§ [THIRD READING.]
§ Older for Third Reading read.
§ *The SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's)
referred to some of the criticisms which had been made upon the measure and to changes which had been effected in its provisions. He said the whole object of the Bill was to deal with immigrants who came here in bulk at certain ports. It was only one class of passengers which came in this way and so came under the operation of this Bill. But after all, it was this class of passenger which supplied the undesirable population in this country and caused a great expense to be thrown on the rate-payers. The Government had no desire to exclude those who could maintain themselves and their dependents decently, but they did desire to prevent the rate-payers being put to the expense of maintaining those who came to this country in a destitute condition, and to keep out those who were not desirable on account of their being lunatics, or idiots, or convicted criminals. Complaint had been made that an undue charge was being placed on the shipowners in making them responsible during a certain period for the maintenance of the persons they brought over to this country and liable to take back immigrants who were found to be undesirable. He did not, however, think shipowners had any great grievance. The House must remember that the profit of bringing over aliens went to them, and 1258 if anyone ought to bear some liability in the matter it was surely the shipowners themselves. The complaint had come chiefly from the other side of the House; whereas the majority of the shipowners in the House sat, he believed, on the Ministerial aide, and they had expressed satisfaction at the way in which the Government had endeavoured to meet them.
Amendments had been made in the Bill to enable transmigrants to dispense with examination, the shipowners giving security that they were passed through this country. It had been said that it was a hardship to the shipowner that he should have to provide accommodation for inspection at the quayside or elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the ship. But it must be remembered that had not a concession been made the examination would have taken place on board ship, and that if shipowners desired to avoid expense the examination could still be held on board. He had made inquiry on the subject from shipowners, and he could not ascertain that any great cost, if any cost at all, would be cast upon them. In the case of nearly all the big lines the shipowners themselves possessed buildings in which the examination could be held. It had been said that it would be a hardship if the shipowners were compelled to take back an alien who had arrived in this country before the passing of the Bill or who had passed through the machinery at the port. He thought the Member for Liverpool had proved his case, and the Bill had been modified in this respet, without, he believed, impairing the principle of the measure.
A desire had been expressed on both sides of the House that no political or religious refugee should be turned back from these shores for want of means. It had never been the desire of the Government to exclude such refugees. The difficulty had been to find suitable words which would not offer facilities for evading the Bill. He thought that the Amendment originally proposed by the 1259 Prime Minister really met all the genuine cases, and that though it did not go so fax as the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean desired, the larger proportion of Members on both sides felt that it was a perfectly fair proposal. The point had been made that the Bill made destitution a ground for exclusion; but in reply to that he would urge that the class which unfortunately was generally destitute was the class which had caused a great deal of inconvenience and suffering to the working classes in certain portions of London and the country, and it would have been impossible to bring forward an effective Bill if they had not dealt with this class.
It had been argued that it might be possible for criminals who could pay a higher fare for their sea route to come to this country in spite of the Bill. That was perfectly true; but in the third clause there were provisions for expelling them from these shores, and there were also provisions in Clause 1 which dealt with those who had been convicted under an extradition treaty. A number of these men were well known at the short seaports, and there would be no difficulty in dealing with them. The expulsion clauses would rid us of a large number of foreign criminals who had been convicted in this country and to a large extent populated our prisons, occasioning a great deal of expenditure to the taxpayers. Quite apart from the preventive clauses of the Bill, he expected that it would have a very considerable deterrent effect in preventing the class of aliens aimed at from entering the country. That had certainly been the case in America. He thought the House would be well advised to pass the Third Reading. The Government had sought to make concessions to the House and to meet certain hardships, but the principle of the Bill remained what it was when the measure was introduced, and he felt certain that if it became law proper administration of its provisions would secure the object which the promoters had in view.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."1260
§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)
, in moving that the Bill be read a third time this day three months, acknowledged the courteous spirit in which the Home Secretary had conducted the measure through the House and Committee. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill remained the same in principle in spite of the changes made in it, and for that reason he would continue to oppose it. He did so on three grounds. First, the Bill was a sham Bill in regard to the exclusion of criminals. Secondly, it was introduced with a double purpose, and though the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues had no intention by its means of keeping out efficient and competing workmen, their supporters went up and down the country declaring that that was their object. Thirdly, it was an infraction of a high and great principle on the most flimsy grounds and for the most trifling consideration.
It was a sham to say that the criminal could be kept out by this Bill, and the Home Secretary had practically admitted it in his speech. In order to come face to face with the immigration officer the well-known criminal would have to commit two acts of incredible folly. He would have to select an immigrant ship going to an immigrant port and get nineteen other malefactors to accompany him, and then he would have to take a steerage passage, although he need only spend a few extra shillings in order to become a cabin passenger, Supposing the foreign criminal had committed these two great acts of folly, and had at last met the immigration officer face to face, there were still several easy loopholes of escape for him. After his offence had been proved he could plead that it had a political significance, or that he was fleeing from religious persecution. If he came from a country where there was any persecution whatever going on, he would probably be able to convince the immigration authorities that he was entitled to come in. It had been computed that the odds against being killed on an English railway were 200 millions to one, and he believed the odds against catching a criminal under this Bill would be at least as great. All the authorities who had been consulted— 1261 including the Home Office itself, in the person of Sir Keiselm Digby—had agreed that while the powers of expulsion might be valuable, those of exclusion would be nugatory.
Another ground of objection was that the Bill was proposed with a double purpose. It would not include a single efficient competing alien workman; that was not the intention of the Bill, nor was there the machinery to do it. The measure could not possibly have any protective effect in that direction. But he objected to the Bill also because it marked the abandonment of a great and high principle which, if not immemorial, had been slowly and laboriously built up—the principle that to keep out people because they were miserable and without means was neither wise nor right. He was glad to note that the Members who specifically represented labour in the House had refused to be seduced by the suspicious pretensions of keeping out competing labour, and they had found an unexpected ally in the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who had probably done more to amend the Bill than any other Member of the House. The noble Lord had held up the ideal of a Christian Church, all-embracing, and including all races and all colours, and contended that, however poor, persons should be admitted if they were in any way damaged or damnified by holding their creed. That was only a part of the still higher doctrine of the great commonwealth of humanity, held by hon. Members on that side of the House, and it was because they believed that humanity could be regarded as a great commonwealth that they opposed the policy of the exclusion of the poor and miserable.
The Prime Minister had asked whether this country was to extend the Act of Elizabeth to the destitute all over the world. To that question there was a crushing reply. What was the extent of the burden imposed? According to the latest returns £13,000,000 was spent by this country in poor relief; and of that sum only £29,000 was spent in relief to aliens. For the sake of saving such a sum the Government were prepared to abandon a great and high principle. Whether it were popular or unpopular, he at any rate would continue to oppose 1262 so fatuous a policy. It was not as though the Government had a clean record in this matter. The very Government who proposed to exclude these people from the United Kingdom had deliberately imported into South Africa a mass of people who, according to the latest statistics, were far more criminal than any aliens who had ever come to this country. That, surely, was the height of cynicism, and then from that height they descended to the lowest depth by proposing for the sake of 29,000 paltry sovereigns to abandon a great, high, and generous principle. He begged to move.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
, as another unrepentant opponent of the Bill, seconded the Amendment. Recent elections had shown that there was not that enthusiasm for the Bill which hon. Members opposite had alleged, the truth of the matter being that the outside public had observed that the Opposition had been able to make good their main propositions that the Bill was trivial and that it infringed a high principle of national policy. Such popularity as it had really enjoyed had arisen from the belief that from 75,000 to 80,000 aliens came and settled in this country every year, and that the Bill would put a stop to the influx. The glamour of that protective idea had, however, largely evaporated. The spokesmen of the Government had steadily set their faces against the idea that this was a great protective measure. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had claimed it as the beginning of his protective policy, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had consistently adopted a different line of argument, and recommended the Bill as a measure of sanitary regulation, for the exclusion of criminals, and for the relief of the rates. But the Government had been unable to do anything with the argument from figures. No doubt it was impossible to give within two or three hundred the actual number of aliens who came and settled in the country, but according to the Census Returns the alien population increased on the average by 7,000 or 8,000 a year, and that number was doubtless approximately correct. What, then, became of the alleged 75,000 or 80,000? Moreover, in 1263 America only one in 100 aliens was excluded, and, as they excluded many classes who would not be touched by this Bill, it was only reasonable to suppose that the proportion would not reach even that figure in this country. One-fifth of the aliens excluded from America were contract labourers, and no allowance was made for religious persecution. Therefore the number excluded here would probably be very small indeed, and for this pitiful result there was to be set up a great machinery in eleven of our ports, and £24,000 of national money expended in order to save, as the Government themselves had admitted, £29,000 of local money, a large part of which was paid by aliens themselves, who in certain districts were large ratepayers.
In one respect only had the Bill been successful—it had enabled the Government to pass another session. It was the supreme effort of legislation for this year. The Government had the magnificent record of having passed a Bill which would keep out five dinghy-loads of tatterdemalions. The Bill would set up a machinery which some future and more powerful protectionist Government, if ever there was such a one, would be able to use and extend, and he was opposed to this class of legislation and feared its extension. He gladly admitted that the right of asylum had to some extent been reserved by the Amendment that had been forced on the Government by the action of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, but the Bill still contained the detestable poverty test to which he objected. This Bill did not provide a proper method for dealing with sweaters. The sweater in this country was of British make; he was allowed to exist by our laws. If we had proper laws there would be no sweating. The British landowner who would not part with his land was responsible for overcrowding. The Opposition were only too anxious to deal with overcrowding and sweating, but they would not find salvation by excluding a shipload of aliens. We should make laws to control our monopolists, and not bully aliens in order to conceal our own neglect, indifference, and bad laws.
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three mouths."—[Major Seely.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ *MAJOR EVANS GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)
, referring to the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight that the Bill would not exclude foreign criminals from landing in this country, insisted that the measure would carry out what had always been the intention of the Government, namely, that the magistrates and Judges should have the power of expelling those who misbehaved themselves after they came here and put themselves in reach of the law. With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's charge that the Bill was brought forward for electioneering purposes, he must ask him to settle accounts with his colleagues on the benches opposite and with those Liberal candidates in East-End constituencies who had, over and over again, supported the policy embodied in the Bill, and who had petitioned the leaders of the Party to allow the Bill to pass. [OPPOSITION cries of dissent.]
§ *MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
There was not one of the candidates or Members who, in asking our Front Bench not to oppose the Second Reading, expressed approval of the Bill.
§ *MAJOR EVANS GORDON
informed the hon. Gentleman opposite that one candidate, after milking inquiries for himself in the constituency of Stepney, came to the conclusion that this very legislation was urgently necessary, and expressed approval of every principle contained in the Bill.
§ *MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said there was also Mr. Stopford Brooke, the candidate for Bow and Bromley, who had appeared on a platform in the East End which was adorned with several hon. Members opposite, and expressed himself 1265 very strongly in favour of the Bill. He would also quote from his own speeches the views of the hon. Member for Poplar with regard to this legislation.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
The hon. and gallant Gentleman and some of his friends are perpetually mentioning my name. I expressed my views with regard to the Bill in the Second Reading debate, and it does not seem necessary to repeat them on every occasion, especially as hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to get this Bill through. If I am silent it is not because I have altered my views.
§ *MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said he had not the slightest intention of leaving the hon. Gentleman alone. Declarations of a clear and emphatic character on this question from the Front Bench opposite were so rare that he should quote, and quote on every possible occasion, the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar. He was glad that the hon. Gentleman had not changed his views; but he could wish that he had supported them, both in the lobby and by speech, more firmly and stoutly than he had seen fit to do.
§ *MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said they had heard in the course of this debate all sorts of charges against this Bill. They had been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it had been introduced in consequence of a spurious agitation, that the Bill would keep out nobody, that it would inflict a great hardship upon aliens and ruin the shipping trade, and that there was absolutely no demand for it amongst the working classes or the trades unions. Let any Member who suspected it was a spurious agitation enter any of the few remaining houses in his constituency occupied by English families and hear proofs of the reality of the alien grievance.
1266 Every candidate, every clergyman, labour leaders such as Mr. Steadman, all believed in the necessity for such legislation, and before the Royal Commission representatives of the trades affected strongly pleaded for a Bill such as this. He yielded to no man in sympathy for the persecuted, but he could not ignore the sufferings of our own unemployed workmen displaced in their occupations and in their homes by these alien immigrants. It had been said that this Bill only dealt with a local grievance, but witness after witness before the Royal Commission urged them to report in favour of a Bill of this kind. In Yorkshire the Stockton Trades Council recently passed the following resolution to send to the Labour Representation Conference which was to be held in January next—That the Labour Representation Committee be instructed to promote legislation to stop the landing of pauper aliens in this country, as being detrimental to the best interest of the workmen of this country.That resolution was carried by nine to five. Evidence of a similar kind was given in favour of this Bill by trades union witnesses from Lancashire, Leeds, Sheffield, and other places. Petitions had been presented from many of the leading trades unions urging the Government to legislate in the direction in which they were now doing under this Bill. The representative of the gasworkers in London said that in one large works alone there were 800 aliens employed. In face of these facts what nonsense it was to talk of the unemployed when so much employment which Englishmen were ready and willing to undertake was being taken from them by aliens. They had heard a great deal of sympathy expressed for the aliens by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but not one word of sympathy in these debates had been spoken by members of the Opposition in regard to the sufferings of our own people, who had been completely ignored by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In his own small Division of Stepney 425 houses in the past twelve months had become occupied by foreign aliens. Of these houses 379 had been occupied by English families. On a moderate estimate the 425 houses were now occupied by at least eight aliens each, so that in twelve months there had been an influx of 3,400 aliens 1267 into the Parliamentary Division of Stepney alone. And yet they were told no aliens were coming in and that they were a diminishing quantity. In February, 1903, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar urged the Government to introduce this legislation, and he said—He did not care whether the alien immigrant were Jew, Turk, or infidel, or what nationality he belonged to; what he objected to was the refuse of Europe being dumped down on these shores.He further said—It was stated that he trades unions could look after the working hours of these people, but destitute aliens were ready to accept very low wages and long hours, and this made it impossible in some trades for trades unions to be formed at all.Dealing with the housing problem the hon. Member for Poplar said—It was impossible to expect that they could improve the housing of the poor so long as the refuse of the rest of Europe was permitted to come into this country. In the present condition of the working classes of this country it was not right that they should allow these destitute aliens to come in unchecked to reduce the rate of wages and lengthen the hours of work, and seriously affect the proper conditions under which labour ought to be carried out.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
Does the hon. and gallant Member say that I made that statement outside of this House?
§ MAJOR SEELY
Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in referring to speeches made this session in the House of Commons?
§ *MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said he would be perfectly plain with the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Poplar had made a statement in this House strongly supporting this measure which he voted for last year, but in this House this year since the Bill had been intro- 1268 duced the hon. Gentleman had maintained a discreet silence and had done little by vote or speech to forward the measure which he declared last year was so urgently necessary.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
said he could not understand why the hon. Gentleman persisted in making these violent and unprovoked attacks upon him. He had never disguised his opinion in favour of the Bill. He spoke on the Second Reading, and if he had taken no part in the subsequent debates it was because he understood the Government wanted to get on with the Bill. [OPPOSITION cries of "Withdraw, withdraw!"]
§ *MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said there was nothing to withdraw. He adhered to the opinion which he had already expressed that the hon. Member had declared himself last year strongly in favour of this Bill, and, as far as he was aware, he had done nothing this year, either by vote or speech, to support this measure. Further, his object was to show how strong the feeling was in the East End of London upon this question, and how unjust it was of hon. Gentlemen opposite to accuse the supporters of the Government of getting up an agitation of this kind, and declaring that there was realty no grievance at all. The hon. Member for Poplar said in 1903—What could be simpler than to put the obligation in this matter upon the steamship companies? Quite 80 per cent. of these destitute aliens came to London; and practically the whole of them came to three ports in this conntry, and came from four Continental ports only, and there would be no difficulty about it. The administrative difficulties had been greatly exaggerated, and if the Board of Trade made up its mind to deal with this question and put the responsibility upon the steamship companies they would prevent these destitute aliens coming here.Those were the very things the Government had done, and would the hon. Member rise in his place and express his approval of this Bill?
§ *MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said he was glad to hear that. The hon. Member 1269 For the Elland Division appeared to argue that because they had at present crime, sweating, and overcrowding in this country they should add to those evils by importing additional evils of the same kind. He had never contended that all these evils were caused by alien immigration, but what he did say was that they were seriously increased by the great influx of poor people from Eastern Europe.
As regarded what the Bill would accomplish it was difficult for anybody to say, until we had experience of its actual administration. He wished to be perfectly frank with the House. He did not say that the Bill contained all that he wished it to contain. He thought the clause which was proposed to exclude contract labour would have been an advantage to the Bill. He should have liked to see a clause to expel fraudulent and professional bankrupts. He thought also the limitation of twenty in the definition of an immigrant ship was too high. It should be reduced to ten, or, in certain cases, to a lower figure. But in his judgment a great step in advance had been made, and he believed firmly that the Bill, if wisely administered, would be productive of great good without inflicting any hardship on people to whom it was desirable to give domicile in this country. They would watch the results with close attention, and if it should appear, as hon. Gentlemen opposite desired that it should appear, that the Bill failed, he for one would not hesitate to press to have it strengthened. He thanked the Government for bringing forward the Bill. Any small effort which he had put forward in promoting the measure had been done wholly and solely for the benefit of the people he represented in particular, and of the country at large.
§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)
said the hon. and gallant Member closed his speech by expressing his gratitude to the Government for this Bill. Might he himself express the hope that the Government would afford an early opportunity to the country of expressing its thanks. While listening to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member he wondered whether he really 1270 regarded himself as a typical and legitimate representative of English trades unions. There were a good many representatives of English trades unions and English working men in that House, and from every legitimate source or channel, working-class opinion had been one of undivided hostility to the Bill, and, therefore, he would ask the Prime Minister, when winding up the debate to-night, to tell the House from what source he got his mandate for the measure. From what source had he derived information that this measure was required by the country? The ostensible grounds on which the Bill was brought before the House were that in the present state of the law diseased, criminal, and pauper immigrants were admitted into this country.Therefore," said the Prime Minister in a highly anti-protective speech, "this is not a measure associated with protective policy at all. It is a Bill to relieve the people of London especially, and the people of the country at large, from the incubus of pauper immigration.But the Bill was supposed to be founded on the Report of the Royal Commission. He invited the attention of hon. Members opposite to statistics with relation to pauperism among the alien population. He would take the case of the Metropolis, because it was conceded that alien immigration was objectionable in the Metropolis in a pre-eminent degree. The general percentage of pauper population in London was 7.9, whereas the percentage of pauper alien population was 2.4. Therefore, there was really no serious reason for the Bill on the ground of paupers being introduced. The Report of the Commission said that the alien immigrants who came into this Metropolis, though very poor, were sober, law-abiding, and industrious citizens. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, the protagonist of this crusade against aliens, gave the whole case away, because he said they did not really think they could prevent the landing of criminals, but they could expel them. As far as criminals were concerned, they would come in through other channels than the ordinary immigrant ship, and indeed the supporters of the measure relied not on the preventive but on the expulsive clauses. Then, in regard to overcrowding, there could be no question that even 1271 there were no alien immigration over-crowding would exist. In the North of London, where there were avowedly no aliens, and in Lambeth, there was a greater percentage of overcrowding than in the districts where the aliens lived.
What was the real reason for this Bill? It had been avowed in the most candid manner by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that the reason why he supported the Bill was that it was going to stop a competing factor with British labour. He was not at all sure but that, if he believed there was serious competition with British labour from the alien population, he should be disposed to assist in the passing of some measure for the purpose of protecting our working classes.
§ MR. ATHERLEY - JONES
said his mind was convinced. What were the facts disclosed by the Commission? These facts showed that this form of competition with British labour was practically non-existent in the Metropolis. No more dishonest measure had ever been introduced in an expiring Parliament. It was intended to dupe the working classes of this country into the belief that the right hon. Gentleman was the champion and protector of British against alien labour. He objected to the Bill also because he believed that there was a serious chance of individual refugees who were fleeing from religious and political persecution being prevented from landing on what had hitherto been the free shores of England. Did the right hon. Gentleman reflect that the chief ground of the esteem and admiration felt on the Continent for Great Britain was on account of the liberty of our institutions and the right of asylum we had afforded to foreigners. Every Continental politician who had Liberal tendencies pointed with admiration to these shores as the great free commonwealth; and that right of asylum was being taken away by the Bill. There was no demand for this measure. The Labour Members were silent; the great trades unions were silent, or, if they 1272 had taken official action at all, it was to protest against the Bill. As a Radical and an Englishman he objected to the Bill; he believed it would receive the condemnation of the country; and he was fully convinced, and firmly hoped, that it would be struck off the Statute-book.
§ *MR. STUART SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel)
ventured to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had never added to the knowledge of the House on this question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman only offered his own impressions, but did not give the figures on which a Bill of this kind should rest, and he really never attempted to make out a case for the measure. The hon. and gallant Member for Stepney had indeed said that 425 houses in that borough had changed ownership since last year, but he omitted to say that the town clerk of Stepney had reported that there were 1,500 houses vacant there, and that the absence of ratepayers was becoming a serious matter for the borough. One would think from what hon. Members opposite argued that in the East End of London hordes of aliens were driving the British workman away, and putting him upon the rates, but the town clerk also reported that very day that there were no aliens in Whitechapel in receipt of Poor Law relief, whereas in Poplar, where there were no aliens, 6,000 people were receiving out-relief.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said that the hon. Member, when he was giving the statistics of Whitechapel, omitted to say that in that district it had been the policy of the boards of guardians for years past not to give out-relief, while in Poplar it had been the policy to extend out - relief. Besides this, the Jewish Board of Guardians in Whitechapel had contributed enormously to the relief of the foreign population.
§ *MR. STUART SAMUEL
said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not improved his position by his interruption. The Jewish inhabitants paid their rates just the same as the British inhabitants, but they got no benefit from them. The Jews cared for their own poor.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON
said that the amount of out-relief given in Whitechapel was no indication of what the alien population was.
§ *MR. STUART SAMUEL
said that the aliens did not receive any outdoor relief from the rates. There were a few sober facts which he wished to bring out. The total cost to the whole country for the relief of aliens last year was £29,000; and he asked how many aliens could be supported for a whole year on that sum?
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
asked if the hon. Gentleman would state what the expenditure of the Jewish Board of Guardians was?
§ *MR. STUART SAMUEL
said that what the Jewish Board of Guardians expended was not a charge on the ratepayers of this country. His point was that the alien did not drive the British working man on to the rates. They must come back to the fact that the total cost of the aliens throughout the country last year was £29,000. He knew that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not like these figures and studiously avoided them. When the Secretary to the Board of Trade, relying on the Board of Trade Returns, said that 75,000 aliens came to this country it was not a fair statement, as the Board of Trade Returns did not give the number of aliens who went out to other countries. From his own personal knowledge, and as a member of the Jewish Board of Guardians, he was aware that large numbers went to other countries, assisted by charitable means, and large numbers on their own initiative. The Secretary to the Board of Trade might just as well say that the Bank of England was bankrupt because it passed out so many sovereigns, if no account were taken of the sovereigns that came in. The charge of the Prime Minister that the aliens reduced the standard of living here was a difficult one to meet, and if substantiated would be a just reproach. But in St. George's-in-the-East, which had a large alien population, the birth rate was recently 52 per 1,000, or nearly double that of London, while the deaths were at the rate of 12.3 per 1,000, the lowest ever 1274 known in the district. It was not likely that such figures would be found among people living in conditions likely to reduce the standard of life. Dr. Thomas, medical officer of health for Stepney, stated in his annual report that in Stepney nearly 20 per cent. of the population were not legally married. But that estimate was only arrived at after excluding the Jews. That did not suggest that the aliens reduced the standard of living, nor did the fact that 98 per cent. was frequently the figure of school attendance, or that forty two public-houses were recently closed in his district. He could point to street after street in Whitechapel and Stepney which were formerly dens of thieves and down which in his experience policemen had been afraid to go, but which were now perfectly safe owing to the settlement of aliens there. If the Government did anything to interfere with the trade brought there by aliens they would regret it, for many British workpeople who were employed in these trades would suffer. The Bill had been announced as for the benefit of the working classes and also in relief of the Jews from burdens thrown upon them. But as the Labour Members had denounced the Bill on behalf of the working men, so he denounced it on behalf of the Jews, who desired no protection from the congenial task of succouring those not so fortunate us themselves and who did not limit their succour to people of their own race or religion. This country had a great reputation for its generosity to oppressed peoples throughout the world without regard to their religious beliefs. He suggested to the Government that this country had not altered in that respect.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
said that every one recognised the claim of the last speaker to be heard on this question, and he wished every Member had shown such moderation of tone, and assured him that the Bill was in no way directed against the ancient religion which he professed. It was in no sense an anti-Semitic Bill. He entirely dissented from the view of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Durham that there was no demand for a Bill regulating the immigration of aliens.
1275 No subject had been more constantly before the House; and a Select Committee in 1889 called attention to the evils which existed from the non-regulation of alien immigration, and said that it was the bounden duty of the Government to take the question up. He confessed his admiration at the way the Bill had been handled by the Home Secretary. His complaint was that the Bill had been too long delayed, but he congratulated the Home Secretary for his cautious and able handling of it, and thanked the Government for persevering with it, and the First Lord of the Treasury for the energetic way in which he had brought it forward this session. A great deal had been made of the comparatively small number of aliens that came upon the rates; but the fact that a large number of our own people were deprived of their homes and means of livelihood owing to this uncontrolled foreign immigration was not taken into account.
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT
Nothing of the kind. The Select Committee, of which he was a member, in their Report of 1889 distinctly called attention to the considerable number of our own people who were deprived of their homes and their livelihood by aliens. That was the real cause of the rise of the rates in this country. Then it was said that the Bill was imperfect, but no Bill that ever passed the House was an absolutely perfect Bill. There must be some imperfections, and to his mind one imperfection in this Bill was that it would throw a considerable cost on the people of this country, which the aliens themselves who came to this country ought to bear. In the United States every alien who gained admission had to pay a fee of two dollars to meet the expenses of the immigration department. Unfortunately there was nothing of that sort in this Bill. We could not keep out all the undesirables, but he was perfectly certain that a very great preventive measure had been passed which would make aliens hesitate before 1276 coming into this country. He thanked, the Government for bringing forward the Bill, and he hoped it would soon become, law.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)
I do not grudge the hon. and gallant Gentleman the tone of jubilation which he is able to show to the House to-night; and I only hope that a few years hence it will appear that this Bill has been as perfectly ineffective as the Prison Goods Bill, and less dangerous, and injurious to the trade of this country than the Trade Marks Bill—the great measures with which his name will always be associated. The Bill before the House is one which has been greatly talked about in the country, and two great efforts have been made, last year and this, to pass some Bill of this kind into law. On the Second Reading of the Bill I was unable, with a great many others, to vote for it, although quite willing to take part in any reasonable proposal for the exclusion of those who were literally and unmistakably undesirable aliens. But I could not vote for the Bill until I saw what shape it would finally take under the manipulation of the Government and the supporters of the Government. Now, at the end of the career of the Bill, I find that there is one great fault in it, which is of itself enough to make me vote against it, as I shall. It is that the Bill is one which draws a distinction between the poor and the rich, or rather between the destitute and those who have a little money to produce when they come among us. I cannot imagine anything less in accordance with the general spirit and characteristic of our countrymen than that that should be the particular ground upon which a man is to be excluded. The hardest-working man, the most laborious and intelligent man, the man the most likely to make a good citizen, if he settles here, and to do his duty by those belonging to him and those who live around him, has no chance to come into this country unless he has money in his pocket. But the worthless man, the scamp, the lazy man, the man who is not likely to add either to the prosperity of other people or his own, can come in if he has money in 1277 his pocket. That is a plain statement of the fact, and it is quite enough to condemn this Bill.
I have no intention of detaining the House more than two or three minutes. ["Hear, hear!" from an hon. MEMBER on the GOVERNMENT Benches.] I am obliged to the hon. Member for the extremely courteous interruption. If he does not agree with me in opinion, perhaps he will get up and state his opinions, if he is in a condition to do so. Besides this cardinal sin, on account of which, if nothing else, I would condemn the Bill, there is that which has been demonstrated again and again through the course of these debates—the impracticability of the provisions of the Bill, the ridiculous results to which we are reduced when we attempt to follow out what will happen when the provisions of the Bill are brought into force. There is one thing to which my attention has been called to-day which I will mention as an instance of what I mean. Shipowners before taking a transmigrant on board ship to go to the United States or our Colonies will now in self-defence be obliged to refuse to take him on board unless he stays six months in this country, lest they should be under the necessity of maintaining him for the rest of his natural lite; so that the Bill sets a premium upon constituting in this country the residence for six months at least of the very class from foreign communities whom the measure professes to exclude. The Bill is full of absurdities of that kind. I admit that it has been improved in one important respect—namely, the treatment of the refugee. It is better, although not so complete or so clear or effective as we should have liked. Still, it is vastly improved from what it was originally. But the whole of this legislation from first to last has been faulty legislation, because it was insincere legislation, because it was known to be a mere pandering to a strong prejudice in certain limited localities in this country; and it would have been much better to have allowed the small number of real undesirables to come in rather than to create all the expense and the turmoil and the elaborate machinery, and, as I think, the contradiction to the whole tenor of the policy and the sympathies of this country 1278 throughout generations which have been created by this Bill.
The Bill will, of course, become law; that has been evident from the first. The one thing which reconciles us to it is that it will do, after all, but little harm. The very absurdity of many of its provisions and the unworkable nature of the machinery will defeat to a large extent the purpose of those who have been anxious to see it passed into law. We have not yet been made quite sure whether it is intended to be the first step in a long process of active protection. It has been claimed on that ground—[An HON. MEMBER on the GOVERNMENT Benches: "No."]—it has been claimed on that ground by the hon. Member for West Birmingham—claimed by him as the first step in the glorious progress towards the shutting out not only of the foreigner, but of his goods. I do not think that the Government have quite openly accepted that view of their work, but so far as it tends in that direction that is an additional reason for our opposing it. But I can only express my regret that the session has been mainly devoted to such a Bill, for this is the great work of the session for which we have to curtail the opportunities of considering Supply, and for which we have to sacrifice other much more useful measures. I regret that the great work of the session has been one of such a character as not only to be likely to be of little use for the purpose for which it was intended, but also to impose upon this country a new character in the eyes of the world, a character which our fathers before us were always most anxious and careful to avoid.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
The right hon. Gentleman who has just denounced the Bill tells us that his chief motive for opposing it now is to be found in the obvious insincerity and the obvious inadequacy of the clauses which it contains. Well, so far as I am aware nothing has occurred since the Second Reading either to make the clauses less efficacious or to make the character of the Bill less sincere. But on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman did not 1279 take this heroic line. He did not indulge in this vein of eloquent patriotism or appeal to the shades of our forefathers-Unless my memory greatly deceives me, he and his friends took the safer course of walking out of the House, and with a great effort of self-control avoided expressing the feelings doubtless boiling in their breasts, at a time when according to the practice of the House it is most appropriate to show them. Who can tell what might have happened had the right hon. Gentleman and his friends taken this stand on the Second Reading, and, speaking for a united Party, expressed the emotions to which he had referred at half-past eleven on the last night of the Bill, when, as he truly observes, it is quite obvious that the Bill must pass into law?
There was one other, I thought very unnecessary, taunt which the right hon. Gentleman levelled against those who sit on this side of the House. He said that this Bill was protective in its character. As far as I am aware, there is nothing in any of the clauses of the Bill which is open to that objection, or that praise, whichever it be, according to the view of the particular individuals who express their opinions on the measure. As far as I know, there was only one attempt, to make this a protective measure and that was a strenuous, and an explicit attempt, and the whole of the Opposition marched into the lobby as one man to support it. I do not know, but my personal belief is that the right hon. Gentleman, who takes this rather belated occasion to denounce the Bill as a protective measure, did vote in favour of an Amendment to that Bill that was distinctly, obviously, and avowedly designed to prevent the com- 1280 petition of the foreign with the British working man.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid.)
I think the right hon. Gentleman is doing those of us who voted for that Amendment an unwarrantable injustice, because there was not a single attempt in the direct of protection. We simply tried to guard the introduction of foreign workmen in the case of disputes between employers and employed.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON
That is entirely free trade and, in our opinion, as free-traders, we were acting in accordance with the principles of free trade and not in favour of protection.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I think my hon. and gallant friend was quite consistent. I do not complain of the Amendment; but the hon. Member will see on reflection that if the word protection is used in connection with this Bill it can only mean the exclusion of foreign labourers when they come in to compete with British labour. The Amendment was to exclude foreign labourers coming into this country in certain circumstances to compete with British labour, and it was for no other purpose whatever that the Amendment was moved.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
That is competition. No one who dispassionately considers the question—great as is the confusion that appears to affect controversy on the subject—can doubt that whatever protection may mean in connection with the migration of human beings, the effect of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman opposite introduced, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite voted for, is protective and nothing but protective.
But I should be sorry that the last words spoken on this Bill should be spoken in a controversial vein; and nothing that I have to say will be of a kind really to raise personal controversy on either side of the House, however little my views may be agreed with. We have been accused on this side of the House of having unduly desired to restrict that hospitality which has for generations been extended by us to all and sundry who desire to come to our shores, whatever be their race, whatever be their religion, whatever be their politics, and whatever be their social status. For my own part, I altogether repudiate that view. It must be remembered that hospitality, though a virtue, is not obligatory either upon individuals or upon nations; and if you want it to be practised, either by an individual or by a nation, it is really in the highest degree desirable that it should not be abused; because the inevitable effect of its abuse is to induce restrictions, probably excessive, to be placed on the exercise of that hospitality, and to prevent what is in him who offers it a virtue and to him who receives it a great blessing and advantage. If I am any judge of the failings of nations, not only in Europe, but all over the world, one of the great 1282 and growing difficulties arises either from their excessive restrictions on hospitality to other nations or from the harsh treatment which a people like the Jews too often receive among some of the Eastern peoples of Europe. If it be, as I think it is, a genuine danger, lest we should be as restricted as, for instance some of our Colonies are, or even lest we should put as severe limitations as the United States of America put upon immigration, or lest we should do as many Continental nations do, who, from geographical conditions, do not attempt to stay immigration, but who treat in the most abominable fashion many of those who are born, within their borders—if we are to do that it is plain and, I think, expedient in the interests both of the original inhabitants of these islands and of those who desire to come to us, that we should not permit any abuses in connection with that immigration, any abuses that we can help—and that those abuses should be diminished to the utmost so that the hospitality which we shall extend in the future will be like that of the past, so that those who come among us will be accepted gladly and gratefully, and will become, as we are, citizens of a free country, and like ourselves will enjoy every advantage which that free country can give.
One hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite me, the Member for Whitechapel, made, as I think, a very undeserved attack upon me the other night in connection with the great body of coreligionists to which he belongs. I think he will admit that there is, no doubt, a danger, not, I hope, at present a great danger, but a real danger, that some of the difficulties from which the Continental nations now suffer might arise 1283 if we left this question untouched. We owe an enormous debt to the manner in which the Jewish community in Great Britain has striven to prevent anything of the kind happening. They have, with magnificent and organised generosity, done an immense amount to prevent the evils of which I speak. I do not think they are behaving with wisdom in ranging themselves in opposition to this Bill, as if we had wholly different aims from those which they have. I do not think we have. Of course, it is impossible by any system at the disposal of the Government to exercise the judicious and generous selection which they can exercise and do exercise. They, I think, repatriate large numbers. They do not welcome all of their religion who come over. They are able to say to this man, "You should return," and to another man, "We will provide for you," and to discriminate between the cases, so that the burden of the Jewish immigrant, at all events, is made as small as possible to the country into which he immigrates, and of which he ultimately becomes, no doubt, a valuable citizen. I will make a further suggestion, if they will allow me to do so. We have heard a great deal of the possibility of Jews and others—for the moment I confine myself to the Jews—coming to this country in an absolutely destitute condition, and being rejected, wider this Bill, from our shores, although they were flying from religious or political persecution. Nobody desires that such a contingency should occur; and I cannot believe, and do not believe, that while the number of such immigrants is at all upon the same plane that it is at present there will ever be any difficulty in that regard. The great Jewish community, without the smallest difficulty, 1284 can see to it that no man seeking the hospitality of this country should ever be rejected from these shores. I do not know whether any change in the actual machinery which they use would be required to attain that purpose; but that it could be attained by that great organisation without difficulty I do not question at all. Whether it would be possible to deal with other nationalities in the same way it is a matter of difficulty to ascertain; but that it could be done with regard to every Jewish immigrant is, I think, plain on the face of it, and will hardly be denied by anybody.
The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down complained of this Bill because he said it was founded upon a distinction never before admitted in our legislation, a distinction between the poor and the rich, or, as he corrected himself, between those who are just above the extreme limits of poverty, and those who are not above those limits. I do not think he put it accurately. It is not the possession of wealth that is required in the immigrant, it is the possession of some means by which he can support himself and his family in this country. Now, is that either an unreasonable or a sordid distinction? Remember that every man who comes to this country immediately obtains a privilege which, so far as I know, is not enjoyed by right by the citizens of any other country in the world—namely, the right of going, upon the public rates for his support. It may be true, and it is true with regard to one great community, that they take care of their own people. But, of course, we cannot, and we ought not to, deal simply with one community in this consideration; and I think it is not 1285 merely carrying sentimentality to excess, but it really is a most unstatesman like view to take to say that the distinction between a man who can support himself, and a man who would have to be supported by the rates is one that is either mean, or sordid, or negligent. It is not negligent and ought not to be negligent.
§ MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)
Seven and sixpence makes all the difference between a cabin passage and steerage.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
This Bill will not keep out anybody, so far as I can gather, who ought not to be kept out. But that is a different proposition, and no Bill could be framed to keep out everybody. Let us be content if it keeps out a great many who ought to be kept out and does not keep out anybody who ought to be admitted; and I believe this Bill will attain that object. To what countries is it that the oppressed, whether they be the Roman Catholic of Poland or the Jew of Russia, look for happier circumstances in which to live their lives? It is to the English-speaking countries, and without any exception at present, save this country, without any exception at all after this Bill is passed, they put some restriction on immigration, and they largely base that restriction on the very consideration which is described as so mean and so contemptible by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The United States, doubtless, is not a perfect community. It has its faults like any other community. But will anybody assert that it is an ungrateful recipient of the oppressed of other nations? Will anybody assert that it is indifferent 1286 to freedom, that it looks with an unmoved eye upon the sufferings of the oppressed and the unhappy in any nation? I do not think that anybody who knows the United States, I do not think anybody who knows any community sprung from British stock and enjoying institutions derived from British sources, will allege that that is the fact. But all these nations, the homes of the oppressed by the admission of the entire civilised world, put, so far as I know restriction on immigration; and in every case the restriction is far severer than that which in imposed by this Bill. In there circumstances, in the interests not merely of those for whom my hon. friends on this side of the House have spoken, and spoken in not too excessive terms, but in the interests of those who desire to find a home in this country, and in the interests, above all, of that spirit of equal consideration for all citizens of this land which we at present possess, and which is the heritage of so few other nations—in all these interests I would beg the House to pass this Bill. There are in this House many able representatives of the people who, either themselves, or their fathers, or their ancestors, came over and have received hospitality among us, and whom we regard, I need hardly say, as our equals in every respect, as supporters in common with us of the institutions of the country which they serve and which we serve. If ever we lose that precious heritage of an equal charity to all citizens of this country, we shall lose one of the most precious things that we now possess; and it is because I believe that a Bill like this, moderate, reasonable, and practical, will conduce to that great end that I shall certainly vote for its Third Reading.
§ MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)
said there was some language which fell from the hon. Member for Sheffield a short time ago which, he thought, ought not to be allowed to go unchallenged. He told them that the great opposition to the Bill, as judged by the Amendments on the Paper, came from that side of the House. If he would take the trouble to look at the Order Paper for the first day on which they went into Committee on the Bill—and that, he took it, was the true test as to the source from which the opposition came with reference to any Bill—he would find there were 149 Amendments, ninety-five of which stood in the name either of the Government or their supporters, and only fifty-four in the name of the Opposition, showing that there was twice as much opposition to the Bill from the Government side of the House as from his.
§ MR. FENWICK
said his object in intervening in the debate was simply to state the grounds, in a few words, on which he should vote against the Bill. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and also with the Leader of the Opposition that there was no sincerity whatever about the Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield maintained that there was a popular demand outside the House for it, and he agreed with him that, if that did exist, the Bill was overdue. Ten years ago the Prime Minister and every Unionist candidate put the question in the forefront of his 1288 political programme, but till now there had been no attempt to deal with it. If they were sincere in dealing with the question and if it were not merely an electioneering dodge [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Perhaps he ought not to say "Dodge' and he would withdraw the term [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"] and take one of the Prime Minister's, which was better. If it were anything more than a Parliamentary manœuvre for electioneering purposes, then, he thought, they should have had the measure before now. They could not plead that they had been too busy with other things, they had had abundance of time. He maintained that it was no more urgent to-day than it was in 1895. In all those years they had been subsidising special classes and interests; and here was a question which was of urgent public importance and in which every member of the industrial classes of the country was interested—he referred to the Workmen's Compensation Bill—to be crowded out this session in order that they might pass a measure of this kind which interested a few localities from which the Government chiefly drew their own supporters. Under these circumstances he thought they were justly entitled to enter their protest against a measure which was certainly not demanded by the working classes, and which was occupying valuable time which, in his judgment, might have been devoted to the promotion of legislation anxiously and urgently demanded on behalf of the whole of the working classes throughout the United Kingdom.
§ Question put.1289
§ The House divided:— Ayes, 214; Noes, 136 (Division List No. 301.)1257
|Allen, Charles P.||Harcourt, Lewis||Price, Robert John|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Hayter, Kt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Helme, Norval Watson||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bean, John Williams||Higham, John Sharp||Russell, T. W.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Holland, Sir William Henry||Shackleton, David James|
|Brigg, John||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Horniman, Frederick John||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Burns, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Slack, John Bamford|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar||Kearley, Hudson E.||Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants.|
|Caldwell, James||Lambert, George||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Chance, Frederick William||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Tomkinson, James|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Toulmin, George.|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Levy, Maurice||Ure, Alexander|
|Cremer, William Randal||Lloyd-George, David||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.|
|Delany, William||Lough, Thomas||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Lyell, Charles Henry||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Fiudlay, Alexander(Lanark,NE||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh. N.)||Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Partington, Oswald|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Paulton, James Mellor||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Grant, Corrie||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Mr. Austin Taylor and Mr. Harwood.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Ellice, Capt E C(S. Andr's Bghs||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants-|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Morgan, David J (Walthamstow|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward||Morley, Rt. Hon. John(Montrose|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Arrol, Sir William||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Finlay, Rt. Hn Sir RB.(Inv'rn'ss||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fisher, William Hayes||Myers, William Henry|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Newnes, Sir George|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Flannery, Sir Forteseue||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Flower, Sir Ernest||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r||Galloway, William Johnson||Parrott, William|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Percy, Earl|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Groves, James Grimble||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Ham, Edward||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Hall, Edward Marshall||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Bhownaggree, Sir W. M.||Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Bigwood, James||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Purvis, Robert|
|Bingham, Lord||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Randles, John S.|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Heath, Sir James (Staffords. NW||Rankin, Sir James|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Heaton, John Henniker||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Brassey, Albert||Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Renwick, George|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Richards, Thomas|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hogg, Lindsay||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hoult, Joseph||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Bull, William James||Howard, John(Kent, Faversham||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Butcher, John George||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Buxton, N. E.(York, NR Whitby||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow||Hunt, Rowland||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Joicey, Sir James||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A(Worc.||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Knowles, Sir Lees||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)|
|Chapman, Edward||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Lamont, Norman||Smith, Rt. Hn J Parker(Lanarks|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Langley, Batty||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Smith. Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W.(Mile End)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Stroyan, John|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Long, Col. Charles. (Evesham)||Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Crombie, John William||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tennant, Harold John|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Tomlinson, Sir Wm, Edw. M.|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Macdona, John Cumming||Tuff, Charles|
|Denny, Colonel||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Wallace, Robert|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Malcolm, Ian|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Manners, Lord Cecil||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wigt'n||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Maxwell, W JH.(Dumfriesshire||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E.(Taunton|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Loyd|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und, Lyne|
|Whitmore, Charles Algernon||Wolff, Guatav Wilhelm||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Wilson, John (Glasgow)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. H. Stuart-||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fardell, Sir T. George||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fielden, Edward Brocklehnrst||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Finlay, Rt Hn Sir RB.(Inv'rn'ss||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Fisher, William Hayes||Malcolm, Ian|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Balcarres. Lord||Flower, Sir Ernest||Marks, Harry Hananel|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r.||Forster, Henry William||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick S,W)||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wignt|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Galloway, William Johnson||Melville, Bereaford Valentine|
|Balfour. Kenneth R. (Christch.)||Gardner, Ernest||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHm'lets||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N)|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Graham, Henry Robert||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants|
|Beaumont. Wentworth C. R.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morgan, David J (Walthamstow|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Groves, James Grimble||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Bigwood, James||Hain, Edward||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Bingham, Lord||Hall, Edward Marshall||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Murray, Col. Wyndham, (Bath|
|Bond, Edward||Hamilton, Marq.of (L'nd 'ndery||Newnes, Sir George|
|Brassey, Albert||Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashford)||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hare, Thomas Leigh||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Bull, William James||Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW||Peel. Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Butcher, John George||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Percy, Earl|
|Carlile, William Walter||Hogg, Lindsay||Platt-Higgins, Frederick N.|
|Carton, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hoult, Joseph||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Howard, John (Kent Faversham||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Purvis, Robert|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A.(Wore||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Pym, C. Guy|
|Chapman, Edward||Hunt, Rowland||Randles, John S.|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Rankin, Sir James|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Jebb, Sir Richard Glaverhouse||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred||Renwick, George|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Knowles, Sir Lees||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lamont, Norman||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W.(Mile End)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lowe, Francis William||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Smith, Rt Hn J Parker(Lanarks|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Spear, John Ward||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)|
|Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.||Tuff, Charles||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Tuke, Sir John Batty||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Stone, Sir Benjamin||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Stroyan, John||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'dUniv||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Tollemache, Henry James||Whiteley, H. (Aston und Lyne)||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.||Flynn, James Christopher||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Parrott, William|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Power Patrick Joseph|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Rea, Russell|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Hammond, John||Reddy, M.|
|Benn, John Williams||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Richards, Thomas|
|Black, Alexander William||Harwood, George||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Boland, John||Hayden, John Patrick||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Brigg, John||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Higham, John Sharp||Rose, Charles Day|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Russell, T. W.|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Horniman, Frederick John||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Joicey, Sir James||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Burns, John||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Hurt, Thomas||Jordan, Jeremiah||Sheehy, David|
|Buxton, N.E. (York, NR Whitby||Joyce, Michael||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Caldwell, James||Kennedy, Vincent P,(Cavan, W)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)||Slack, John Bamford|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Levy, Maurice||Sullivan, Donal|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lough, Thomas||Tennant, Harold John|
|Cullinan, J.||Lundon, W.||Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)|
|Delany, William||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)||M'Fadden, Edward||Tomkinson, James|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||M'Kean, John||Toulmin, George|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||M'Kiliop, W. (Sligo, North)||Ure, Alexander|
|Dobbie, Joseph||M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Moulton, John Fletcher||Weir, James Galloway|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Muldoon, John||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Murnaghan, George||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Ellice, Capt EC(S. Andrw'sBghs)||Murphy, John||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Ellis, John Eaward (Notts.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Emmott, Alfred||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.||Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid||Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Young, Samuel|
|Fenwick, Charles||O'Connor, John (Kildare, W.)|
|Field, William||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Fmdlay,Alexander(Lanark N.E||O'Dowd, John||Major Seely and Mr.|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Trevelyan|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Malley, William|
§ Main Question put.1294
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 193; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 302.)1295
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Faber, George Denison (York)||M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fardell, Sir T. George||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Fellowes, Rt Hn Ailwyn Edward||Malcolm, Ian|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith||Manners, Lord Cecil|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Marks, Harry Hananel|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Finlay, Rt Hn Sir RB. (Inv'rn'ss||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Fisher, William Hayes||Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE.(Wig'tn|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Balcarres Lord||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r)||Flower, Sir Ernest||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Forster, Henry William||Morgan, David J (Walthamstow|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds)||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, SW.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)||Galloway, William Johnson||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gardner, Ernest||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Murray, Charles B. Coventry|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Newnes, Sir George|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Groves, James Grimble||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Bigwood, James||Hain, Edward||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Bingham, Lord||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry||Percy, Earl|
|Bond, Edward||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Brassey, Albert||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Brotherton, Edward Alien||Heath, Sir James (Staffords, NW||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Purvis, Robert|
|Bull, William James||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Randles, John S.|
|Butcher, John George||Hogg, Lindsay||Rankin, Sir James|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Carlile, William Walter||Howard, John(Kent Faversham||Renwick, George|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Cavendish, V.C. W.(Derbyshire)||Hunt, Rowland||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore.||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Chapman, Edward||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Knowles, Sir Lees||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Colston, Chas, Edw. H. Athole||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Lamont, Norman||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Laurie, Lieut-General||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Lawson, Hn. H.L.W.(Mile End)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants Fareham||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Smith. Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)||Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)||Smith. Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Spear, John Ward|
|Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon||Lowe, Francis William||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Talbot. Rt, Hn J. G(Oxf'dUniv.)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Tuff, Charles||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Tuke, Sir John Batty||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Welby, Lt. Col. A.C.E.(Taunton||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)||Reddy, M.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Hayden, John Patrick||Richards, Thomas|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Barry, E. (Cork. S,)||Higham, John Sharp||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Black, Alexander William||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Boland, John||Horniman, Frederick John||Rose, Charles Day|
|Brigg, John||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Russell T. W.|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Jordan, Jeremiah||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)||Joyce, Michael||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Kennedy, Vincent P(Cavan, W.)||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Burt, Thomas||Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)||Sheehy, David|
|Buxton, NE.(York, NR, Whitby||Lawosn, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Caldwell, James||Levy, Maurice||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Lough, Thomas||Slack, John Bamford|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Lundon, W.||Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR.(Northants|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||M'Fadden, Edward||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Delany, William||Moulton, John Fletcher||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway||Murnaghan, (George||Tomkinson, James|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Murphy, John||Toulmin, George|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway. N)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||O'Brien- Patrick (Kilkenny)||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||O'Connor John (Kildare W.)||Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Fenwick, Charles||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, K.)||Young, Samuel|
|Field, William||O'Malley, William|
|Findlay, Alexander(LanarkNE||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Parrott, William,||Major Seely and Mr.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Power, Patrick Joseph||Trevelyan.|
|Hammond, John||Rea, Russell|
Bill read the third time, and passed.