§ [1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
§ ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,638,000, 684 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
said it was a little difficult to discuss this important Vote, as they all understood that this 685 Vote was not going to be taken to-day. The Prime Minister had distinctly announced that the previous Vote would be allowed to be discussed during the whole of to-day's proceedings because he said it would be necessary to get the Vote by twelve o'clock. They were now asked to pass a Vote of £1,638,000 without having had a reasonable opportunity of examining it. There were one or two things he wished to ask the Government. They had heard from the representatives of the War Office that they had been making a considerable extension in the employment of soldiers on half-pay and on retired pay, and he noticed an increasing number of cases in the Estimates where such employment was found. He should like to ask the Government what arrangements they made in a case of that kind. Was the salary entirely in addition to retired pay or half-pay, or was the retired pay or half-pay taken into account in the new payment that was made for the services rendered? On the second page of this Vote there was the sum of £10,000 as rewards to officers for distinguished or meritorious services. He should like to have some information as to the methods on which this amount was allotted. He was rather surprised to find that practically every man received the same amount according to his rank. For his part he could not see that there was much judgment in allotting this money for meritorious service if they gave exactly the same amount to all officers of the same rank. He would have thought that that £10,000, which was intended by the House to be put at the disposal of the War Office as a special reward for special services, would have been allotted with much more discrimination than appeared to be exercised. Was it likely, for instance, that all the lieutenant-generals did meritorious service exactly equal in value] He could not understand any business being conducted in that way. The money ought to be awarded in amounts proportionate to the service rendered, and surely there was a very wide difference between the services rendered to their country by these various officers. He wished to know further if these rewards were permanent. He noticed that they were voted by the House year by year, 686 and he would like to be told if, when once an award was made to an officer, it was a permanent award or merely an annual or temporary grant. He noticed at the bottom of one page a note on the question of retired pay, stating that in some cases the amount actually drawn exceeded the rate by Royal Warrant, owing to compensation being given for loss of prospects to officers compulsorily retired. If an officer were compulsorily retired he presumed it was because they were not satisfied with his services, and if the authorities were compelled to take such a step, it ought not to be necessary to compensate the officer for loss of prospects. That was a matter which required consideration.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
pointed out that, in spite of the large demobilisation at the end of the war, there were now more officers on active employment and fewer on half-pay than there were a year ago. He would like to know whether there had been such an enormous flow of promotion that the higher ranks were over-filled, and it seemed to him that the result of the mobilisation would be to increase rather than decrease the number of officers on half-pay.
§ MR. PIRIE
complained of the Vote being taken that evening. He had desired to call attention to what he considered to be abuses in the non-effective Vote. He had on the Paper a Question asking for a Return of the sums expended during the last five years on the non-effective Vote. It was only fair that the House should have that statement before it was asked to pass the Vote. He wished to have an explanation how it was there were ninety-two lieutenant-colonels and colonels placed on half pay in 1903–4 as compared with sixty-six in 1902–3. In the same years there was an increase of four majors and of five captains. Seeing that this country was the only one which kept a half-pay list as a means of punishment he thought he was entitled to ask for that explanation.
§ *MR. BRODRICK
replied that obviously after a campaign in which a very large number of additional officers had been engaged, there was not now employment 687 for all of them, and consequently some of them had been placed on the half-pay list, possibly only for a time. So far as the general officers' list was concerned, the principle of selection which was now fully in force would ultimately greatly lessen the number of general officers on half-pay. In explanation of the foot-note referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax, it referred to cases in which officers were compulsorily retired under the old Royal Warrant on larger sums than were now allowed. No such cases occurred in the present day, however. He had long felt that the principle on which distinguished service awards was given was not defensible. He was glad the hon. Member had called attention to this matter, because undoubtedly a good case had been made out for a change. Under the present system an officer receiving £2,000 a year might get the award, but when he was retired on perhaps £800, he was deprived of the £100 a year distinguished service award at the very moment he most needed it. With the full concurrence of the Commander-in-Chief he had laid it down that a man who had been selected for a reward for distinguished service should not get the money while he was in receipt of full pay, but when he finally went on half-pay, when he probably needed it most. In regard to the general position of the Vote, the Committee would be glad to note that there was a considerable reduction.
*SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)
joined heartily in the protests against this Vote for one and a half millions being brought on that evening. It was contrary to the distinct understanding arrived at.
*SIR WALTER FOSTER
said he based it on the statement of the Prime Minister that the Government would be satisfied if they got Vote A and Vote I on Thursday night. They had got those Votes at the afternoon sitting, by means of the Closure, the use of which was no part of the bargain. It was not treating them with consideration to have other Votes like this one brought on and pushed through Committee late in the evening. The Government had had an exceedingly good time in the last few days. They had had, moreover, the satisfaction at last of seeing their critical friends below the Gangway support them—a change of front due no doubt to a recent remarkable election. This all the more justified the. protest. In any case a Vote of this kind wanted to be looked into with the closest scrutiny, and there was no opportunity of doing that in consequence of the action of the Government in bringing it on unexpectedly and contrary to what was understood by Members on the Opposition side.
§ *MR. BRODRICK
thought the indignation of the hon. Gentleman was a little thin. Those who had watched the discussions during the last four days must admit, he thought, that his right hon. friend the Prime Minister had given most ample opportunity to those who wished to criticise the Government on Vote A and Vote I. He carefully watched the debate that afternoon, and he noted that until about a quarter of an hour before the adjournment there was no sign of any wish to raise further discussion on Vote I.
689 It had always been the custom when the House had obviously exhausted its criticism, not to allow one or two individuals to stand in the way of getting on with the business. In addition to that the non-effective had never been the subject of prolonged discussion; they were the same year by year; no fresh principle was introduced on this occasion, and he really thought they might be allowed to continue, without protest, the modest amount of business which remained to be got through.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)
pointed out that the very modest amount of business to which the right hon. Gentleman referred consisted of voting £3,500,000 more than anything that the Prime Minister spoke of getting that night. The right hon. Gentleman the other day said that for reasons which could be chronologically justified, it was necessary, in his opinion, to get Vote A and Vote I by that evening, and on that occasion he ventured to put in a little careat and intimated that he must not be held to consent to that course if it involved an undue curtailment of debate. When the debate was gradually dying down in the usual pleasant way, the Prime Minister thought it not inconvenient or disrespectful to the House to move the Closure, just at the moment the House had no expectation of its being done, and when many Members who possibly had something to say on the Vote had gone away. Now the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take Votes for another £3,500,000 in order to make the Government perfectly independent of the House of Commons, as far as the Army Estimates were concerned, until July next. That 690 certainly was not dealing fairly with the House. He maintained that, from the point of view of the Government, it was a grave breach of the understanding which existed, to move the Closure at the time when it was moved. The Government, therefore, ought not to persist in taking any more Votes that night, the opportunity for which had been gained in such a way.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)
said the Secretary of State for War had made very light of that matter. He had stated that from time immemorial it had been the practice to pass these non-effective items without debate. That time, however, had now passed; Members wanted to know more about these matters. The non-effective part of the British Army had become so very considerable that they felt bound, in the interest of the nation and of the safety of the Empire, to go into that part of the subject at greater length than they had done in the past. There were 284 non-effective colonels at £500 a year each. That was a serious matter, and required looking into. Then with regard to rewards and allowances for meritorious and distinguished services, there were several columns filled with grants of £10. Surely some explanation should be given of how all these distinguished services came to be worth exactly £10 apiece. He moved to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed,
§ "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Broad-hurst.)
§ *MR. BRODRICK
thought the Motion could hardly have been made with any 691 expectation that the Government would accept it. He hoped the Committee would continue business.
§ *MR. BRODRICK
said that no pledge whatever had been given. The Prime Minister stated that he wanted Vote A and Vote I before the end of the evening, but he did not pledge himself not to proceed further.
§ MR. LOUGH
contended that there wag a distinct understanding that only those two Votes would be taken, and on that understanding many Members had left the House. It was now sought to get another two or three millions of money voted. The Government were trying to hustle things through in the meanest possible way, and he thought there was no more reasonable proposition than that they should report Progress.
§ LORD ALWYNE COMPTON (Bedfordshire, Biggleswade)
agreed that the Vote was a most important one, and he was burning to discuss it. He, however, was quite prepared to make his criticisms 692 at once, and ho protested against business being interrupted by such a Motion as that before the Committee.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
asked the Secretary of State whether he had ever known a case when the non-effectives had been taken on the same night as Vote I.
§ *MR. BRODRICK
said he had known much more important Votes taken on the same night as Vote I. He looked upon it as a proof of the moderation of the Prime Minister that he had put down only the non-effective Votes. He-was not certain, but he believed that even in the life of the present Parliament the non-effective Votes, or some of them, had been taken the same night as Vote I.
§ MR. WHITLEY
put forward as an additional reason for reporting Progress the fact that they had heard that night for the first time that this sum of £10,000 a year for meritorious services was to be dealt with on a new plan. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that in future these rewards would come into force only on the retirement of the officers concerned, and that was entirely inconsistent with the Vole as submitted.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)
suggested that it would be reasonable if the Opposition would allow this particular Vote to be taken on the understanding that no other non-effective Vote should be taken that night.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
said the suggestion of the noble Lord would hardly be acceptable, because many Members had gone, being under the
§ impression that the non-effective Votes would not be taken.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 154. (Division List No. 30.)695
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)||Joicey, (Sir James|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herat. Hy.||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Joyce, Michael||Shackleton, David James|
|Brigg, John||Kearley, Hudson E.||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, S.)|
|Broadhurst. Henry||Lambert, George||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Burns, John||Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Caldwell, James||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northants|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H||Leng, Sir John||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lough. Thomas||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Charming, Francis Allston||Lundon, W.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lamark)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) -|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Crae, George||Thomas, J. A. (GFm'rgan, Gower|
|Delany, William||M'Kenna, Reginald||Tomkinson, James|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith||Murphy, John||White,' George (Norfolk)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Brien, P. J. Tipperary, N.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Curdon, Sir W. Brampton||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Harms worth. R. Leicester||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES-|
|Hayne. Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||Roe, Sir Thomas||Mr. Herbert (Gladstone) and Mr. Causton.|
|Helme. Norval Watson||Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)|
|Agg-Gardner. James Tynte||Cranborne, Viscount||Knowles, Lees|
|Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden||Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Crossley. Sir Savile||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th,)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh 0.||Denny. Colonel||Lawson, John Grant|
|Arrol, Sir William||Dickson. Charles Scott||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Atkinson, Right Hon. John||Dimsdale. Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Kt. Hn. Sir H.||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lockie, John|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Duke, Henry Edward||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r)||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G W. (Leeds||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Bignold, Arthur||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)|
|Bigwood. James||Fisher, William Hayes||Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-||Maxwell, W. J. U. (Dumfriessh.)|
|Boscawen. Arthur Griffith-||Forster, Henry William||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Bousfield. William Robert||Galloway. William Johnson||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Brodrick. Rt. Hon. St. John||Gardner. Ernest||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire|
|Butcher, John George||Garfit, William||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)|
|Carson. Kt. Hon. Sir Edw. JI||Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)||Morrison, James Aichibald|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Mount, William Arthur|
|Cavendish. V'C W (Derbysh.)||Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nrn,)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Graham, Henry Robert||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)|
|Chamberlain.Rt'.Hn. J A (Wore)||Gretton. John||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Charringron, Spencer||Groves. James Grimble||Nicol, Donald Ninian.|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Give. Captain Percy A.||Hardie. J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Hardy, Laurence (Kenf.Ashfd)||Percy, Earl|
|Callings, Right Hon. Jesse||Harris. Frederick Leverton||Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard|
|Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Helder. Augustus||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Corbett, A Cameron (Glasg.)||Henderson. Sir Alexander||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Corbett. T. L. (Down. North)||Houre. Sir Samuel||Purvis, Robert|
|Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge||Jebb. Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Randles. John S.||Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isleof Wight)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Rankin, Sir James||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.|
|Rattigan, Sir William Henry||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)||Webb, Col. William George|
|Reid, James (Greenock)||Smith, H.C. (North'mb. Tyneside)||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)|
|Remnant, Jas. Farquharson||Smith, Jaa. Parker (Lanarks.)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Ridley, Hn.M.W. (Stalybridge)||Smith, Hn. W. P. D. (Strand)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Spear, John Ward||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R|
|Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Hath)|
|Robertson, H. (Hackney)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert||Stock, James Henry||Wylie, Alexander|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wyndham-Quin, MajorW. H.|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Valentia, Viscount||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Vincent. Col Sir C.E.H. (Sheffield)|
§ Original Question again proposed.
MR. OOURTENAY WAENER
said he wished to know why, after the demobilisation of the Army in South Africa which had necessarily put several generals on half-pay, they now had fewer generals on half-pay than they had last year, when a number of men who ought to have been on half-pay were employed in the field. In order to obtain a reply he would move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON, (Yorkshire, W.R., Morley)
on a point of order, asked if moving a reduction on Item B would prejudice his right to move a reduction on Item A.
It is not a point of order; it depends on whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way,
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
said he was quite willing to withdraw his Motion in order to allow his hon. friend to proceed.
§ MR. ALFRED HUTTON
said that when he asked a question about the allocation of the £10,000 for rewards for 696 meritorious services, the Secretary of State informed the Committee that he had a new scheme for the allocation of the money. Those new schemes were getting a little bewildering, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him asking him one or two questions with reference to his latest scheme. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in future the money voted by Parliament for this purpose would not be received by the officers concerned until they had retired on half-pay. If that was so the Vote now presented to the Committee was incorrect, because it included officers on the active list as well as officers on the retired list. That was the reason why they should have the right hon. Gentleman's scheme in black and white before they proceeded to discuss the Vote, and in order that that might be done he would move the reduction of Item A by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Rewards to Officers for Distinguished Services) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
§ *MR. BRODRICK
said the question was a very simple one. Officers holding appointments would not draw rewards, 697 but when they were on half-pay or retired pay they would draw them.
§ Motion by leave withdrawn.
§ Original question again proposed.
§ MB. PIRIE
said he wished to move a reduction of the Vote in consequence of the insufficient reply which had been given with regard to the details of Item C. He referred to the increase of the item for half-pay for colonels and lieutenant-colonels. The Secretary of State for War explained the increase by saying that it was due to the conclusion of the South African War. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in appointing fresh officers to any appointments which might be created under the new Army Corps system, regard would be paid to economy as well as to fitness for selection. A 698 certain sum would be saved by giving billets to officers on half-pay; and he wished to know whether the War Office intended to study economy in makingsuch appointments. He also wished to know whether every officer would have to submit to a strict medical examination before taking up a Staff appointment. He begged to move.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C (Half-Pay of Regimental and Departmental Officers eligible for Employment) be reduced by £7,680."—(Mr Pirie.)
§ MR. BRODRICK
said that the close of the war had left a number of colonels and other officers of lower rank whose services were not required immediately, and they had gone temporarily on half-pay. Other things being equal, economy would always be studied, and, if officers were eligible for appointment, they would be employed.
§ MR. LOUGH
said the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was a general one. He thought his hon. friend was right, and that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to explain the increase. The only explanation they got was that it was because of the war in South Africa, and that did not appear to him to be sufficient.
§ Question put699
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64;
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Brigg, John||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale||Shackleton, David James|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Helme. Norval Watson||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Joicey, Sir James||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Burns, John||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Caldwell, James||Joyce, Michael||Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Kearley, Hudson E.||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lambert, George||Tennant, Harold John|
|Cawley, Frederick||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)||Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Tomkinson, James|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Leng, Sir John||Warner, Thos. Courtenay, T.|
|Delany, William||Lundon, W.||Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Duffy, William J.||M'Crae, George||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||M'Kenna, Reginald||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||TELLERS FOR. THE AYES—|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Murphy, John||MR-. Pirie and Mr. Lough.|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Roberts. John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden||Duke, Henry Edward||M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H E (Wigt'n)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.||Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Arrol, Sir William||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Atkinson, Right Hon. John||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt, Hn. Sir H.||Fisher, William Hayes||Morgan, David J (Walthamst' w)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||Mount, William Arthur|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r)||Galloway, William Johnson||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Balfour. Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Garfit, William||Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham (Bute)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)||Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Bignold, Arthur||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Bigwood, James||Graham, Henry Robert||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Blundell. Colonel Henry||Gretton, John||Percy, Earl|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Groves, James Grimble||Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richards|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Butcher, John George||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Purvis, Robert|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Helder. Augustus||Randles, John S.|
|Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)||Henderson. Sir Alexander||Rankin, Sir James|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc)||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Jebb. Sir Richard Claverhouse||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.||Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge)|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson|
|Cochrane, Hon. T., H. A. E.||Knowles, Lees||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Campton, Lord Alwyne||Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)||Round, Rt. Hon, James|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)||Lawson, John Grant||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lockie, John||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Crossley. Sir Savile||Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Seely, Mj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Denny, Colonel||Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Dickson. Charles Scott||Macdona, John Cumining||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.||Maconochie, A. W.||Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)|
§ Noes, 153. (Division List, No. 31.)701
|Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)||Valentia, Viscount||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Spear, John Ward||Vincent,Col Sir C. E. H (Sheffield)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Walker, Col. William Hall||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Stock, James Henry||Webb, Col. William George|
|Sturt. Hon. Humphry Napier||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Willox, Sir John Archibald||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Tomlinson, Sir Win. Ed. M.||Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)|
|Tufnell lieut-Col. Edward||Wodehonse, Rt, Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ And it being after Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
§ Whereupon MR. SECRETARY BROD-RICK rose in his place, and claimed to702
§ move, "That the Question be now put,"
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 64. (Division List, No. 32.)
|Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Webb, Col. William George||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath)||Sir Alexander Acland-|
|Vincent.Col Sir C. E. (Sheffield)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart||Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Walker, Col. William Hall||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Allen. Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt Hy.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.||Helme, Norval Watson||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Brigg, John||Joicey. Sir James||Shackleton, David James|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, S.)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Joyce, Michael||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Burns, John||Kearley, Hudson E.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Caldwell, James||Lambert, George||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Leng, Sir John||Thomas, J. A. (Glam.,Gower)|
|Cullman, J.||Lough, Thomas||Tomkinson, James|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Duffy, William J.||M'Crae, George||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||M'Kenna, Reginald||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Murphy, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Mr. Herbert Gladstone|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Pirie, Duncan V.||and Mr. Canston.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)||Roberta, John Bryn (Eifion)|
§ Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
§ MR. GALLOWAY
asked when the Government proposed to take the Report Stage of Vote A and Vote I of the Army Estimates.
§ SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, W.)
said the intention of the Government was to move the Speaker out of the Chair on Monday on the Navy Estimates. The Report Stage of the Army Estimates would not be taken before Wednesday.