§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum. not exceeding £2,839,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
moved to reduce Item G (Equipment Stores) by £100, in order to call attention to the accoutrements supplied to the Militia. He complained that the Militia were brought into ridicule by being compelled to wear accoutrements of different patterns. This was one of the great grievances of the Militia, and it had been going on for years. He hoped the War Office would attend to the matter and see that the Militia got proper treatment in respect of accoutrements.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item G (Equipment Stores) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)275
* COLONEL WELBY
said he was entirely on the side of the hon. Members who had spoken in favour of lessening the weight carried by the horses, but it was a far more difficult matter than they seemed to realise. His own experience was that year after year new saddles and new methods had been tried with the view of lessening the weight. Every kind of saddle and attachments had been tried, but the real difficulty had not been solved. The experience of cavalry officers was that a saddle which was too light had a tendency to cause sore backs. He believed an improved saddle was in process of being made. It would be satisfactory if some of them could see it and judge whether it was going to be the saddle of the future. The difficulty of getting a newer and lighter saddle had been, he believed, the necessity of disposing of the present stores. But it was well worth the consideration of the Secretary of State to see whether the existing saddles of the old-fashioned heavy pattern could not be altered to a newer and lighter pattern, and if that could not be done, whether it would not be for the benefit of the country that they should be sold, even at a considerable loss, and replaced by new saddles. He quite recognised that in connection with all changes which involved expenditure it was the duty of those who were responsible for the finances to act carefully, but if the authorities were satisfied that a permanent improvement could be made he was sure the House would never refuse to grant the money necessary for carrying it out. He had not to-day heard from the hon. Members who had spoken a single suggestion of practical value as to how their wish in this matter could be given effect to.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTS
asked the Secretary of State for War what answer he had to give in regard to ambulance waggons.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said they had a new ambulance waggon which they believed to be of a very improved
§ character. With regard to the remarks of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton, he said he was not at all unacquainted with the importance of the question he had raised. There was a large stock of saddlery and harness which had proved a great obstacle, but he had made inquiries, and it was possible that they would be able to modify the difficulty. The real remedy, so far as he was able to understand the question, was not to be found entirely in the alteration of the cavalry saddlery, but in providing auxiliary transport which should carry some of the weight now carried by the horses. It was in that direction that their efforts were tending. The matter was not nearly so simple as some hon. Members seemed to think, and a great deal of expert knowledge was being applied to the question.
§ * MR. NANNETTI
asked what arrangements were being made in regard to the supply of saddlery for the Army. He did not wish to depreciate the quality of the work done in this country, but he thought Irish tradesmen could produce saddles which were quite as satisfactory. They had in Ireland a saddlery workshop built at considerable expense, where formerly new saddles were made, but now it had been turned into a place merely for repairs. He wished to know why that change had been made. He objected to Ireland being made the dumping ground for work done in this country, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, when carrying out the scheme of reorganisation, would see that work for the Army would be done locally whenever that was practicable. He was constantly receiving letters from people in the places where the troops were stationed complaining of the present system of providing Army supplies, and if nothing was done to remedy the grievances he would be obliged to bring the question up again.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 163. (Division List No. 80.)279
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Atherley-Jones, L.||Bell, Richard|
|Allen, Charles P.||Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Black, Alexander William|
|Boland, John||Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Reddy, M.|
|Brigg, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Jordan, Jeremiah||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Caldwell, James||Joyce, Michael||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kilbride, Denis||Rose, Charles Day|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lambert, George||Runciman, Walter|
|Charming, Francis Allston||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland;|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Layland- Barratt, Francis||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Shackleton, David James|
|Crean, Eugene||Levy, Maurice||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lewis, John Herbert||Sheehy, David|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lough, Thomas||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Delany, William||Lundon, W.||Slack, John Bamford|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Lyell, Charles Henry||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Crae, George||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Kean, John||Tillet, Louis John|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Tomkinson, James|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Mooney, John J.||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose|
|Field, William||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Moss, Samuel||Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Murphy, John||Weir, James Galloway|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Hammond, John||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Harrington, Timothy||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Harwood, George||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Malley, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Courtenay Warner and Mr. Dalziel.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Mara, James|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Partington, Oswald|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Davenport, William Bromley-||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Denny, Colonel||Heath, James (Stafford, N.W.|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Dickson, Charles Scott||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy||Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Duke, Henry Edward||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)||Kerr, John|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Faber, George Denison (York)||King, Sir Henry Seymour|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Knowles, Sir Lees|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Bignold, Arthur||Fison, Frederick William||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N.R|
|Bull, William James||Flower, Sir Ernest||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Forster, Henry William||Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Fyler, John Arthur||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Cavendish, V.C. W.(Derbyshire||Gardner, Ernest||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Chapman, Edward||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlets||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Gore, Hn. G.R.C. Ormsby- (Salop||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)|
|Coghill, Douglas, Harry||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Gretton, John||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Groves, James Grimble||Malcolm, Ian|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Massey-Mainwaing, Hn. W. F.|
|Gust, Henry John C.||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n|
|Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire||Pym, C. Guy||Tuff, Charles|
|Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.||Randles, John S.||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Valentia, Viscount|
|Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow||Reid, James (Greenock)||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Remnant, James Farquharson||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wlliam H.|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Renwick, George||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton|
|Mount, William Arthur||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.)|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Newdegate, Francis A. N.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wylie, Alexander|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Percy, Earl||Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Younger, William|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Plummer, Walter R.||Spear, John Ward||TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB
said that the cost of submarine services charged on this Vote amounted this year to £73,000, which shewed a reduction on last year of £37,700. He welcomed that reduction, if it were an indication of a change of policy with regard to submarine mines in the hands of soldiers. He felt very strongly on this question of submarine mines. The whole policy of submarine mines was to close ports. That might be a good policy for a weak nation, but not for a great sea Empire like ours, whose policy should be to keep our ports open. It had been plainly shown during peace operations that soldiers, knowing nothing of ships, were not the people to handle such weapons as submarine mines. He remembered a story told by Lord Charles Beresford that he once got a message from a military officer saying, "For God's sake take your ship out of that position, because it is on the top of one of my submarine mines." In this connection he could not help referring to events passing in the Far East, and expressing the sympathy they all felt for the gallant men who had suffered a great disaster, and 280 the gallant Admiral who had fallen. Though they did not yet know all the facts, they did know that one of the Russian ships was sunk by one of her own submarine mines. Surely, then, it was time for us to wake up to the importance of this question and the policy of submarine mines, first, as regards its applicability on an extensive scale to British ports; and second, of the necessity of having them in the hands, not of soldiers, but of men who had received a naval training.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE
said that his right hon. and gallant friend seemed to think that they might be faced with the fact that in the event of war the British Army would be the gravest enemy of the British Navy. The difficulty of soldiers recognising their own ships was known to all sailors. It was almost impossible to teach the soldiers not only in this country, but in other countries, to distinguish the ships of their own fleet from foreign ships. The question, however, was one obviously of the greatest difficulty. There was a tendency at the present time to rely on mining for the defence of ports, but he agreed that the duties which had to be carried out 281 on water would probably be better conducted by men trained to the sea than by the Royal Engineers, and he was sure that the Secretary for War, who had been connected with both services, would give the question his earnest attention.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he would answer the question at once. This was one of the most important questions touched upon that evening. The reduction of the Vote was the result of the suspension of the policy hitherto prevailing, and was in consequence of the decision arrived at that the matter should be investigated before the system was indefinitely prolonged. He did not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in saying that in the event of war the British Army might prove the greatest enemy of the British Navy. If there was a danger, he thought that it was more likely to be created by the Navy than by the Army. On behalf of the Department he could say that nothing would be more congenial to the views of the War Office than that it should be divested of the duty of controlling the naval defence of strictly naval ports. The subject was one of great difficulty, and it could only be satisfactorily solved by an agreement between the two services, which was likely to be effected through the Committee of Defence. As to the mixed defence of a maritime port, he had in his mind many specific instances of ports which in war must be used principally by the Navy, and he drew a distinction between these ports and other commercial ports occasionally used by the ships of the Navy. He believed that the chances of confusion were very great in ports where the shore defences and the maritime submarine 282 defences were controlled by the Army, and to which access was imperatively demanded at any hour of the night or day by the ships of the Navy. His view was that a solution would ultimately be found by an arrangement in the direction he had indicated, that the defence of maritime ports would be in the hands of the maritime authority, who alone could work in full sympathy with naval commanders and be acquainted with tides and other matters in relation to seaman ship and naval requirements, while the defence of fortresses qua fortresses would be left in the hands of the Army. If he had been betrayed into speaking his mind openly on this question, he hoped his words would not be interpreted into a statement that the question was in a state when such an arrangement could be adopted; but he hoped consideration might result in an arrangement more satisfactory to his hon. and gallant friend than the one which was so distasteful to him and which was so little based on the true theory and practice of war.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cornwall, Camborne)
asked if it was intended to ask for any more money for the Somaliland expedition?
§ Question put and agreed too.
§ Resolution to be reported.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,918,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Staff for Engineer Services and Expenditure for Royal 283 Engineer Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at home and abroad (including Purchases), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE
said he noticed that expenditure under the Vote was classed in divisions corresponding to the Army Corps system. Was it possible yet to say under what arrangement the Votes would be provided in future?
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said it was not proposed to continue the classification. In future the Estimates would be prepared in reference to districts, which in general outline would correspond with those in the Report of Lord Esher's Committee. The exact form was under consideration, the Army Corps organisation would not be continued, and there would be substituted for it another form of divisions not based on the Army Corps organisation.
§ MR. PEEL
asked for information in reference to the construction of barracks at Tedworth on Salisbury Plain. He also asked whether the whole policy of keeping such a large force for exercise on Salisbury Plain was to be reconsidered. He explained that he spent five weeks there last year and had come to the conclusion that they could not possibly have a worse place in which to permanently station a large number of infantry. It was a most depressing and lonely place and would lead to a large number of desertions.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE
said that in a single sentence the Secretary of 284 State had buried, or had pronounced a funeral oration over, six Army Corps. What an extraordinary contrast to the important debates which ushered them into existence! He questioned whether the subject would have been so treated had the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the late Secretary of State for War, been sitting in his usual place. The whole scheme was now dismissed in a contemptuous fashion. Its author had been contemptuously discarded for the present Secretary of State, and it only remained to be seen how long the new system would last. These eight divisions might be set aside the day after tomorrow, and they would have new Estimates in a new form, new works promoted on a new scale, and the country committed to more barracks as it was committed to the late scheme. He wished to call attention to the large item for the Engineer staff. So far as he understood, they were mainly Engineer officers in civil or quasi-civil employment whose services ought to be borne on the Votes for other departments.
* COLONEL WELBY
commented on the item for window blinds for officers' quarters. He said it was apparently an enormous sum, the expenditure of which was to be spread over four years, and he would like to know if officers themselves would have to provide renewals when the blinds were worn out. He pointed out that this item of £48,000 should show those who were in favour of providing officers with furniture, how great the cost to the country of that system was.
§ MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)
asked whether the Secretary for 285 War could state that all expenditure for construction under the Army Corps system had been stopped and whether any other expenditure would be incurred in putting the new scheme in force.
§ * MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said he entirely declined to accept the description given by the hon. Member for East Bristol of what he had just said. He was guilty of no discourtesy. He was asked a plain and simple Question and he had given a plain and simple answer, and he thought the hon. Member might have spared him such a reflection. With regard to the barracks on Salisbury Plain, he had stopped the construction of any further infantry barracks there, and also at Stobs in Scotland. He thought it was undesirable, except on grounds of the strictest military necessity, to quarter troops in these un-attractive localities. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for South Molton, he thought there had been no cost incurred in connection with the Army Corps scheme which would become a bad debt; that was to say, no cost had been incurred which would not be usefully employed under any system which might be decided on. He could assure the hon. Member that his alarm, lest the adoption of a new system should create a new cost which would outweigh the economy likely to be effected, was unfounded. Unless all his calculations were mistaken the result of the economy would be substantial. He would take into consideration the remarks of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton, and if his hon. and gallant friend would put down a Question he would have 286 careful inquiry made into the matters he mentioned.
§ MR. WHITLEY
asked if any contracts had been entered into in connection with the Army Corps scheme which had been so suddenly stopped.
§ MR. WHITLEY
said he thought it was rather curious that the sudden stopping of the Army Corps scheme should have been announced to the House in such an informal manner. There was on the Table of the House a Resolution affirming in the most solemn manner that it was desirable to have the Army Corps system. He would, therefore, suggest that the Government should take formal action to rescind that Resolution. He desired to direct attention to the increase in Item A. for Engineers in North China. Did it indicate that a new development of policy in that country was being adopted? If so, some information should be given to the House on the subject. He would move a reduction of the item by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, etc., of the Staff for Engineer Services) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
said that Great Britain, like other Powers, was retaining a certain number of troops in China, and associated with them were some Engineer officers, who naturally came under this Vote.
§ Question put.287
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 144. (Division List No. 81)289
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Malley, William|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Helme, Norval Watson||O'Mara, James|
|Allen, Charles P.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Shee, James John|
|Atherley-Jones. L.||Horniman, Frederick John||Partington, Oswald|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Black, Alexander William||Jordan, Jeremiah||Reddy, M.|
|Boland, John||Joyce, Michael||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Brigg, John||Kilbride, Denis||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Lambert, George||Runciman, Walter|
|Caldwell, James||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Shackleton, David James|
|Cawley, Frederick||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Levy, Maurice||Sheehy, David|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lewis, John Herbert||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Crean, Eugene||Lundon, W.||Slack, John Bamford|
|Cremer, William Randal||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Crae, George||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Delany, William||M'Kean, John||Ure, Alexander|
|Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Mooney, John J.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Doogan, P. C.||Moss, Samuel||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Murphy, John||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Field, William||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders f'd|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Norton, Capt. Cecil William|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Whitley and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.|
|Hammond, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Harrington, Timothy||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Hermon-Hodge., Sir Robert T.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Dickson, Charles Scott||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Doughty, George||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil|
|Arrol, Sir William||Douglas Rt. Hon. A, Akers-||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Kerr, John|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Keswick, William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Knowles, Sir Lees|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Fison, Frederick William||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Fitzroy, Hon, Edward Algernon||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N.R|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Forster, Henry William||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham|
|Bignold, Arthur||Fyler, John Arthur||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Gardner, Ernest||Legge, Col. Hon. Hcneage|
|Bond, Edward||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Chapman, Edward||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsmouth)|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Gretton, John||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Groves, James Grimble||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Malcolm, Ian|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham||Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.||Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.|
|Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow|
|Morpeth, Viscount||Reid, James (Greenock)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Renwick, George||Valentia, Viscount|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Mount, William Arthur||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Taunton.|
|Muntz, Sir Philip A.||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)|
|Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wilson. A. Stanley (York, E.R)|
|Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Nicholson, William Graham||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley||Seely, Maj. J.E. B. (Isle of Wight||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Percy, Earl||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Younger, William|
|Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Spear, John Ward|
|Prety man, Ernest George||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs,)||TELERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.|
|Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Pym, C. Guy||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Randles, John S.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Tuff, Charles|
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Mr. COURTENAY WARNER
said he did not quite understand the reply of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to Item C.
And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.