HC Deb 03 August 1904 vol 139 cc808-29

Resolution reported.

"That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of Exchequer Bonds, any sums which they are authorised to borrow by means of terminable annuities, the principal of and interest on such Exchequer Bonds to be charged on the Consolidated Fund, and to make provision for the discharge of any sums so borrowed out of moneys annually provided by Parliament."

Resolution read a second time.

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

MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)

said he rose to move an important Amendment. He understood the position of the matter was this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to borrow a sum amounting to £9,250,000, and he would like to borrow this sum in terminable annuities, but unfortunately that source of supply was now not so good as it was in the past; and therefore they brought forward this Resolution with the object of borrowing that sum on Exchequer Bonds. He thought it was admitted that borrowing on Exchequer Bonds was an undesirable form of procedure. It meant a large amount of interest being paid, and it also cost money to place these Bonds; and he was not sure that it would not mean that a less amount of money was devoted to the paying off of the National Debt in the future than in the past, because there was no obligation whatever on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to form a sinking fund. If he borrowed on terminable annuities, there would be an automatic reduction of principal and interest; but if, on the other hand, he borrowed on Exchequer Bonds, they were entirely in his hands as to the amount he would set aside for the purposes of a sinking fund. He did not, therefore, think they ought to give him greater power than was absolutely necessary. He understood that it was possible for him at the present time to raise £3,000,000 of money by means of terminable annuities. If this were so, he would like to know why they should be asked to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer power to raise the whole of this money in the form of Exchequer Bonds. The Amendment he proposed to move was to put temptation out of his way, and to limit the amount of his borrowing to £6,250,000. There was also another point of view from which they had to consider this matter. He, for one, could never forget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Protectionist; and that it was to the interest of the protectionist scheme to prove that all trades were in a dying condition, that the finances of the country were in a desperate condition, and therefore to pave the way for the policy of winch they had heard so much. For this reason, and also for reasons of economy and of sound finance, he desired to move an Amendment which would restrict the borrowing power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to £6,250,000. The Amendment he desired to move was therefore to insert after the word "sums" in the second line of the Resolution, the following words, "not exceeding in the aggregate £6,250,000."

Amendment proposed— In line 2, after the word 'sums,' to insert the words 'not exceeding in the aggregate £6,250,000.'"—(Mr. Soares.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

rose to support the Amendment owing to the present state of national finance. What, he asked, was the state of things which had caused the necessity for this Resolution? It was simply this, that the Government had got the finances of the country into such a hopeless state that the Bank of England would give them no more credit. The Government could no longer borrow in their accustomed place and by their customary method; and, therefore, they had come forward in this way to increase their power of borrowing by means of Exchequer Bonds. What did the difference mean? Borrowing on account of public works loans by means of Exchequer Bonds instead of by terminable annuities had several curious effects. One had been pointed out by his hon. friend. They had no security, in the second place, for the sinking fund. It depended upon the will of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Estimates of the year; and it was difficult to see that the proper amount was paid off year by year. Later on he pro- posed to move an Amendment to ensure that there should be a certainty of the proper amount being put aside for sinking fund when these borrowings took place. But there was another effect. They could place Exchequer Bonds at a discount, and terminable annuities they could not. Did the House realise that the credit of the country was such that they had to pay 3½ per cent. in the largest money market in the world to get further credit; and the worst of it was they were going from bad to worse? He would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them a statement for the three months of the current year, how much he had borrowed since 1st April. As far as he had been able to follow the thing, there seemed to have been hardly a week pass without borrowing taking place of some sort or another. Anybody who watched the weekly returns of the income and expenditure of the country, he thought, must be seriously alarmed at the financial result of the current year. The right hon. Gentleman's Budget was supposed to be a modest instrument; it did not look like it now, and he would like to ask him if he would give them a frank statement of the gross amount of total indebtedness, and how this had been dealt with in the four months now expired of the present financial year; that was to say, how many lapsed borrowings had been renewed, how many had been paid off, and how many fresh borrowings had taken place?

He must say that he looked with great anxiety on the present condition of the country's finances, especially from the fact that the Government by their money operations seemed to be making things worse week by week. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought of what was in front of him? There were obligations he could notavoidowing to legislation already passed. He did not think he could have considered these things; at any rate, he did not think the House could have considered them, and he was sure it was time they had a review of the situation and knew exactly where they were before they gave a blank cheque or even a cheque for £6,250,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He recognised that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's personal point of view the Resolution was all right. He wanted the power to borrow as much money as he could with as few restrictions as possible; but this was not what he (the speaker) conceived to be the functions of the House. He thought they ought to make it difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow, especially when they knew that they hart borrowed far too much already, and they ought to take every step in their power to restrict borrowing and to ensure that the tendency would be to pay out of revenue. He supposed they must give up all hopes of the Transvaal war contribution; the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself told them that even within the next twelve months he was not going to ask for it. They had therefore nothing coming in to look forward to, and they had got to face the situation with the liabilities they had. He wish to speak very warmly against widening the borrowing powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer until they saw a different spirit in controlling the finances of the country and a determined effort to reduce the Debt and not to increase it.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH (Bristol, W.)

said he hoped the hon. Member would take it from him that this had nothing to do with the great question of protection or free trade. It was totally irrelevant to that question; and it bad very little to do with the general financial position of the country. The hon. Member was quite mistaken in supposing that the Resolution before the House would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer unlimited power of borrowing. There was nothing of the kind possible under this Resolution. What were the facts of the case? Parliament had authorised the Government to incur a certain debt for the purpose of naval and military works. In the past it had been the universal practice for loans of this kind to be borrowed through the system of terminable annuities. This had been possible, because there had been deposits at the Post Office Savings Bank which it had been possible to invest in terminable annuities at very remunerative rates of interest, and also remunerative to the persons to whom the money belonged; but lately these deposits had largely fallen of. This had nothing to do with the general finances of the country, unless they said that the general financial condition of the country had raised the interest on money. Then, of course, it had something to do with it; but, as a matter of fart, interest on money had risen, and since then depositors had been few, and persons had placed their money in other investments. Very well. His right hon. friend not having at his command the source other Chancellors of the Exchequer had had at their command, he asked the House to enable him to carry out the duty Parliament had imposed upon him already by giving him power to borrow these loans through Exchequer Bonds. This was an absolutely legitimate, and not only a legitimate, but a necessary proceeding. Unless Parliament gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer such power, he would be unable to carry out the Naval and Military Works Loans Act which Parliament had already passed. He sympathised with the hon. Member in one sense. He had no doubt, and he thought many hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would desire to see a stop put as soon as possible to the enormous increase of these loans; but he (the speaker) said as much last year speaking on the Naval Works Bill, and he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman shared that opinion. This right hon. Gentleman could not borrow a single penny on this Resolution on the Bill beyond the amount that Parliament had already authorised, and, more than that, by the terms of the Resolution and he thought by the terms of the Bill, it would be made necessary for the Treasury every year to provide in the Estimates a sum for the interest on these Exchequer Bonds, and for a sinking fund for them precisely as had been the practice under the system of terminable annuities. Then why was it that this proposal should be opposed, unless hon. Members wished to prevent the Government carrying out the duty Parliament had imposed upon them. He did not think they ought to offer opposition.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

said his hon. friend, as far as he remembered, did not mention free trade or protection. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had stated that the falling off in the Savings Bank deposits was in no way due to scarcity of money in the country, but to a rise in interest which had induced people to seek other in vestments.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I did not say it was in no way due to a scarcity of money.

MR. LOUGH

said the right hon. Gentleman said it was due to the fact that the rate of interest had increased that the people had sought other investments. This was an easy way of getting over the difficulty. They on the Opposition side of the House were convinced that the serious difficulties existing in the country were caused to a large extent by the free borrowing for these very purposes, and, under these circumstances, his hon. friend had made a suggestion which he really thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down might support. He thought the House ought to hesitate before it took the right hon. Gentleman's advice. What was the suggestion which his hon. friend made? It was simply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should borrow as little as he could, that, if £6,250,000 would be sufficient for immediate purposes, he should be content with that sum. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was borrowing nothing but what Parliament had sanctioned. This was perfectly true, but it did not carry them the whole way. Parliament sanctioned a sum of a large amount and left it to the Treasury to say how much should be spent in each year. They had had no statement of expenditure in the present year. It was only the previous night that they heard how much would be required for military, naval, and Civil Service works. It was part of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether that amount ought not to be restricted, and this was all his hon. friend asked him to do. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see if he could not reduce the amount, or, at all events, to give them the particulars they asked for.

MR. McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol gave them an admirable and clear statement of the facts, but he did not think he was justified in saying that it had been the universal practice to borrow money for naval and military purposes on terminable annuities. It had been in every case a statutory requirement that the money should he so borrowed, and the reason was obvious. Not only was the interest then provided for, but also the sinking fund. It had been a principle of all Naval and Military Works Acts that money should be borrowed on terms by which a sinking fund should be provided. What was the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking them to do now. He was not asking them to give him power to carry out the existing Act, but to give him power to borrow money without providing a sinking fund.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

That is not so. If I rightly interpret the Resolution, it provides for both principal and interest out of the votes of each year.

MR. McKENNA

I have read the Resolution, and it contains no such provision. It no such term is in this Resolution, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking us to go beyond the existing Naval and Military Works Acts, and is asking us to give him powers which he has not now.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH

I am quite willing to admit that there ought to be provision of the kind in the Bill.

MR. McKENNA

said the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the Resolution ought to contain annual powers to raise money on such terms that the sinking fund should be provided for. The Resolution said the interest was to be paid annually out of money provided by Parliament. Why not the sinking fund? If it had been intended to include the sinking fund, it should have been referred to in the Resolution; and he went further and said that, if it were in the Bill, the Resolution would have to be recommitted for the purpose of amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, in so far as the Resolution made no provision for the sinking fund, was going outside the principle on which all Naval and Military Works Acts had been passed. There was another ground why he appealed to the House not to sanction any further borrowing powers. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got to come to them again in order to get money, he urged that they should take the opportunity of reconsidering the Naval and Military Works Acts in one respect: ought they to spend any more money at the present time on the building of barracks intended for an Army Corps system, when it was quite possible that on the following Monday they might hear that after all a new scheme had been adopted, and there was to be a great reduction in our standing military forces? As a mere matter of economy, ought they not to take this opportunity of reconsidering the Naval and Military Works Acts and to refuse to sanction any further borrowing? If the Army Corps scheme were abandoned and they were to have a reduction in the military forces, it was undeniable that large sums of money now being spent would be wasted, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might take the opportunity not to borrow money for the purposes of these Acts. As they were told that the final question of the Army must wait until public opinion was ripened, ought not these military works to wait so that, at any rate, they might avoid borrowing more money at the present time than was absolutely necessary? By such avoidance they would stop the rapid decline of Consols. He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had realised how burdensome to the trade of the country was the high price of money. So long as the money market had to fear new issues of Consols or Treasury Bonds or Bills, so long would money be dear; and unless Consols were allowed to rise or were forced up, money would remain dear and trade would continue bad. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take this opportunity to economise on what might be more wasteful military expenditure and to give the money market a rest.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.

said the hon. Member appeared to think that no provision would be made for a sinking fund, and he objected to this system of borrowing on Exchequer Bonds on the ground that it did not place upon the Treasury an obligation to provide a separate sinking fund to extinguish this debt. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) the previous night explained that the Bill would contain an obligation on the Treasury to provide for the discharge of any loans out of money annually provided by Parliament, for the services for which the loan was raised, within a period not exceeding the maximum fixed by the original Act enabling the Treasury to borrow. That was to say, that within whatever period was fixed by the Naval and Military Works Act these Exchequer Bonds would have to be paid off. His right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol answered another objection, taken by the junior Member for Halifax, that there was no limit to the, amount of borrowing that he could undertake if the Resolution were carried. The amount of borrowing was limited to the amount already sanctioned by Parliament. He quite concurred in the opinion, expressed that it was not desirable that annual Bills for these capital purposes should form a permanent and constant part of the ordinary financial machine. He was not now asking the House to give any extended power of borrowing; he was, not asking for favour to borrow more money than the House had already sanctioned; he was only asking the House to enable him to discharge the obligation it had imposed upon him. He had already made representations to the First Lord of the Admiralty and to the Secretary of State for War to reduce the borrowings to the narrowest limits, and with their concurrence and assistance he had been able to reduce the amount likely to be required in the present year from £10,000,000 to £9,250,000. But they could not stop great works in existence if they wanted to do so. These great building works were being constructed under contract, and the contractors would have very heavy claims for damages if suddenly, when halfway through the work, they stopped their progress and paid them no further instalments. These were obligations which the country had undertaken and which the country must fulfil. Even if they could stop these works suddenly, surely it would not be an economical thing to do! Until the works were complete they got no advantage for their money; it was lying idle and gave them no return, or at any rate only a slight return. In conference with his two right hon. friends, the heads of the two great spending Departments, and with their assistance, he had arranged that only that work should be undertaken at the present time which was necessary under existing contracts, was required for the completion of works already in progress, or for some urgent purpose of defence. Of course, the barrack question had been receiving the careful attention of his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War in order that no money should be wasted by any possible changes which might follow the reorganisation of the Army. He hoped the House would agree to the Report of this Resolution, and then they would be able to see the Bill itself.

SIR EDGAR VINCENT (Exeter)

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the period is?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

replied that in the case of the Naval and Military Works Loans the period was fixed at thirty years. This was the general period. In the case of public offices—those big buildings in Whitehall—the term was fifty years. Thirty years, however, was the normal and general period.

MR. SOARES

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question as to whether £6,250,000 is not enough, having regard to his statement last night that he could borrow £3,000,000.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

said that what he had asked the House to do was to authorise borrowing on Exchequer Bonds the amount which the House had authorised to be borrowed on terminable annuities. He did not think any useful purpose would be served by adopting the hon. Member's suggestion. It would merely involve the repetition of a similar Bill next year, and it would not restrict in any shape or form either the obligations of the country or the amount of borrowing which had to be done.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

said the right hon. Gentleman and also the Member for West Bristol had given them explanations which, no doubt, to some extent made this proposal less unacceptable to the House. It was comforting to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the heads of the Naval and Military Departments had given instructions that no further progress was to be made with the wasteful and unnecessary, contracts for works which had been made by their immediate predecessors, and that these unnecessary works would not be further proceeded with in the existing financial situation. He would not associate himself in any marked degree with the acrimonious and controversial criticisms which the hon. Member for Islington made against the Member for West Bristol. He believed the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the difficulties with which he had been confronted, and which arose from the fact that he was au adherent of a Party which had always been addicted to expenditure, had been a consistent friend of economy. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposals could not be said altogether to involve the general financial situation of the country, and, he went on, it seemed to him (Mr. Churchill), to adduce arguments, and to offer explanations, which showed how very closely this Resolution, was involved, with the general financial situation of the country. The explanation which he offered of the circumstances which had led to this departure from the ordinary practice was itself conclusive, arid showed the connection between this Resolution and the general financial situation. He took it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to borrow this sum of money by Exchequer Bonds instead of by terminable annuities, and he understood from his speech that the same provision would be made for a sinking fund to pay off the Exchequer Bonds as would have been made in the case of terminable annuities.

Why was it they had to borrow by Exchequer Bonds instead of by terminable annuities? The explanation was shortly outlined by his hon. friend, and it was a very significant and instructive story. Terminable annuities had never in the past appealed to the general public. A security repayable by the Government at the end of, say, thirty years, with possible extension, and with a comparatively low rate of interest, had not in former times been the kind of security the public wished to invest in largely; and, consequently, the Government had been forced to rely for the provision of the money borrowed on terminable annuities, not upon subscriptions from the general public, but upon sums of money which might be lying under the charge of the National Debt Commissioners, arising from the balances in the Post Office Savings Bank. Hitherto these funds had been sufficient to meet the charges which these loans required; but now they were not Why? For two reasons. The loans had been steadily increasing in size and the funds had diminished in amount. This double, unhealthy, and exhausting operation had destroyed that source of credit. The causes were obviously twofold. In the first place, there was a great increase of taxation, which had caused a scarcity of money all over the country, creating the present financial situation, and carrying with it a curtailment of enjoyment and the straightening of means of every class. This was the first cause of the falling off in the sums of money at the disposal of the National Debt Commissioners. There was another reason advanced by the hon. Member for West Bristol. He said that other securities had risen in the returns they offered to the public, and in consequence of this rise the Post Office Savings Bank no longer presented such an attraction as it formerly did to investors. This was perfectly true, but was it consoling? Why was it that other securities had risen in price? Was it not from the same alarmingly evil tendency with which they were now called upon to deal. It was the more remarkable that the Post Office Savings Bank should not attract the investor to-day, when they reflected that the proposal to reduce the interest on the Savings Bank deposits had been dropped. It might have been understood that there would have been a falling off in the sums of money there had there been a reduction of the interest, but the interest had not been reduced, and for the same disquieting reasons that the rate of interest had risen so high and securities had fallen so low the Government itself should invest in such a way as to pay the old rate of interest, not fall back upon the new rate. Notwithstanding this, there was a great falling-off in the sum of money lying to the credit of the National Debt Commissioners. This in itself was surely a sufficient reason why this Resolution was intimately associated with the general financial position, and it was in itself, he thought, quite sufficient justification for the criticism which had been directed against it from his side of the House and also for the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Devonshire.

He should certainly support that Amendment, because it limited the operation of this very costly and extravagant method of obtaining money, to what was barely necessary for carrying on the immediate needs of the Government. He thought that if, in the very clear and conciliatory explanation offered to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was one part unsatisfactory, it was that in which he dealt with the Amendment. So far as he could gather, his only objection to it was that he might be forced next session to ask fur £3,000,000. They would not complain if the control of the House over the finances were thereby increased; and, if this were the only reason of the right hon. Gentleman, he would surely be well advised to accept the Amendment and expedite the proceedings. Borrowing on Exchequer Bonds at the present time would cost the country something like 3½ per cent. What did this mean? I It meant that this great, powerful Empire, which had so long been at the head of all the financial communities of the world, was now reduced to borrowing on terms which a few years ago would not have satisfied some miserable pettifogging corporation in a difficulty. This alone was the measure of the financial demoralisation of the country. He was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for West Bristol say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxiously endeavouring to reduce the practice of borrowing by loans and of carrying on public works by loans, which had so greatly developed of recent times. He was glad also to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself corroborate this; but he would suggest to him that, if he were to infuse a spirit of larger economy into his general conduct of public affairs and treatment of political questions, he might find a much greater power of retrenchment than he would find by private bargainings with heads of Government Departments who had already established a scheme for consideration. The fact that we had to borrow at 3½ per cent. by this method, was in itself an indication of the situation in which they found themselves, and the Resolution, which they only had an opportunity of discussing for half an hour the previous night, was one of a succession of blows which had been struck year after year at the credit of the country. He was not going to do more than mention one or two of the principal blows which had been struck.

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the Resolution, and not discuss the history of past years.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not consider the close and careful attention the House felt bound to pay to the financial proposals he had made was in any particular sense directed against himself personally, or against the specific proposals he had made. It arose out of the growing anxiety of the country at the general financial situation. That situation was now so grave and serious that Parliament was obliged to give it undivided and uninterrupted attention; and until some amelioration had been achieved, either by the practice of rigid economy or by the co-ordination and regularisation of our outstanding liabilities, the Government must expect that all their financial proposals would be the object of severe scrutiny and criticism.

MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith Burghs)

said the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that a great deal had happened since the borrowing of the money was authorised. Not only had the financial resources of the country become restricted, but a new Army scheme had been brought before the country, and it was evident from that scheme that a good deal of the work sanctioned was not required. It was evident, too, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself that what was needed by the House was a clear statement on the part of the Secretary of State for War as to what these barrack requirements really were; and with that lack of information the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be surprised that this demand for money to go on with these permanent works should be very closely scrutinised by the House, circumstances having entirely altered since the authorisation of these works was given. Let them take the example of Aldershot, New camps had sprung up there until there was far less room for manœuvres, although the troops quartered there had increased. He believed that a great deal of the money borrowed and spent at Aldershot had been absolutely wasted, wasted to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds. He believed that the money spent at Salisbury Plain was to a great extent well spent money; but he thought Aldershot was an instance where public money had been squandered. It might be impossible to prevent some contracts being carried out; but judging from the way progress had been made there, it should be possible even now to stop some work and save the need of borrowing money which would simply add to that already wasted. It was all the more necessary that economy should be exercised, because, as they well knew, there was some inevitable expenditure.

Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided—Ayes, 132; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 306.)

AYES.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin &Nairn Parker, Sir Gilbert
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Percy, Earl
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Goulding, Edward Alfred Pretyman, Ernest George
Bain, Colonel James Robert Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury Pym, C. Guy
Baird, John George Alexander Greville, Hon. Ronald Randles, John S.
Balcarres, Lord Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry Rankin, Sir James
Balfour, Rt Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Hare, Thomas Leigh Reid, James (Greenock)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds Haslett, Sir James Horner Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Hay, Hon. Claude George Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Round, Rt. Hon. James
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Heath, James (Statfords. N. W Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Heaton, John Henniker Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bond, Edward Helder, Augustus Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Brassey, Albert Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W. Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles
Butcher, John George Hoult, Joseph Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hudson, George Bickersteth Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.
Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Hunt, Rowland Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich Knowles, Sir Lees Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Worc. Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Sharpe, William Edward T.
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Compton, Lord Alwyne Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham Spear, John Ward
Dalkeith, Earl of Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Davenport, William Bromley Lonsdale, John Brownlee Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham Lowe, Francis William Thornton, Percy M.
Dickson, Charles Scott Loyd, Archie Kirkman Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Tuff, Charles
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Valentia, Viscount
Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Maxwell, W J. H (Dumfriesshire Warde, Colonel C. E.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Melville, Beresford Valentine Webb, Colonel William George
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Milvain, Thomas Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Molesworth, Sir Lewis Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Fisher, William Hayes Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wylie, Alexander
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Moore, William Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Morrell, George Herbert TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Forster, Henry William Mount, William Arthur
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W. Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Gardner, Ernest O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. Causton, Richard Knight Edwards, Frank
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cawley, Frederick Elibank, Master of
Brigg, John Churchill, Winston Spencer Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw's Bghs
Bright, Allan Heywood Dobbie, Joseph Emmott, Alfred
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Doogan, P. C. Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Caldwell, James Douglas Charles M. (Lanark) Griffith, Ellis J.
Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale Moss, Samuel Tennant, Harold John
Higham, John Sharpe Nannetti, Joseph P. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Horniman, Frederick John Norman, Henry Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Joicey, Sir James O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea O'Dowd, John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Malley, William Woodhouse, Sir J T.(Huddersf'd
Kilbride, Denis Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Lewis, John Herbert Shipman, Dr. John G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Harbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.
Lloyd-George, David Slack, John Bamford
Lough, Thomas Soares, Ernest J.
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Sullivan, Donal
M'Kenna, Reginald Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided—Ayes, 48; Noes, 130. (Division List No. 307.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Griffith, Ellis J. O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Ainsworth, John Stirling Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale O'Dowd, John
Brigg, John Higham, John Sharpe O'Malley, William
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Horniman, Frederick John Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Caldwell, James Joicey, Sir James Shipman, Dr. John G.
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Slack, John Bamford
Cawley, Frederick Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Sullivan, Donal
Dobbie, Joseph Kilbride, Denis Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Doogan, P. C. Lewis, John Herbert Tennant, Harold John
Douglas, Charles M.(Lanark) Lloyd-George, David Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr
Edwards, Frank Lough, Thomas Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Elibank, Master of M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Ellice, Capt E C (S.Andrw's Bghs M'Hugh, Patrick A. Whitley, T. H. (Halifax)
Emmott, Alfred M'Kenna, Reginald Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Ferguson, R.C. Munro (Leith) Moss, Samuel
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nannetti, Joseph P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Soares and Mr. Bright.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Norman, Henry
NOES.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Henderson, Sir A. Stafford, W.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Arkwright, John Stanhope Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hoult, Joseph
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir WilliamHart Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Hunt, Rowland
Bain, Colonel James Robert Finch, Rt. Hn. George H. Knowles, Sir Lees
Baird, John George Alexander Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th
Balcarres, Lord Fisher, William Hayes Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Fitz Gerald, Sir Rohert Penrose Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Flannery, Sir Fortescue Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Forster, Henry William. Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gardner, Ernest Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bond, Edward Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lowe, Francis William
Brassey, Albert Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin &Nairn Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth
Butcher, John George Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rWinlets Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Goschen, Hn. George Joachim Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Goulding, Edward Alfred Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Melville, Beresford Valentine
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc Greville, Hon. Ronald Milvain, Thomas
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hamilton Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hare, Thomas Leigh Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Haslett, Sir James Horner Moore, William
Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile Hay, Hon. Claude George Morgan, David J(Walthamstow
Dalkeith, Earl of Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley Morrell, George Herbert
Davenport, William Bromley Heath, James (Staffords. N. W. Mount, William Arthur
Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Dickson, Charles Scott Helder, Augustus O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Palmer, Sir Walter(Salisbury) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Thornton, Percy M.
Parker, Sir Gilbert Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Percy, Earl Sandys, Lieut. Col. Thos Myles Tuff, Charles
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Valentia, Viscount
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J Warde, Colonel C. E.
Pretyman, Ernest George Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. Webb, Colonel William George
Pym, C. Guy Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne
Randles, John S. Sharpe, William Edward T. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Rankin, Sir James Simeon, Sir Barrington Wylie, Alexander
Reid, James (Greenock) Skewes-Cox, Thomas Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Round, Rt. Hon. James Spear, John Ward
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 130; Noes, 45. (Division List No. 308.)

AYES.
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Gordon, Hn. T. E. (Elgin & Nairn Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South Parker, Sir Gilbert
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets Percy, Earl
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Goschen, Hon. GeorgeJoachim Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Goulding, Edward Alfred Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bain, Colonel James Robert Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Pretyman, Ernest George
Baird, John George Alexander Greville, Hon. Ronald Pym, C. Guy
Balcarres, Lord Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry Randles, John S.
Balfour, Rt. Hn.A. J. (Manch'r Hare, Thomas Leigh Ratcliff, R. F.
Balfour, Rt HnGerald W.(Leeds Haslett, Sir James Horner Reid, James (Greenock)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Hay, Hon. Claude George Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. Round, Rt. Hon. James
Blundell, Colonel Henry Heaton, John Henniker Ruthuford, John (Lancashire)
Bond, Edward Helder, Augustus Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool
Brassey, Albert Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Butcher, John George Hoult, Joseph Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hudson, George Bickersteth Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cavendish, V. C.W(Derbyshire Hunt, Rowland Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Knowles, Sir Lees Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. JA (Worc. Lawrence,Sir Joseph(Monm'th Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham Sharpe, William Edward T.
Compton, Lord Alwyne Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Simeon, Sir Barrington
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Leveson-Gower,Frederick N. S. Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East
Dalkeith, Earl of Long, Col. Charles W(Evesham Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks
Davenport, W. Bromley- Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Spear, John Ward
Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham Lonsdale, John Brownlee Stanley,Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.
Dickson, Charles Scott Lowe, Francis William Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Loyd, Archie Kirkman Thornton, Percy M.
Doxford, Sir WilliamTheodore Lucas, Reginald J. Portsmouth Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred) Tuff, Charles
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamHart Massey-Mainwaring Hn. W. F. Valentia, Viscount
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire Warde, Colonel C. E.
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Melville, Beresford Valentine Webb, Colonel Wiliam George
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Milvain Thomas Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne
Fisher, William Hayes Molesworth, Sir Lewis Wilson, A. Stanley (York,E, R.)
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Wylie, Alexander
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Moore, William Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Morgan, David J(Walthamstow
Forster, Henry William Morrell, George Herbert TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W Mount, William Arthur
Gardner, Ernest Murray,RtHn A.Graham (Bute
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John O'Malley, William
Ainsworth, John Stirling Griffith, Ellis J. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Brigg, John Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale Shipman, Dr John G
Bright, Allan Heywood Higham, John Sharpe Soares, Ernest J.
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James Horniman, Frederick John Sullivan, Donal
Caldwell, James Joicey, Sir James Tennant, Harold John
Causton, Richard Knight Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea Thomas, David Alfred (Merthir
Cawley, Frederick Jones,William (Carnarvonshire Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dobbie, Joseph Kilbride, Denis White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Doogan, P. C. Lewis, John Herbert Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lough, Thomas Woodhouse Sir J. T (Hudd'rsfield
Edwards, Frank M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Elibank, Master of M'Kenna, Reginald TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr Slack and Mr. Theodore Taylor.
Ellice, Capt E C (S.Andrw's Bghs Moss, Samuel
Emmott, Alfred Nannetti, Joseph P.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Norman, Henry
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary,Mid

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Victor Cavendish.