last act, which was negotiated by cablegram, was to tell Lord Milner that he considered that £98,000 ought to come off his demands. He went most carefully into the figures, and he did not accept the original demand which was made upon the Treasury, but he had reduced it by £98,000. He was convinced that, taking all things into consideration, they had made a good bargain for themselves. His right hon. friend the Postmaster General was representing, under very great difficulties, the Colonial Office in addition to his other office, and he was in charge of this Vote. He supposed that his right hon. friend had been properly briefed in regard to the Vote, and he listened to his case, and in the whole of his original speech he could find no fault whatever. He believed his right hon. friend accurately stated the case, and it was only in the course of the examination by questions that he afterwards discovered that his right hon. friend had a different view from his own as to the result of the negotiations between the Colonial Office and Lord Milner on the one hand and the Treasury on the other. His right hon. friend was a distinguished financial authority and a, member of the Cabinet, and it was just possible that, at the last moment, a modification of the arrangement might have been made at the Colonial Office. However, he ventured to tell the Postmaster General that his view was not correct, and that what had happened was that a bargain had been struck between the Treasury and the Colonial Office, and that an examination of the documents would prove this and show that if any economies were made in South Africa they would not accrue to the benefit of the British Exchequer. He told his right hon. friend that after looking at the documents he would probably find that his interpretation was the right one, and that it was a bargain; and if that were so they could put it all right on Report. Had there been no Report stage, he should have felt bound to inform the House, but the advantage of a Report stage was that those in charge of Departments could go back and, after obtaining official knowledge, give it to the House so as to enable hon. Members to form a more correct estimate of the facts. That was his explanation. He never wished to deceive the House, and he wished to give hon. Members all the information in his power.


wished to know how the expenditure out of this grant was to become subject to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said he thought this discussion had been a satisfactory one. The Postmaster General, in the explanation he had just placed before the House, acknowledged that they were left under a false or mistaken impression. He thought the Committee was indebted to the Postmaster General for the clear statement he had made with regard to a transaction which unquestionably did require explanation, and the House might congratulate itself that this discussion would be attended with satisfactory results. The House should uphold with the greatest possible care those sound canons of finance upon which the whole financial system of the country and our financial credit must, under all circumstances, depend.


said in this matter the House had been treated to a rare exhibition of political morality. The House had voted under a misapprehension owing to a right hon. Gentleman a Member of the Cabinet having quite unconsciously fallen into an error, and the hon. Gentleman who was the Secretary to the Treasury, who was bound to give his best abilities to the Treasury, was aware of the error and did not correct it. It was scarcely

respectful to the House to pass a Vote in this manner and compel them to correct it on Report. The Postmaster General had been burdened with a duty which did not properly belong to him, and could not be expected not to fall into an error, but it was the bounden duty of anyone who undertook a public duty to give all his time to that duty, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should have attended to his Treasury duties instead of the business of his public companies. Only recently, on the hon. Gentleman's re-appointment as a director of one company in which he was interested; he promised to give his whole time to the company.


pointed out that, although the hon. Member's remarks might be legitimate on another occasion, they were certainly not on this.


said he would certainly not proceed further today after Mr. Speaker's ruling, but he would renew his attack on another occasion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 15.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Wore Flower, Ernest
Aird, Sir John Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry Forster, Henry William
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Galloway, William Johnson
Arkwright, John Stanhope Coghill, Douglas Harry Garfit, William
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Allans
Arrol, Sir William Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn
Atkinson. Right Hon. John Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Gore, Hon G R C Ormsby- (Salop
Austin, Sir John Craig, Charles C. (Antrim, S.) Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Line
Bagot, Cant. Josceline FitzRoy Cranborne, Viscount Guest, Don. Ivor Churchill
Bailey, James (Walworth) Crossley, Sir Savile Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Bain, Colonel James Robert Dairymple, Sir Charles Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx
Baird, John George Alexander Davenport, William Bromley- Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.
Balcarres, Lord Dickinson, Robert Edmond Hare, Thomas Leigh
Baldwin, Alfred Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Harris, Frederick Leverton
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Haslett. Sir James Horner
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Alters Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Hermon-Dodge, Sir Robert T.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hoare, Sir Samuel
Bignold, Arthur Dyke, Rt. Hun. Sir Wm. Hart Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Hope, J. F. (Sheff, B'tside)
Brassey, Albert Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r Hoult, Joseph
Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg) Fielden, Edward Brocklehursf Hudson, George Bickersteth
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Jeffreys, Rt Hn. Arthur Fred
Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.) Fisher, William Haves Johnstone, Heywood
Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor) Fison, Frederick William Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Flannery, Sir Fortescue kimber, Henry
Laurie, Lieut.-General Percy, Earl Smith, James Parker(Lanarks
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Platt-Higgins, Frederick Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Lawson, John Grant Plummer, Walter R. Spear, John Ward
Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Purvis, Robert Stone, Sir Benjamin
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Randles, John S. Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Talbot, Rt Hn.JG.(Oxf'd Univ.
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Reid, James (Greenock) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent) Remnant, James Farquharson Thorburn, Sir Walter
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Renwick, George Thornton, Percy M.
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth) Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green Tritton, Charles Ernest
Macdona, John Gumming Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Valentia, Viscount
M'Calmont, Colonel James Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Vincent,Col.SirCEH.(Sheffield
M'Killop,James(Stirlingshire) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E. (Taunton
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Welby, Sir Charles G E. (Notts.
Middlemore, John Throgmort'n Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne
Mitchell, William Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Sackville, Sir S. G. Stopford- Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Mount, William Arthur Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Nicholson, William Graham Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Nicol, Donald Ninian Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) Sharpe, William Edward T. TELLERS FOE THE AYES—
Parker, Sir Gilbert Simeon, Sir Harrington Sir Alexander Acland-
Pemberton, John S. G. Sloan, Thomas Henry Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Flynn, James Christopher Power, Patrick Joseph
Atherley-Jones, L. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Rea, Russell
Barry. E. (Cork, S.) Gilhooly, James Reddy, M.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Redmond, William (Clare)
Bell, Richard Hammond, John Rigg, Richard
Blake, Edward Helme, Norval Watson Robertson, Edmund (Dundeee)
Boland, John Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Rose, Charles Day
Broadhurst, Henry Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Joicey, Sir James Schwann, Charles E.
Bryce, Right Hon. James Jones, David B. (Swansea) Shackleton, David James
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Burke, E. Haviland- Joyce, Michael Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burns, John Layland-Barratt, Francis Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Burt, Thomas Leigh, Sir Joseph Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Buxton, Sydney Charles Levy, Maurice Soares, Ernest J.
Caine, William Sproston Lough, Thomas Spencer, Rt Hn C. Rt. (Northants
Caldwell, James Lundon, W. Stevenson, Francis S.
Cameron, Robert MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Strachey, Sir Edward
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Sullivan, Donal
Causton, Richard Knight MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Cawley, Frederick MacVeagh, Jeremiah Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Condon, Thomas Joseph M'Govern, T. Toulmin, George
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) M'Kean, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Crean, Eugene M'Kenna, Reginald Wallace, Robert
Crumble, John William Markham, Arthur Basil Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Cullinan, J. Mooney, John J. Warner Thomas Courtenay T.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Murphy, John Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign Nannetti, Joseph P. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Delany, William Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Weir, James Galloway
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) White, George (Norfolk)
Donelan, Captain A. O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Doogan, P. C. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) O'Connor, James (Wicklow W. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Duffy, William J. O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mill.)
Edwards, Frank O'Dowd, John Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd
Esmonde, Sir Thomas O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith O'Shaughnessy, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Ffrench, Peter Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham Sir Joseph Leese and Mr.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Partington, Oswald Charles Hobhouse.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Paulton, James Mellor

Resolution agreed to.