§ MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.)
To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if it has been decided that there shall be no practical examination in science at the training college examinations this year; and, if so, whether the Board will reconsider their decision in view of their circular issued to the training colleges in June, 1901, prescribing that the science teaching should in future be of a practical and experimental character.
1147 day—not the servants of one Government but of both Governments; not men selected on any ground except that of their being the best representatives of the Army and the men who have seen most of field service. I say the opinions given by those men should not be set aside for any anonymous opinion which is unvouched for, and of which all we know is that it has been given by a military man. I wait until my hon. friend gets up, or some of his supporters get up, to tell us who there is, who has real field experience and knowledge, and whoso opinion may weigh with the House, who is in favour of decreasing the Army by 27,000 men.
§ MR. YERBURGH (Chester)
I am in possession of the name of an authority, who will be recognised, I think, by everybody in this House, whose opinion is to the effect that the Army could be very largely reduced indeed. I have that gentleman's authority to use my judgment in this matter, and I should propose to give his name to the Prime Minister. [Cries of "Oh."]
I shall await the result of that action with great complacency. I said when I rose that I thought this Question which is now before the House was one which should not be obscured by the great issue which the House decided last week. I think there was in the speech of my lion, friend the Member for St. Albans, besides a great deal of humour, a genuine ring of anxiety as to the nature of the recruits. That subject is not by any means so interesting or thrilling as one which the hon. Member for Whitby has drawn across the trail. Still, I think the House will perhaps be interested to know what are the steps which have been taken to redeem the Army from the imputation that in-efficients are so largely introduced. In the first place, there is the gravest possible misconception as regards the physique of our Army as compared with that of foreign countries. I cannot discuss this question at any length this afternoon, but I will go as far as this. My hon. friend amused the House by assuming an encounter between our troops and those of foreign countries, and referred to the official apology which the 1148 Government of the day would have to make—that the foreigners were of so much finer physique.
*MR. VICARY GIBBS
I never suggested for an instant that the physique of the foreigners was finer than ours. I said that the right hon. Gentleman was allowing a lot of wastrels to be brought into the Army who were not fit to be put into opposition to any other troops that I know.
What I understood the hon. Member to say, arid I think he will admit that he did say it, was that, as compared with foreign recruits, ours, as at present taken, certainly showed a marked inferiority of physique.
§ MR. VICARY GIBBS
I said that foreign nations had an immense advantage over us in the fact that they could draw from the whole of their population. I recognised that as a difficulty with which the right hon. Gentleman had to contend. I said that would not help him when it came to a war.
That is the point I want to make. My hon. friend thinks that owing to that advantage, foreign nations get better recruits. My hon. friend knows, and the House ought to know, that in every single instance—I do not speak of the United States of America—the standard of recruits in foreign countries is lower than it is in this country. Take the standard of French recruits. Nobody who has ever walked through a French garrison town and looked at the soldiers whom he has met will need any statistics. As regards height, there is no standard for infantry soldiers in France. I hold in my hand a book of the French disqualifications. If I had time to read it to them, hon. Members would be astounded at the things which are not regarded as disqualifications, even in men who are under five feet in height. As to German recruits, the minimum height for infantry, telegraph corps, and rifles is 5.05 feet—that is under five feet one inch; and no rules are laid down regarding chest measurement, the matter being left to the medical officers.
1149 In Russia the minimum standard for infantry is five feet one-quarter inch, for rifles five feet one and a quarter inches, and the minimum chest measurement is half the height plus seven-eighths inches. In all those armies I am quite convinced hon. Members will find that in all respects, except that of age, men are taken as physically inferior as any recruits taken in this country. I fully recognise that there is and has been a tendency perhaps in the last fifteen years to go lower in the physical standard of recruits. Why is that? Hon. Members are under the impression, I think, that that is done under civilian pressure in order to produce a larger number on paper. I can assure the House that is not the fact. During my experience at the War Office, which extends back to 1886, with, of course, intervals, I never remember a discussion of this kind in which the military Members did not press for a lower standard or for the introduction of specials, and in which, on the whole, the civilian opinion was not the other way. Why is that? The reason is very obvious. In the Navy they have the great advantage of enlisting boys for boy service. In the Army that is only done to a limited extent. I believe every military man and every naval man prefers taking a recruit as a boy to taking him when he has reached eighteen years of age. Such an one is far better trained, he is far more amenable to discipline, and he learns his business and becomes a soldier or sailor of the best class. To take boys on a very large scale in the Army would be an enormous expense. You would have to spend practically all you are spending now for grown men, and you would also have to spend money on your boy establishment. Therefore, almost every soldier I have come across goes as near as he can and says—Let us take all the grown men we can get and any man who is a little under the standard who is likely to come up to it, because that man will be well trained by the time we want to use him. That may or may not be right, but it has not been concealed from the House of Commons.
When I came forward to urge the House to accept, as I have twice 1150 done in the last seven years, an increase of pay, on the first occasion I explained to the House that the pay of a recruit on joining was practically 7d a day—that is to say, there was a messing allowance of 3d which he paid and there were various necessaries for which there were stoppages of 2d., making up the shilling. I told the House then that, recognising that many of these boys were not fit immediately to be put into the field, we could not give the increased allowance of 3d. at that time, and we have since not allowed the increased allowance of 5d., making up the shilling, to be given until one of two things has happened—until a boy or recruit is pronounced to be efficiently trained, which may be after six months' training, or until he has reached nineteen years of age; and that is the rule. Therefore my hon. friend is in error when he says that we pay the same for boys who are inefficient, and specials who have not reached the standard, as we pay for the trained soldier. For specials or weedy boys we pay 7d., and not until they become trained soldiers or are over nineteen do they receive a shilling.
§ MR. VICARY GIBBS
But if he is kicked out of the Army in six months, he has surely during that time cost as much as the best men?
That is another point. I am coming to that. It is true take a certain number under standard, but we treat them as boys and do not count them as fit or eligible to go abroad. This may be wrong or lot, but there has never been any concealment about it. Now what is our position? Of the recruits we have taken certain percentage under standard. During the war, every man who presented himself was naturally taken and drilled, because he might become useful before the end of the war, and it would have been unwise to refuse him; but the moment I learned the condition of recruiting at the beginning of the year, within two days of receiving the Adjutant General's Report, we did raise the standard, and I have gone into the whole subject of recruiting and its conditions. My hon. friend, in his enumeration of qualifications, mentioned 1151 character, intelligence, and, in the third place, physical vigour. Well, I think physical vigour comes very high in the qualifications for a soldier, but, at any rate, it is one of the characteristics we cannot do without. When we come to the question of character, I find much in what my lion, friend said with which I can agree; but we must remember there are variations in the term character, and in these variations we must not press the question too far. We shall all agree in saying, let us have a system that shall keep out men who have been in gaol for criminal offences, let us have a system that will keep out the habitual drunkard and the man likely to demoralise his comrades. But what I demur to is the laying down of a number of Sunday School rules as to character. You must not lay down a rule under which a boy who has, say, kicked up his heels, and, perhaps, been impertinent to his master, or something of that kind, would be without a character; or a man may have left two or three situations without any cause except such as would prevent one giving a character to a butler or a servant: I do not want such a man to be debarred from Army service on the ground of character. While on this subject perhaps the House will allow me to give a few extracts taken at random from reports I have received from rive or six districts in reference to recruits taken last year. In the London district, where I think 8,000 men were taken, the recruiting officer reports that the recruits are more satisfactory now that greater care is taken to make inquiries as to age and character. From Dover the report says there is a marked improvement in the average of education, and characters, when applied for, have invariably been got. In the western district—from Devonport—the reports say the forms in reference to character are filled in in a satisfactory manner. From Warring-ton it is stated that no recruit is taken who cannot produce a reference or is not known to the recruiter, with the result that there is an absence of fraudulent enlistment. In Birmingham the physique is fairly good, education very good, and character good, owing to the complete system of inquiry. I only take these as typical instances of what we 1152 are doing, and I think the House will see they do not show there is that indifference to character of which something has been said. What I propose to do, with the full consent of the Commander-in-Chief, is to cause reference to character to be asked for in each case, and I propose in fact to put in force the system which has been carried out in four of these five districts. Of course, it must be understood that we, in estimating character, must be guided by the conditions and circumstances, but the hon. Member may rest assured that personally I am heartily in accord with his view.
If hon. Members really believe that any occupant of this Bench has any advantage to gain by making a sham statement showing a total of men, a considerable number of whom will fall out before the close of the year, I can assure them they are very greatly mistaken. Where will be the test? What does it matter what happens to-day or to-morrow? The test is the state of the Army two or three years hence. I only wish that those who now so strongly criticise the Government would remember that the present system of Army enlistment is not a year old, and that the results they so vehemently challenge have actually not had the trial of twelve months. It is entirely a delusion to suppose that if, by discarding, waste, you get less than 50,000, therefore you necessarily reduce the number of troops you desire to maintain. If you waste less you want less; you gain, if you get a lesser number on whom you can rely. That is why I say I am heartily in favour of the principle of the proposal put forward. I make no prophecy in this matter. I have never, in any circumstances, ventured to tell the House we could lay down any fixed rule as to the number of men we could get in a year. As everybody knows, recruiting must largely depend on the state of the labour market, and the par and prospects offered by the Army. But I do believe—although we cannot control the state of the labour market—I do believe that a great step forward has been taken, not only in the pay, but in the improvements of the prospects in the Army in the last few years; and I believe that anything that will tend to advance that step, that 1153 any system improving the condition of our troops, will induce men who have not hitherto joined the Army to come to it as an honourable profession in which they will be adequately remunerated. I hope, in that my hon. friends and the Government are not far apart in their views, that they will not think it necessary to divide on this Motion for a reduction, which I understand has been put forward to give them the opportunity of expressing the strong feelings they hold, and in which, so far as I can see, we are in almost entire accord.
§ MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)
said he wished to speak on the subject from the point of view of the taxpayer. He was entirely in favour of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He voted for the reduction of the Army last week, and he would vote for a still greater reduction if a division were taken on the Motion. He had a firm conviction that the burden which was being imposed on the taxpayers for the defensive forces of the country was becoming intolerable, and that the country was becoming tired of it. They could not view the increase in the forces of the country without considering their future position. Hon. Members opposite appeared to live in an atmosphere which was three years old. Every part of the country that had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the present policy of the Government had rejected it. That was seen last week, and again yesterday in one of the strongholds of the Conservative Party; and probably within a week it would be seen in another Conservative stronghold. He understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite introduced these discussions on the Army, firstly, because they thought the Army was unnecessarily large, and therefore necessarily expensive; and, secondly, because they thought the country was not getting value for the money expended. Their contention was that it would be better to have a small, thoroughly-equipped and effective Army, then a larger Army not equipped and not efficient. He understood hon. Members to say that the strength of the Army as shown by the Secretary of State was a paper strength; and that the War Office was drawing 1154 recruits to such an extent that they were compelled to take men and boys who otherwise would be rejected. There was a great change in the position imposed on recruits since his time. Forty-five years ago he submitted himself to the consideration of a recruiting officer. He had a little refreshment within him, and was inspired with great hopes and expectations as to his military prospects as he marched through the streets to the barracks. However, lie was not even permitted to reach the medical officer's department. He was immediately stripped of his boots, put under a measure, and declared short, and so ended his connection with the British Army. He could only speak of the Army up to that point, and no further. He was not a wastrel physically, whatever else he might have been. For the last forty-five years he had been in pretty good health, but the standard for the British Army in that time had been so reduced that they now took mere shadows of humanity compared with what he was then. That was the one weak point of this system, and that was the point to which hon. Members opposite had drawn attention. They showed that we were hanging on a broken reed; that we were taking recruits unfit to bear arms, and training them for six or twelve months at a great cost, and at last they had to be rejected as utterly useless as a fighting force.
The right hon. Gentleman had stated that in the last two or three years he had come down to the House with Motions for improving the Army by giving an increase of pay. But he would not improve the Army by increasing the pay alone. That no doubt was necessary, but they would also have to improve the condition of life in barracks, and increase the self-respect of the rank and file of the Army; they must also be able to hold out to the private soldier a moderate course of promotion, and do away with much of that hateful and detestable class distinction which now ruled so much in the British Army. If something of that kind were done, a great deal would be done for the recruiting of the British Army, and they would obtain the best persons available. Another difficulty which 1155 they had to contend with was the decrease in the physique of the class to which they had to go for the rank and file. That was a very serious matter, and so long as the agricultural labourers of this country, from which the great majority of our recruits were drawn, were decreasing, and the conditions under which they lived were so demoralising to their physique and morality, that difficulty would remain. He had thought it necessary to inform the House of his slight connection with the Army, and, speaking for himself, if he were an officer, he would rather go with 100 strong and true men, who were intelligent and physically fit to meet the most extreme strain that might be put upon them, than he would with 150 half-breeds who were physically and mentally unfit for any undertaking. He trusted that the hon. Member for St. Albans would divide the House upon this point, in which case he would vote with him. They must reduce. They could not go on in this ridiculous way, spending millions and millions on both services, and yet having no guarantee that with this inceased expenditure they had increased safety. If they were to have a real War Office reform they should get rid of the old, useless, ineffective administrators, and place in their positions men who would be capable of giving twenty shillings worth of value for every pound which was spent. They did not grumble so much at the amount as the fast that they felt the money was being wasted and the country was not getting value for it. That was one of the main reasons why they continually opposed this increasing outlay of public money. Real reform must start at the bottom and continue to the top, and anyone who was inefficient, who came between them and the object they had in view, must give place to others. He supported the reduction.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LOUD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
pointed out that the Government must have Vote I and Vote A before half-past seven. He only rose to call the attention of the House to the fact, and hoped hon. Gentlemen would bear it in mind.
*MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hampshire, Fareham)
said he had no intention 1156 of making a speech, but that after the statement made by the Secretary of State for War he thought it was only right that he should express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the announcement he had made with reference to the new system of enlisting recruits. He had taken great interest in this matter, and had brought it to the attention of the House on several occasions in past years, and it was a matter of great satisfaction to him that the right hon. Gentleman should be willing to try this new system, at any rate as an experiment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he accepted the principle of the hon. Member for St. Albans' Amendment, and further that he was "heart and soul with him." That was a statement the House had heard with great satisfaction, and it showed that the right hon. Gentleman was not impervious to argument.
One other word by way of personal explanation. The hon. Member for Durham had vigorously attacked those who had placed on the Paper Motions for reduction, on the ground that their only motive was to reduce the fighting strength of the Army, otherwise, he said, they should have stated in their Motion the motives of their reduction. He would point out to his hon. friend, however, that by the Rules of the House it was not possible to show on the Paper the motives with which a reduction was to be moved. Personally he had handed in a notice to reduce the strength of the Army by a certain number, "being the number of ineffectives now in the ranks," but the clerks had ruled it out. Whatever hon. Members might think, he could assure them that, as far as he was concerned, his motive was to reduce the strength of the Army not by a single fighting man, but only by the number of ineffectives. In conclusion, he wished to express the confident belief that the reforms which the Secretary of State for War had just announced would prove very successful in practice, and would have a most beneficial effect, not only upon recruiting, but upon the Army generally.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion),
in supporting the Amendment, said that while he agreed with almost 1157 every word of the mover, he did not confine his opposition to the Vote to the grounds stated by the hon. Member. His main objection was that the total war expenditure of the country, on a peace footing, was monstrously extravagant, and ought to be reduced. His reading of recent elections was that a great revulsion of feeling was taking place in the country on the question of expenditure, and that there would have to be a return to methods of economy. The enormous increase of war expenditure in the last ten years was due to the great change of policy involved in the revival of Imperialism, which had taken place since the retirement of Mr. Gladstone. In the year following that statesman's retirement, there was an increase of several millions in the war services, and that increase had been going on by leaps and bounds ever since. But would anybody suggest that the country had been freer from apprehension of attack? The reverse was the case. The confidence of foreign countries in Mr. Gladstone and his policy of pence, which Liberals of former days, and real Liberals of to-day, advocated, had secured the country from apprehension of attack, That policy had been changed, and with it the attitude of other countries had altered. The alternative policy he would suggest was a return to the old traditions, which had been the policy as much of Conservatives as of Liberals. Hon. Members on the other side would not be abandoning the old traditions of Conservatism by adopting the policy of retrenchment and economy, and particularly of minding our own affairs, and not seizing the property of other people.
The hon. Member for Durham had suggested the possibility of our Army having face Continental armies in an European war. He demurred altogether to that view. Even if we raised as many men as the most extravagant Member on the other side desired, it would be as a mere drop in the ocean compared with the armies on the Continent; while if our Navy were defeated, and this country invaded, we should not be on the "safe side," to use the hon. Member's words, if we had three times as many men as we have.
1158 If we were to prepare against invasion, we were woefully below the necessary number, while if we simply desired to guard our possessions in other countries, our Army was a great deal too large. He agreed with what had been said as to the class of men required in the Army, and that was one of his reasons for thinking a reduction necessary. The proper class of men could not be obtained unless higher pay was offered, and, as the country would not dream of voting more money than was now being voted, the only way to enable better pay to be given was to reduce the number of men. He should certainly support the Amendment, and he only wished it had been proposed to reduce the Vote by a much larger number of men.
§ LORD HUGH CECIL said that perhaps he might be permitted to say that when he interrupted his right hon. friend it was not on the point of Order. He was annoyed by what appeared to be the very great discourtesy of his observations [Cries of "Oh" and "No"]—he was entitled to his opinion of them—and he really did not see any inherent absurdity in challenging his right hon. friend upon amenity of manners. He was better pleased, however, to deal with the main part of his right hon. friend's speech, which was of a very satisfactory character. He quite agreed with his hon. friend that what had been said by the last two speakers was not so relevant to this matter as to a previous occasion. But to avoid misapprehension, he was obliged to say that his hon. friend the Member for Durham, whom they always listened to with interest and instruction, really misapprehended the case with which he dealt. They did not desire in the slightest degree to alter or destroy the military character of the Empire. They did not propose that there should never be in the future, as there had been in the past, military operations where necessary. They did not in the slightest degree deny the importance of the Indian Empire or the necessity of defending the Indian Empire. All these were objects of national policy on which there was substantial agreement on both sides of the House. The whole question that had been debated in these discussions 1159 was whether the Army, under his right lion, friend's scheme, was an instrument well suited to the needs of the country, or could it not be made much better suited to the needs of the country at a much smaller cost, and, in that case, should they not gain in military efficiency and still more in national economy by reducing it. To that opinion he adhered, and his lion, friends adhered, and they did not find their opinions in the least changed either by the imputation of motives, or the appeal to military authorities in lieu of arguments to which the Government had had recourse. They continued to believe, and they would continue to believe, that his right hon. friend's scheme was a bad one; but they had, he confessed, received very great encouragement that afternoon, because, for the first time in these debates, the Government had been inspired by a spirit of sweet reasonableness, excepting his right hon. friend's exordium, and had given assurances which were of a most satisfactory character. The only criticism he would make on that part of the speech was that he wished his right hon. friend had said something more about the age of the recruits. But, on the whole, he thought his hon. friend the Member for St. Albans might congratulate himself on having drawn from the Government declarations of a highly satisfactory character. He hoped this might be the swallow of a summer of reason, and that, in other respects also, the Government might be able to meet the views of their critics—views which, he might be permitted to assure his right hon. friend, were founded on conviction and defended by argument. He hoped the Government would meet the views of their critics, and thus avoid a recurrence of these extremely critical debates.
*MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)
said he desired to dissociate himself from the opinion that this country in the event of anything happening to the Fleet would be left entirely unprotected. It was time some protest was made against the impression that in the event of war, and in the event of our Fleet being defeated, this country would have to surrender because they would be un- 1160 able to defend themselves. He thought such an exhibition of cowardice would be unworthy of the great nation and the great Empire they had inherited. He thought they might rely upon the Auxiliary forces for the defence of this country. He knew from his own experience how much had been done at a small expense with regard to the Yeomanry in which he had the honour of serving. By the addition of about £300,000 to the national expenditure, the Yeomanry had been increased to something like 35,000 men, and he thought more might be done to increase their defensive forces by encouraging the Volunteers. It was in that direction, and not in the direction of a great increase in the standing Army, that they ought to look for insuring the safety of this country. On those grounds he should support the proposal for a reduction. He only wished to add one word about India. He well remembered how the whole question was threshed out years ago when a very wise statesman, the late Lord Derby, said that the true defences of India were a contented people and a well-filled Treasury, an Army not too widely scattered for its work, and neighbours who are satisfied that we have no designs on their independence or their territory-The safety of India was secured very much by their good relations with Afghanistan, a country which constituted a most ideal buffer state, because it was inhabited by tribes who would not permit an armed force to come within their borders, and it was a country so difficult that the Duke of Wellington once said that in it a small army would be annihilated, and a large army would starve. He believed that in India they were safe enough, and in this country they had Auxiliary forces sufficient to defend these shores. He was in favour of maintaining a small and well-trained Army with proper reserves, and he should cordially support the proposition before the House.
§ MR. VICARY GIBBS said that with the leave of the House he would withdraw his Motion. He desired to thank the Secretary of State for War for the way in which he had received his arguments, appreciated his motives, and acceded to his desires.1161
§ MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)
It is almost presumption for an outsider, who watches these little domestic jars with pain, but not with a wholly unsympathetic interest, to intervene at all on an occasion of this kind, particularly at a moment when there seems to he a prospect of a temporary reconciliation. My sole object in rising is to say this: I understand that the object of the hon. Gentleman in the Motion he has brought forward is to deal entirely with the question of recruiting. The reduction which he proposes is very much less than those who were opposed to the whole scheme would be prepared to vote for; and it is because of the limitation suggested by the figures of the hon. Gentleman, and borne out by the arguments of his speech, that some of us who would otherwise have taken part in the discussion have not been able to do so. The hon. Gentleman, I think, has very good reason for congratulating himself upon the response he has received to his Motion. Similar points were made in a speech of very great ability, marked by wide and minute knowledge, by the lion. Member for Fareham, who did not on that occasion get anything like the same amount of satisfaction from the responsible Minister as has been conceded to-day. It is well worth while to have spent some hours of the time of the House of Commons in inducing the Secretary of State to make the admission he has made to-day, and to give the undertakings, which I am sure will be carried out to the best of the right hon. Gentleman's ability, and which we hope will result in putting a very different complexion on the whole of this question. I, for my part, am not prepared to stand in the way of the withdrawal of the Motion.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said he believed the right hon. Gentleman had made an omission which, more than anything else, would have satisfied everybody upon this recruiting question. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to give a pledge that when making inquiries as to character, he would also include inquiries as to age. This would not require any expert correspondence, and
§ it would be just as simple to do this as to inquire about character.
I have over and over again endeavoured to secure some proof of age. I am told that a very largo number of recruits do not know where they were born, and it is useless to ask them to prove their age. All I can do in such cases is to give instructions that the medical officers shall be very particular with the men about whom they have any doubts and see that they have the physical appearance and development of eighteen years.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER said that all he wished for was that when inquiry was made as to character inquiries should be made as to age at the same time. He knew there were difficulties in some cases, but in many cases it would be very simple to get the age as well.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)
said that as far as his experience went there was very little difficulty in ascertaining age in order to meet the requirements of the Factory Acts. Factory owners were bound to know whether boys were over fourteen or not, and whether they were eighteen or under. When the right hon. Gentleman became strict in inquiring into character he would find that boys of good character knew their age. It was only boys who did not know where they were born who did not know their age. He hoped the right hon Gentleman would make inquiry about age, and not simply trust to the report of the doctor.
At present inquiry is made into age, but in a great number of cases it is very difficult to get. I am quite certain that if every Member of this House were asked to go into the Vote Office and to write down at once where he was horn and where his birth certificate could be obtained the great majority would not be able to do so.
§ Question put.
§ House divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 36.)1165
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Arkwright, John Stanhope||Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.|
|Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden||Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bailey, James (Walworth)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Forster, Henry William||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Galloway, William Johnson||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Garfit, William||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J. (Manch'r)||Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Barry, Sir Eras. T. (Windsor)||Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute)|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Gore, Hn, S. F. Onnsby- (Linc||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon||Newdegate, Francis A. N.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Bignold, Arthur||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Bigwood, James||Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Groves, James Grimble||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)||Hain, Edward||Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley|
|Brassey, Albert||Hall, Edward Marshall||Percy, Earl|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)||Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy||Purvis, Rubert|
|Butcher, John George||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Kobt. Wm.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Randles, John S.|
|Carson, Rt. Hn Sir Edw. H.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Heath, James (Staff S. N. W.)||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Heaton, John Henniker||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Helder, Augustus||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Kenshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J (Birm||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Renwick, George|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.||Hogg, Lindsay||Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)|
|Chapman, Edward||Hope. J. F. (Sheff. B'tside)||Rigg, Richard|
|Charrington, Spencer||Horner, Frederick William||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Hoult, Joseph||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.||Howard, Juo (Kent, Faver'hm||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham||Rose, Charles Day|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Jessel, Capt. Hubert Merton||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)||Johnstone, Heywood||Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge||Kennedy, Patrick James||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Scott, Sir S. (Marlylebone, W.)|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Keswick, William||Seely. Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Crossley, Sir Savile||Knowles, Lees||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Laurie, Lieut-General||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Law, Andrew Banar (Glasgow||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Denny, Colonel||Lawson, John Grant||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.||Lockie, John||Smith, Jas Parker (Lanarks)|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Spear, John Ward|
|Doughty, George||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S||Stanley, Hon. A. (Ommskirk)|
|Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore||Lonsdale, John Brownloe||Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Father, E. B. (Hants, W.)||Macdona, John Gumming||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Maconochie, A. W.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r||Majendie, James A. H.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Malcolm, Ian||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Manners, Lord Cecil||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Finlay. Sir Robert Bannatyne||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Vincent Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffi'd|
|Fison, Frederick William||Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Mitchell, William||Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.|
|Flower, Ernest||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Webb, Col. William George||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton||Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)||Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm||and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Shackleton, David James|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)|
|Asher, Alexander||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire.)||Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Black, Alexander William||Hope John Deans (Fife, West||Tomkinson, James|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Jacoby, James Alfred||Toulmin, George|
|Brigg, John||Joicey, Sir James||Ure, Alexander|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Wallace, Robert|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Kearley, Hudson E.||Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Buchauan, Thomas Ryburn||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Burns, John||Levy, Maurice||Warner, Thomas Courteoay T.|
|Burt, Thomas||Lloyd-George, David||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Caldwell, James||Lough, Thomas||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Cameron, Robert||M'Crae, George||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Newnes, Sir George||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Crombie, John William||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham||Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Parting on, Oswald||Wilson. H. J. (York, W. R.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Priestley, Arthur||Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddr'sf'd|
|Ellis, John Edward||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Robson, William Snowdon||Labouchere and Mr. J.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Runciman, Walter||H. Whitley.|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
Resolution agreed to.