HC Deb 12 April 1905 vol 144 cc1517-44


Order for the Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Bill be now read the third time."

*MR. BRIGHT (Shropshire, Owestry)

moved that the Bill be recommitted in order to insert a new clause to abolish corporal punishment in military prisons. He asked the House to allow him to state the fact sin regard to this subject, which, in his opinion, were of great importance. When the Bill was last before the House the subject was discussed at seven o'clock in the morning when it was impossible to deal with it properly. He thought the flogging which went on in military prisons was unnecessary and inexpedient, and it was a blot on the national name which should be deleted. He was not going to take his stand on the narrow ground that the military prisons were not governed by statute by the more humane Prisons Act of 1898 instead of the Acts of 1865 and 1877. The offences for which flogging in military prisons would be inflicted were mutiny and incitement to mutiny, and gross personal violence to an officer or servant in prison. The rules provided that corporal punishment for these offences should only be inflicted (1) on the order of three visitors specially summoned after inquiry upon oath and determination concerning the matter reported to them; and (2) on approval by the general or other officer commanding the district or station. They further provided that corporal punishment should be inflicted with a "cat" or birch rod, and that the instruments in both instances should be of a pattern approved by the Secretary of State; that the number of lashes or strokes inflicted on a prisoner should not exceed twenty-five; and that the order for the punishment should be duly entered in the appointed manner, and the number of lashes or strokes and the instrument with which they were to be inflicted should in all cases be stated in such order.

The men who were sent to military prisons were committed for military offences. Flogging could not be inflicted for these offences outside the prison. While the number of cases of flogging was not very large, it should be noted that in the best managed prisons that they did not occur at all. It was in the smaller and inferior prisons that they occurred. He had looked carefully into the reports for the last few years, and he found that, in almost every case where flogging was resorted to as a punishment, there was something wrong in the discipline or efficiency of the prison. In 1902 the prisoners at the following places were—Aldershot, 2,986; Dover, 1,757; Gosport, 1,783; York, 1,302; and Malta, 1,638. These were all the prisons in which there were more than 1,000 prisoners. At Dover, two prisoners, at Gosport, fourteen, and at York, six, had to be put in irons, but at none of the prisons mentioned did flogging take place. In the same year the prisoners at the following smaller prisons were—Woking, 228; Curragh, 852; Stirling, 248; Bermuda, 309; Cairo, 408; and Pietermaritzburg, 294. At Woking, four prisoners, Curragh, five, Stirling, two, Bermuda, one, and Pietermaritzburg, one, were put in irons; and the floggings were—Woking, one, Curragh, two, Stirling one, Bermuda, two, Cairo, one, and Pietermaritzburg, one. The statistics for 1903 in regard to the large prisons were:—Aldershot, 3,454 prisoners; Dover, 1,706; Gosport, 1,346; York, 1,417; Dublin, 1,585; and Malta, 1,351. There were put in irons at Dover four, Gosport, eight, and York, eight; while the floggings were—one at Gosport and two at Dublin. As to the smaller prisons for the same year the statistics were—Woking, 899; Curragh, 770; Stirling 265; Bermuda, 274; Cairo, 547; Pietermaritzburg; 117, and Jamaica, 189. There were put in irons—seven at Woking, three at Curragh, one at Stirling, and one at Jamaica. The floggings were—three at Woking and one at Jamaica. These statistics showed that it was all a question of management. He had put together the figures for the three largest prisons—Aldershot, Dover, and Malta. In two years the number of prisoners in these was 12,892; and there was no case of flogging. In the three smaller prisons—Woking, Curragh, and Bermuda—the number of prisoners was 3,332 and there were eight cases of flogging. That was, that in the best managed prisons they did not find the same number of floggings as in small, ill-constructed prisons. He would give one or two extracts from the reports on certain prisons. Alder-shot: The Governor's report for 1902 said— ''From careful observation during the year I am led to believe that the reforms instituted since 1898 are either proving a better deterrent than the system or are so inuring soldiers to strict military discipline that they keep clear much oftener than they used to do. In Dover they found a similar state of things. The Governor reported in 1902— The new system of treatment is now thoroughly established and the improvements wrought in the condition and general demeanour of the men are evidence of its effectiveness. Malta was not only a great garrison town, but also a half-way house to those bounds of the Empire, where, as it had been said— There ain't no ten commandments, And a man can raise a thirst. But the conduct of the prison was highly creditable in every way, and led to the most satisfactory results. In 1902 the Governor's report stated— The good behaviour in prison is chiefly due to the tactful manner in which the prisoners are dealt with by the subordinates. And in 1903 the Governor reported— Experience proves that the present system of dealing with military offenders is both deterrent and beneficial to the soldier. It is a distinct advance on the old conditions when punishment in the form of hard manual labour was the only recognised means of effecting the reform of the soldier. He came now to the prisons where the treatment was exceedingly severe or the buildings bad and where the results were not good. The first was Woking where the authority, was evidently of the martinet order. The Governor reported in 1902— The destruction of equipment and clothing has lately been pulled up with a very sharp turn, two prisoners having been the same day convicted of the offence and sentenced to eighteen months and seventeen months respectively. The promulgation of the Court-martial proceedings brought about a most salutary effect and warning. At Curragh he found the Governor made a complaint of want of accommodation. He said in his report for 1902— I sincerely hope that the enlargement scheme will be carried out shortly as the prison is deficient of offices, stores, workshops, reception rooms, etc. At Bermuda the Superintendent's report Was— I consider that the prison is badly built for discipline. Now, he was convinced that in those cases there was no need for flogging to maintain discipline. Where there were a large number of prisoners discipline was easy, with good management. He had been himself a visiting justice in a large lunatic asylum and discipline was maintained there without flogging. Flogging was not only brutal, but it fell unequally and more heavily on the weak than on the strong. An hon. Member had spoken of the cat-o'-nine-tails, which formerly had three knots on each lash but had now only one; and that the handle which formerly had a spring grip now had no spring; and the hon. Member for Taunton said that when he had seen a prisoner flogged the prisoner laughed. But the hon. Member forgot to say that that might have been a hysterical laugh and he also admitted that the doctor and the nurse had fainted at the horrible sight. He did not believe that the House wished for the continuance of this brutal treatment. He should be told that flogging was necessary to maintain discipline. Necessity was the excuse of tyrants and the creed of slaves. He, himself, did not believe in the necessity. He would remind hon. Members opposite that if they gave a vote for the continuance of this punishment they would be justly accused of voting for inflicting methods of barbarism on the British soldier.

*MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)

said that the real point at which his hon. friend and colleagues were aiming seemed to have been missed or ignored by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. When a soldier enlisted, although he was told that this odious punishment of flogging was not to be inflicted upon him, he might get into trouble over some trivial offence without any moral stigma attaching to it. There were a number of such for which he might be tried by Court-martial—such as for striking a superior officer, no matter how great the provocation might have been. He was then taken to a military prison. As soon as he came to that military prison he became amenable to the punishment of flogging. But in that prison he remained a soldier. That was the great point of improvement he gladly recognised in their military prisons. The great object was to keep him a soldier, to improve the man as a soldier, and instead of putting him to degrading and useless tasks to improve him in every way in his profession, and with the very best results. But what might happen? The soldier might be a passionate man, and under a warder utterly unfit to have the care of prisoners. That was the very great drawback of military prisons. The hon. Member who moved the recommitment had shown the great difference between the smaller old-fashioned prisons and the large well-appointed prisons. There were double as many corporal punishments inflicted in the former as the latter. That proved that the so-called necessity for punishment of that kind was only an excuse for inability to maintain proper discipline by other methods. In confirmation of that statement, he came across only the previous day the latest Report on the Civil Prisons of Ireland, including the Convict Prison of Mountjoy. Out of 35,765 prisoners and 1,796 punishments for offences, there was not one single case of flogging and only one case of the use of handcuffs. It was a deg ading and brutal form of punishment. It was the punishment of slaves and left its marks upon a man, which was as bad as servitude and was a disqualification for civil employment. It left still deeper marks of hatred, revenge, and resentment—exactly the opposite effect to what curative and ameliorative punishment ought to have. From the sympathetic Answers given to Questions by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State he was convinced he would be very glad to be able to dispense with corporal punishment altogether, and he appealed to him whether he could not see his way to the total abolition of the punishment of flogging in military prisons, because, the inmates of those prisons being still soldiers, so long as that existed it could not be said that flogging had been abolished in the British Army.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the words 'now read the third time,' and add the words 'recommitted in respect of a New Clause' (Prohibition of corporal punishment)."—(Mr. Bright.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."


said he could not agree to the Motion for the recommittent of the measure, but he had no complaint to make whatever of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He knew the subject had engaged the hon. Member's attention for many years. He had only one complaint to make of the speech of the hon. Member for Oswestry. He thought the hon. Member must know as well as any other hon. Member in the House that the words he used were inexact. It was as true to say that flogging was a necessary part of the institutions of his own family as to say, as he said, that it was part of the institutions of the British Army. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that apart from prison punishment for certain kinds of offences there was no flogging in the British Army, and he knew perfectly well that he himself and any member of his family, if they were to commit any offence and to be committed with hard labour into any civil prison, and were to commit whilst there any of those offences to which flogging applied in military prisons, would be liable to corporal punishment. He could not see what view of duty could compel an hon. Member to make a statement which seemed so very far from the exact fact. The hon. Member for Crewe, he believed, desired that that punishment should be excluded from all prisons. That was a view which might be most consistently held and to which he took no exception, but were they to say that in military prisons an immunity was to be given to those who committed those horrible offences, and in military prisons alone?

Let him give an example of the kind of offence for which such punishment was awarded. He would give them an account of what happened in a military prison—a brutal attack upon a warder, in which a man fell upon the warder, gouged his eye out, committed nameless mutilation upon him, and nearly killed him. That offence was made a subject of inquiry, as all those offences must be, with evidence under oath, and was punished in the way prescribed. Why should there be an immunity for a man committing that offence in a military prison and not in a civil prison? The management of civil prisons at the present day to a large extent discouraged anything of that sort, it was true, but he would remind the hon. Member that the per- centage of punishments of that sort was far less in military prisons than in civil prisons, and that in the whole of the United Kingdom there was not last year a single punishment of that kind in the whole of the military prisons. He was glad the hon. Member for Owestry had abandoned the point that there was any distinction in this matter between military and civil prisons with regard to the operation of the Act of 1898. The Rules on this point were clear, the reason being that in the passage of the Act of 1898 the military authorities took legal advice and incorporated the provisions of the Act into the Rules. That was not an accident; it was the deliberate action of the authorities.

The hon. Member had made a somewhat exaggerated statement. It was said that there were fifty per cent. more punishments in the prisons badly reported on than in the prisons well reported on, but when one found that in three years there were two punishments inflicted in the one, and only one in the other class of prison, the fifty per cent. was not quite so formidable. If hon. Members really desired to remove corporal punishment altogether as a protection to warders in prisons, that was a matter which might fairly be argued on the general question; but he failed to see why soldiers who happened to be warders should be deprived of the protection which the jurisprudence of the country considered necessary for warders in ordinary prisons. It was unfortunate that such statements as had been put forward should be made with regard to the Army. If he really believed that hon. Members were as solicitous as they expressed themselves for the private soldier and his welfare he would receive——[Cries of "Order."]

MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley)

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in calling in question the motives of hon. Members.


I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really went so far as to cast any imputation on the motives of hon. Members. He said he did not think they were as solicitous as they professed to be. That is not a very courteous expression.


thought his meaning was perfectly clear.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

It is grossly offensive.


said his point was that it was unfortunate that this distinction should be drawn to the detriment of the soldiers, and the soldiers should be given to understand that an arrangement existed for their punishment which did not exist for members of the community at large. That was not the case. Whatever the disabilities might be they had been supported by hon. Members opposite, and the Party opposite had introduced a similar Bill year after year. He thought he had given sufficient reasons why the Bill should not be recommitted, and he hoped the Amendment would be rejected.


deeply regretted the attitude the Government had taken up in this matter, as, after the discussion of last week, he had been hopeful that they would, upon reconsideration, have been prepared to make such changes in the Bill as would place soldiers in the position in which the public believed them to be, viz., that of members of an Army in which flogging had been entirely abolished. The occupants of military prisons were soldiers, and when they were flogged they were flogged as soldiers; therefore it could not truly be said that flogging had been abolished in the British Army. He yielded to no man in his desire to get in the Army the very best class of men, but, speaking from communications he had received from men who served in South Africa, he could assure the House that the unnecessarily harsh treatment to which they were subjected, and the neglect to pay the arrears due to them——


I would remind the hon. Member that arrears of pay are one thing, but flogging is another.


said he would be sorry for the impression to be spread abroad that soldiers in military prisons were subjected to a greater stigma than criminals in civil prisons. It was true that by rule the Act of 1898 had been applied to military prisons, but it was quite possible for the authorities to withdraw from them the benefits of that Act, whereas the occupants of civil prisons enjoyed those benefits as a legal right. He regretted that the Amendment had not been accepted by the Government, because its acceptance would have shown a desire to mitigate any unnecessary hardship and merciless treatment to which soldiers might be subject.


reminded the House that the abolition of flogging in the Army itself was one of the first works of the Irish Party. He remembered that when twenty-six years ago, under the leadership of Mr. Parnell, they endeavoured to free the British soldier from the liability to punishment by flogging they were denounced by military men as being anxious to destroy the morale of the Army. All the arguments the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward that night were made familiar to Members at that time; over and over again the details of the hideous crimes committed by soldiers were related; and the House was asked whether they were going to withdraw from officers the protection which the power to give this punishment afforded them. But were there no outrages committed in the streets of our cities? Why should a warder have special protection and the ordinary policeman not? Many years ago flogging was abolished in the ordinary prisons of Ireland, and the universal testimony of inspectors was that discipline was improved. In the penal prison of Mountjoy flogging was legal, but, seeing the good effect the abolition of flogging had had in the ordinary prison, the governor decided to attempt to maintain discipline at Mountjoy without physical punishment. The effect of the experiment was such that the same course had been followed by successive governors, with the result that flogging, although legal, had been practically abolished for many years. If discipline could be not only maintained, but improved, without flogging and with the worst class of criminals, surely a similar result could be secured in military prisons. In military prisons there were always a number of men who had not committed any moral offence whatever. A great number of military offences arose from men losing their temper, perhaps under great provocation, and committing breaches of discipline which, although they had to be punished, did not indicate any depravity of moral character.

No man, unless he had served a term of imprisonment, could really realise the conditions under which prisoners lived. Subject to prison discipline, knocked about by warders, no man could be sure that he would not lose his temper and become liable to this horrible punishment. The terrible thing about the flogging system was that a man of really good moral character might have inflicted upon him this hideous punishment from which the victim never wholly recovered. If in a moment of exasperation a man committed some offence against prison discipline he was liable to be subjected to this hideous punishment from which he never recovered, and he was never the same man afterwards, for he received marks of degradation which remained with him for life. It was the degradation that was so horrible, and this punishment was frequently inflicted on account of momentary explosions of passion. The Secretary for War had met this argument in a most improper way. The majority of the cases in which flogging was resorted to were instances of conflicts between the prisoners and the warders in which the prisoner was very often brutally treated in the first place by the warder. He had known cases where warders had provoked prisoners by striking them with heavy keys, knocking them down senseless, and even after this punishment the unfortunate prisoner was charged with assaulting the warder and punished again. It was nothing short of insolence for the Secretary of State for War to recite a case of an atrocious assault upon a warder. He deeply sympathised with the hon. Member for Oswestry who had introduced this subject, and he thought the common-sense of the country would support his views. He thought the more humane treatment now in vogue in the prisons of Ireland ought to be good enough for military prisoners.

*COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, Ince)

reminded hon. Members that in time of war flogging was regarded as the only alternative to being shot. Other punishments were now substituted, but care should be taken that the capital punishment was not increased. He thought that in regard to flogging his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War was as sympathetic as anybody else. He was of opinion, however, that both in civil and military prisons they might adopt some form of punishment instead of flogging. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be anxious to do this if he could see his way clear to adopt it.

MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden)

said he had refreshed his memory in regard to a statement he made on this question upon a previons occasion, and he had very little to withdraw. He found that the position had been very materially altered, and instead of men being flogged for very trivial offences they were only punished in this way for the more serious offences. In 1895 there was a case of flogging for barricading the cell door, another for attempting to commit suicide, and another for damaging prison property. He was glad that now there were only two offences—mutiny and assault—for which prisoners could be flogged. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo that flogging was not a deterrent. He did not see what object could be gained by flogging—it was no protection to the warders, and there were other methods which would prove a much greater deterrent without the infliction of pain. He objected to the system of flogging because it brutalised not only the person who was flogged but the individuals who inflicted it and also those who witnessed it. They had all heard of the prison doctor who, although accustomed to all sorts of horrible sights, actually fainted at the sight of a prisoner being flogged. That was only one instance of the brutalising effect of flogging. The sight of flogging might be shocking to those who witnessed it for the first time, but after one had seen it three or four times he became callous and demoralised. Flogging a man lowered his self-respect and if they did that they spoiled the chance of reforming him. In one of his books on India Lord Roberts referred to a case in which men were flogged for destroying saddlery, and stated that as soon as they got new saddles to replace those destroyed they at once destroyed them. Lord Roberts expressed himself very much aggrieved at their having been flogged, and his gratification that they were not flogged again for the second offence. These men afterwards had a high record in the British Army. If they had been punished in another way discipline might have been equally well supported. He thought discipline could be maintained in military gaols without recourse being had to this cruel treatment. The prisoners in these gaols were sentenced for special offences for which no civilian could be indicted. The fact that these men had volunteered their service for the defence of the country was a consideration which made it the duty of the House to see that no act of injustice was done by which they might be brutalised. The sooner flogging was abolished the better it would be for the country and the Army. He was informed that in the military gaols of France and Germany flogging had been abolished. If these countries could maintain military discipline without that form of punishment surely the same thing could be done in Great Britain.

COLONEL SANDYS (Lancashire, Bootle)

said he had listened carefully to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and as there was another aspect of the question he would endeavour to place it before the House in a temperate way. The hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division had referred to the degradation which the punishment of flogging involved. While he himself was in the Army he had seen many men flogged, but he never knew of a good man being flogged. He had known many bad men flogged who became good men afterwards. As a child he had himself been flogged, and he believed he well deserved it. [An HON. MEMBER: You ought to get more of it.] They knew the proverb "Spare the rod, and spoil the child." If it was good for a child, surely it was not altogether wrong for the soldier who transgressed against the first duty of his profession, namely, obedience. If a soldier on the field was guilty of insubordination, what were they to do? The alternative to flogging him was to shoot him. The hon Gentleman opposite had stated that discipline was maintained in the French and German armies without flogging. If a French or German soldier struck an officer he would be shot at once.


The debate is rather tending to a discussion of the old methods and circumstances under which the punishment of flogging was imposed. The question now before the House is merely in regard to flogging for particular offences.


accepted the ruling. A certain class of men were so brutal to start with that the only way to deal with them was to flog them. In the case of unmitigated ruffians who committed assaults on women and children the penalty of flogging was the only one that appealed to them. Men of that class were more comfortable in prison than in their own homes. If they knew that when they offended against prison discipline they would have to suffer in their person they would hesitate before they did anything to bring this punishment upon themselves. It did not brutalise them because they were brutal to start with.

MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)

said he would instance a case which he thought afforded the most scathing commentary on the whole system. In 1902 in Curragh Gaol two prisoners received corporal punishment. In one of these cases the punishment was inflicted because the prisoner struck at the chief warder with his dinner knife on that officer opening the cell door to disarm him, he being seen in the act of cutting his throat. Instead of being flogged that man ought to have been sent to a lunatic asylum. That was a complete answer to the case brought forward by the Secretary of State for War. He thought his hon. friend had made out a very good case indeed for his Motion. That case was that in good, well-constructed prisons there were no instances of corporal punishment, whereas in ill-constructed and badly conducted prisons there was a good deal of corporal punishment. He would give two instances of a good prison, and two of a bad. The Medical Officer of Malta Military Prison said in the report for 1902— I am certain that the present system of treatment in military prisons is proving very beneficial to the welfare of the soldier, and shows its value more and more as time goes on. I know that the prisoners are now better off, morally and physically, give little or no trouble, take an interest in their work, and are improved in many ways by their stay in prison, whilst their soldier qualities are not depreciated. In this prison there are now no cases of violence or attempted suicide, very little malingering, and the numbers reporting sick are much less than in former years. In a word, the soldier is not now treated as a hopeless, degraded, troublesome item, to be got rid of as quietly as possible, but is made to feel that he is still a soldier capable of regaining, by good conduct, his lost position. Now, in that prison there were 1,638 prisoners and not one single case of corporal punishment. He now turned to Aldershot Prison, on which the Governor reported— From careful observation during the year, I am led to believe that the reforms instituted since 1898, by which the prison system became strict military discipline, strict separation, drill and gymnastics, and industrial work, instead of convict garb, convict discipline, shot drill and oakum picking, are either proving a better deterrent than the old system, or are so inuring soldiers to strict military discipline that, having once undergone a sentence of imprisonment, they keep clear much oftener than they used to do. Now in that prison there were 2,986 prisoners, and not a single case of corporal punishment that year. He now came to the Bermuda Prison, which was one of the bad prisons. The Superintendent of that prison in his report for 1902 said— I consider that the prison is badly built for discipline when there are more than ten or twelve prisoners, owing to the number of passages and turns, and it is therefore nearly impossible for one warder to superintend more than four prisoners when moving about the prison, especially as five out of seven prison officials are on probation, and at present rather inexperienced in the Work. The consequence is that there is a great tendency among the prisoners to communicate with each other and this offence is of frequent occurrence. In that prison there were 309 prisoners; one was in irons and two had received corporal punishment. The report of the Governor of Stirling Military Prison was— The present accommodation is most inadequate. and of the 228 prisoners two were in irons and one had received corporal punishment.

Now, having regard to these facts, he considered that his hon. friend had made out his case; and that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should institute an independent inquiry, and, if the right hon. Gentleman agreed to do so, his friend would, he believed, withdraw his Amendment with the approval of a considerable number of hon. Members on that side of the House. But, if the right hon. Gentleman resisted that proposal and continued the high and haughty manner which he had hitherto exhibited, that conduct was sure to meet with the reward which it deserved.

MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)

said he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that he could not continue to treat this matter in the cavalier manner he had done in his first reply. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the most important changes that had taken place in the recruiting of the Army had been secured by discussions on the Army Annual Bill. Everyone acquainted with the Army knew that the soldiers thought a great deal about this flogging of their comrades in military prisons. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that when the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich brought forward the question of recruits bringing characters from former employers, that was only carried by discussion on the Army Annual Bill. In point of fact the whole scheme of the Army Annual Bill had been greatly modified as a result of such discussions as were now in progress. If that were so, then the Third Reading of the Army Annual Bill was the proper moment to raise questions of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had argued that it was unreasonable to discuss all these points, because former Parliaments had passed this Bill; but he contended that when such matters of great importance to the welfare of the Army were raised, they ought to be fully discussed. The right hon. Gentleman also argued that it was only soldiers who committed assaults on warders who were flogged; and he gave an instance. But that case was well countered by his hon. friend who showed that on two other occasions flogging was inflicted for assaults which were the very natural outcome of a soldier being driven to desperation. The soldier was liable to be imprisoned for so-called crimes, which were not only not misdemeanours, but which could hardly be designated by the name of faults if not committed by a soldier. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that it was possible for a soldier who omitted to pay for a chartered vehicle after a certain time to be imprisoned. But that was not the only part of the Annual Act which permitted a man to be be imprisoned. It was a fact that soldiers, especially on active service, or in the period immediately preceding active service, were imprisoned for offences of the slightest character. There was a case which came before his notice in South Africa in which a soldier was Court-martialled for sleeping at his post. There was no doubt whatever this unfortunate man had suffered most severely from toothache and was in a most debilitated condition, having had little sleep for many days. Curiously enough he was about to be sent home under the terms of his enlistment, and had only about half an hour more to stand at his post. It was actually within ten minutes of that man becoming free from service that an officer came round and found him a sleep. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for several years, and might easily have been shot. Could it be wondered at that military prisoners, sentenced in that way for such offences, were frequently violent?

Military prisoners, as the hon. Member for Crewe and those who had studied the question well knew, bitterly resented very often the offences for which they were sentenced. If they bitterly resented them, could it be right that those men, sentenced for crimes for which no civilian would be sentenced, should be liable to be flogged? It would be wise that they should abolish flogging in all prisons, but whether they did that or not in all prisons, undoubtedly they had better abolish it in military prisons. It was an added reason for so doing that it was extremely likely that unless some change took place in their present Government, a greatly increased number of men would be subject to military law. Under the provisions brought before the House only the previous day, a greatly increased number of men would be subject to military law and liable to imprisonment for offences which would not be even faults except under military law. There would be an increased number of men who would vehemently resent the results of a law which they never foresaw. There would, therefore, be all the more reason why that flogging, which was much more prevalent in military than in civil prisons he still contended, and which did no good to the man and certainly harm to the system, would be on the increase. Therefore he asked the right hon. Gentleman to make some concession. Hon. Members on that side had not raised that discussion in any factious spirit. There might have been some resentment on a prior occasion, when there was a failure to disclose information which they thought ought to be given, but there was no such feeling on the present occasion. But there was a very general opinion on the part of hon. Members that flogging in military prisons should be abolished, and there had been very forcible reasons adduced to show that flogging in well-managed prisons did not obtain at all, but in badly-managed prisons did obtain. Therefore there was reason to suppose that flogging might be unnecessary in well-managed prisons, and therefore that, after all, hon. Members on his side might be right, and that flogging in itself was a bad thing. Taking all those things into consideration, he would beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the answer he had given, and if possible to grant some inquiry into the flogging in military prisons in order to see whether it might not be possible altogether to abolish a degrading, unworthy, and altogether unwise punishment.


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, 171; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 136.)

Agg-Gardner, Jamas Tynte Forster, Henry William Morrison, James Archibald
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S..) W Mount, William Arthur
Anson, Sir William Reyneil Gardner, Ernest Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Arkwright, John Stanhope Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O. Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Nicholson, William Graham
Arrol, Sir William Graham, Henry Robert Parkes, Ebenezer
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Greene, Sir E. W (Bury S Edm'nds Percy, Earl
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Bailey, James (Walworth) Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Baird, John George Alexander Gretton, John Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Balcarres, Lord Groves, James Grimble Pretyman, Ernest George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Guthrie, Walter Murray Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F. Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Hambro, Charles Eric Pym, C. Guy
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Randles, John S.
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin Hare, Thomas Leigh Rankin, Sir James
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth Reid, James (Greenock)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Hay, Hon. Claude George Renwick, George
Bignold, Sir Arthur Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Bill, Charles Heath, Sir J. (Staffords, N. W. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Bingham, Lord Helder, Augustus Round, Rt. Hon. James
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hickman, Sir Alfred Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Bond, Edward Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Hoult, Joseph Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Brassey, Albert Hozier, Hon. James Henry C Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hunt, Rowland Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Bull, William James Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Butcher, John George Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Kerr, John Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Keswick, William Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Knowles, Sir Lees Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A. (Worc. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks
Chapman, Edward Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N. R. Spear, John Ward
Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Llewellyn, Evan Henry Stroyan, John
Dalkeith, Earl of Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Davenport, William Bromley Macdona, John Cumming Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Maconochie, A. W. Tuff, Charles
Dickson, Charles Scott M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Webb, Colonel William George
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E (Taunton
Doughty, Sir George Majendie, James A. H. Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Malcolm, Ian Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Marks, Harry Hananel Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Martin, Richard Biddulph Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire
Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs Mildmay, Francis Bingham TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fisher, William Hayes Mitchell, William (Burnley) Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Morgan, David J (Walthamstow and Viscount Valentia.
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Morpeth, Viscount
Flower, Sir Ernest Morrell, George Herbert
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Boland, John Causton, Richard Knight
Ainsworth, John Stirling Brigg, John Channing, Francis Allston
Allen, Charles P. Caldwell, James Cheetham, John Frederick
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Cogan, Denis J.
Crean, Eugene Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Rea, Russell
Cremer, William Randal Joyce, Michael Reddy, M.
Cullinan, J. Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Dalziel, James Henry Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W Roche, John
Delany, William Kilbride, Denis Roe, Sir Thomas
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Langley, Batty Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Doogan, P. C. Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Duffy, William J. Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Shackleton, David James
Duncan, J. Hastings Levy, Maurice Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Elibank, Master of Lough, Thomas Sheehy, David
Eve, Harry Trelawney Lundon, W. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Farrell, James Patrick MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Slack, John Bamford
Fenwick, Charles MacVeagh, Jeremiah Soares, Ernest J.
Ffrench, Peter M'Crae, George Spencer, Rt Hn. C R. (Northants
Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E M'Hugh, Patrick A. Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Kenna, Reginald Strachey, Sir Edward
Flynn, James Christopher M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Sullivan, Donal
Gilhooly, James Murnaghan, John Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John Murphy, John Tennant, Harold John
Goddard, Daniel Ford Nannetti, Joseph P. Toulmin, George
Griffith, Ellis J. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Hammond, John Norman, Henry Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry Mid White, George (Norfolk)
Harwood, George O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Healy, Timothy Michael O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset
Helme, Norval Watson O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Dowd, John Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Higham, John Sharp O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Horniman, Frederick John O'Mara, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Johnson, John Partington, Oswald Bright and Mr. Tomkinson.
Joicey, Sir James Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden)
Jones, Leif (Appleby) Power, Patrick Joseph

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 105. (Division List No. 137.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Gardner, Ernest
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Arkwright, John Stanhope Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Chapman, Edward Graham, Henry Robert
Arrol, Sir William Clive, Captain Percy A. Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H. Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Gretton, John
Baird, John George Alexander Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Groves, James Grimble
Balcarres, Lord Dalkeith, Earl of Guthrie, Walter Murray
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Dalrymple, Sir Charles Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Davenport, William Bromley Hambro, Charles Eric
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Dickson, Charles Scott Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Doughty Sir George Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley
Bignold, Sir Arthur Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W.
Bill, Charles Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Helder, Augustus
Bingham, Lord Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Hickman, Sir Alfred
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Bond, Edward Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Hoult, Joseph
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Finlay, Sir R. B.(Invern'ss B'ghs Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Brassey, Albert Fisher, William Hayes Hunt, Rowland
Brotherton, Edward Allen Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.
Bull, William James Flannery, Sir Fortescue Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Butcher, John George Flower, Sir Ernest Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hon. Col. W
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Forster, Henry William Kerr, John
Keswick, William Mount, William Arthur Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Knowles, Sir Lees Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd) Nicholson, William Graham Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks.
Lawson, John G (Yorks. N. R.) Parkes, Ebenezer Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington Spear, John Ward
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Percy, Earl Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pilkington, Colonel Richard Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Platt-Higgins, Frederick Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Plummer, Sir Walter R. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th Pretyman, Ernest George Stroyan, John
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Macdona, John Cumming Purvis, Robert Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Maconochie, A. W. Pym, C. Guy Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Randles, John S. Tuff, Charles
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Rankin, Sir James Webb, Colonel William George
Majendie, James A. H. Reid, James (Greenock) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Malcolm, Ian Renwick, George Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Marks, Harry Hananel Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Martin, Richard Biddulph Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)
Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Round, Rt. Hon. James Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Maxwell, W. JH. (Dumfriesshire Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Mitchell, William (Burnley) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Morpeth, Viscount Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert and Viscount Valentia.
Morrell, George Herbert Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.
Morrison, James Archibald Sharpe, William Edward T.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Hayden, John Patrick O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Healy, Timothy Michael O'Mara, James
Allen, Charles P. Helme, Norval Watson Partington, Oswald
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden)
Boland, John Higham, John Sharp Power, Patrick Joseph
Brigg, John Johnson, John Rea, Russell
Caldwell, James Joicey, Sir James Reddy, M.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jones, Lief (Appleby Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Causton, Richard Knight Jones Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Roche, John
Channing, Francis Allston Joyce, Michael Roe, Sir Thomas
Cheetham, John Frederick Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Cogan, Denis J. Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W) Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight
Crean, Eugene Kilbride, Denis Shackleton, David James
Cremer, William Randal Langley, Batty Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B,)
Cullinan, J. Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Sheehy, David
Dalziel, James Henry Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Delany, William Levy, Maurice Slack, John Bamford
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Lough, Thomas Soares, Ernest J.
Doogan, P. C. Lundon, W. Spencer, Rt. HnC. R. (Northants
Duffy, William J. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Duncan, J. Hastings MacVeagh, Jeremiah Strachey, Sir Edward
Elibank, Master of M'Crae, George Sullivan, Donal
Eve, Harry Trelawney M'Hugh, Patrick A. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Farrell, James Patrick M'Kenna, Reginald Tennant, Harold John
Fenwick, Charles M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Toulmin, George
Ffrench, Peter Murnaghan, George Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E. Murphy, John Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nannetti, Joseph P. White, George (Norfolk)
Flynn, Jamas Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Gilhooly, James Norman, Henry Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Hammond, John O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Harwood, George O'Dowd, John Bright and Mr. Tomkinson.

Whereupon Mr. Secretary ARNOLD-FORSTER claimed, "That the Main Question be now put"

Main Question put accordingly.

The House divided:—Ayes, 169; Noes, 100. (Division List No. 138.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Forster, Henry William Morrell, George Herbert
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.) Morrison, James Archibald
Anson, Sir William Reynell Gardner, Ernest Mount, William Arthur
Arkwright, John Stanhope Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O. Gordon J. (Londonderry, S.) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Arrol, Sir William Graham, Henry Robert Nicholson, William Graham
Atkinson, Rt. Hn, John Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Parkes, Ebenezer
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Percy, Earl
Bailey, James (Walworth) Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs. Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Baird, John George Alexander Gretton, John Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Balcarres, Lord Groves, James Grimble Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Guthrie, Walter Murray Pretyman, Ernest George
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds) Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Hambro, Charles Eric Purvis, Robert
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Pym, C. Guy
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Hare, Thomas Leigh Randles, John S.
Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Rankin, Sir James
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Hay, Hon. Claude George Reid, James (Greenock)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Renwick, George
Bill, Charles Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N.W.) Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Bingham, Lord Helder, Augustus Robertson, Herbert (Hackney
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hickman, Sir Alfred Round, Rt. Hon. James
Bond, Edward Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Rutherford, John (Lancashire
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Hoult, Joseph Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool
Brassey, Albert Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hunt, Rowland Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.
Bull, William James Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Butcher, John George Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Kerr, John Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Keswick, William Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Knowles, Sir Lees Sloan, Thomas Henry
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Chapman, Edward Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End) Smith, Rt. Hn. J. P. (Lanarks)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham Spear, John Ward
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S. Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Llewellyn, Evan Henry Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Dalkeith, Earl of Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Davenport, William Bromley Macdona, John Cumming Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Maconochie, A. W. Tuff, Charles
Dickson, Charles Scott M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Webb, Colonel William George
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton
Doughty, Sir George Majendie, James A. H. Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers- Malcolm, Ian Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton Marks, Harry Hananel Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Fellows, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Martin, Richard Biddulph Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire
Fisher, William Hayes Mildmay, Francis Bingham TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Mitchell, William (Burnley) Alexander Acland-Hood and
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow Viscount Valentia.
Flower, Sir Ernest Morpeth, Viscount
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Bright, Allan Heywood
Ainsworth, John Stirling Boland, John Caldwell, James
Allen, Charles P. Brigg, John Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)
Causton, Richard Knight Johnson, John Power, Patrick Joseph
Channing, Francis Allston Joicey, Sir James Rea, Russell
Cheetham, John Frederick Jones, Leif (Appleby) Reddy, M.
Cogan, Denis J. Jones, William (Carnarvonshr. Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Crean, Eugene Joyce, Michael Roche, John
Cremer, William Randal Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath. N. Roe, Sir Thomas
Cullinan, J. Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Dalziel, James Henry Kilbride, Denis Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)
Delany, William Langley, Batty Shackleton, David James
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Doogan, P. C. Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Sheehy, David
Duffy, William J. Levy, Maurice Shipman, Dr. John G.
Duncan, J. Hastings Lundon, W. Slack, John Bamford
Elibank, Master of MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Soares, Ernest J.
Eve, Harry Trelawney MaeVeagh, Jeremiah Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Farrell, James Patrick M'Crae, George Sullivan, Donal
Fenwick, Charles M'Hugh, Patrick A. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Ffrench, Peter M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Tennant, Harold John
Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E Murnaghan, George Tomkinson, James
Flavin, Michael Joseph Murphy, John Toulmin, George
Flynn, James Christopher Nannetti, Joseph P. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Gilhooly, James Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) White, George (Norfolk)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Norman, Henry White, Luke (York, E. R.
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset
Hammond, John O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Harwood, George O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Dowd, John
Healy, Timothy Michael O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Helme, Norval Watson O'Mara, James Partick O'Brien and Mr.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Partington, Oswald Keir Hardie.
Higham, John Sharp Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without

Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes before Two o' clock.