§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. GRANT LAWSON (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) in the Chair.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to make further provision for the construction of works in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums, not exceeding £5,835,000, as may be required for those purposes, and to make provision for raising in the manner provided by Section 5 of The Naval Works Act, 1895, the sums so issued by Terminable Annuities for a period not exceeding thirty years from the dates of the borrowing."—[Mr. Arthur Lee.]
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said he proposed to address a number of Questions to the Civil Lord of the Admiralty with a view to securing information which would enable them the better to discuss this Bill on the Motion for its Second Reading. The measure had been brought in very late in the session, and he would once more like to impress on the Government the desirability of enabling the Navy Estimates to be debated with a full knowledge of the proposed naval expenditure for the year. He also thought that the Resolution which was proposed on an occasion like this should be printed on the orders of the day. He trusted that this was to le the last Naval Works Bill. He desired to know what was the amount to be expended at Rosyth and on the Chatham Dockyard extension and also how much was to be set apart for the coastguard stations. He wished also to get at the entire committal of the country 1197 under the Naval Works Loan Bill, and to be informed whether there bad been or was to be any variation in the concluding estimates. He saw the Government were asking for £5,800,000 under this Bill, and he desired to know how that was to be apportioned between the next two years. Finally, could the hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that this method of procedure by loan would be departed from and items be transferred from the schedule of this Bill to Vote 10 of the Navy Estimates?
§ *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham)
said the list of items in the new Bill was closed, although it was not contended that there might not be small variations in the total estimates as given in the 1903 Bill. As to the Question whether the system of token sums which appeared in the 1903 Bill would now be brought to an end, the Answer was in the affirmative. There were no token sums in the Bill of this year, and the total estimates were given for the particular items which were shown under token sums in 1903. No doubt there were objections to the system of token sums; at the same time it was inevitable in 1903, when the details of the large schemes which were in progress had not been thoroughly worked out. The definite items then shown by token sums were Rosyth, the Chatham extension, and the coastguard stations. The total estimate for Rosyth, which was not the total estimate for all time, but the estimate for the present scheme of the Board of Admiralty, was £2,500,000. The whole of that amount was not inserted in the present Loan Bill, for a reason which he would shortly explain, but it was the total to which the Admiralty wished to commit the House of Commons as regards Rosyth. That included £200,000 already voted for preliminary works. With regard to Chatham, the total estimate was £70,000, including preliminary works already accomplished. There was a large question as to the relative advantages of Chatham and Rosyth which he should be glad to develop in the debate on the Second Reading on Friday. As to the coastguard, hon. Members had been led to expect the total estimate would be over £500,000, but the actual total estimate to which 1198 the Board of Admiralty now wished to commit the House was only £200,000. There would necessarily be some variation in the total estimates in respect of other items, because it was impossible to foresee two years beforehand exactly what expenditure would be incurred in the progress of the various works. There were a number of items in which the total estimates had been reduced, and others in which they had been exceeded.
The hon. Member had asked what was the total expenditure to be asked for in the Bill in the current year. The total expenditure was £32,206,000, and that was only an increase of £566,000 on the Bill of 1903. The expenditure for the next two years, for the period of the 1905 Bill, was estimated at £7,704,000, but of that amount £1,869,000 was already in hand unexpended, so that £5,835,000 was the total asked for in the Resolution. He was asked how much of this total of £7,704,000 would be expended in each of the two succeeding years. He could not give the exact amounts, because it would obviously depend upon the progress of the works. Approximately it would be half in each year. Lastly, the hon. Member appealed to the Government as to whether they would be willing to bring the system of Loan Bills to an end at the earliest opportunity. He could assure him and the Committee that it was the desire and intention of the Government to close up this system at the earliest opportunity, and to bring any additional expenditure which might be necessary either in connection with works mentioned in the Bill, or works which might possibly be required in the future, as far as possible on the ordinary naval Vote, or, in other words, Vote 10. That policy would to a certain extent be followed with regard to certain items in the new Bill. Certain items, or the remaining portions of expenditure on certain items, would be transferred from loan to Votes, and in that way the policy so urgently desired by the hon. Gentleman and the Committee generally would be initiated. He thought he had now answered all the Questions.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said the right hon. Gentleman had indicated the nature of the Vote when he 1199 told them that His Majesty's Government wished to commit the House. It was indeed a committal. If the House granted this, it would authorise the expenditure of £5,800,000, and would completely part with all control over it. It was true the House would get accounts year by year, but it would not be able to prevent the expenditure of a single farthing of the money authorised by the Naval Works Loan Bill. It was quite true that in order to get in that position they had to pass the Bill, but this was the Resolution on which the Bill must be founded. They were now discussing an entirely different thing to what they would discuss on the Bill. They were now discussing whether on the whole it was expedient to authorise the provision of this £5,800,000 for the purposes named. When once the Resolution was passed and the issue was authorised, then they came to the Bill which said what was to be done with it. He was dealing with the question as it stood before them at present, whether it was expedient to authorise provision to the extent of £5,800,000 by way of naval works loan in order to provide for naval works, and he would distinctly say it was not expedient to make that provision. The country was already liable for works loans—naval, military, and civil—of no less than £41,664,000, and they were now to add £5,800,000, nearly £6,000,000. They must, in considering their present position with regard to naval and other loans, ask whether they were warranted in adding debt to debt. Their liability on March 31st, 1905, for naval works was £16,000,000 out of total liabilities of £41,000,000. That was an increase of £5,000,000 over the preceding year, and they were now asked to add another £5,800,000, so that the total naval liability would be at least £22,000,000. He could not help thinking whether the Committee ought to warrant that enormous increase of our national liability without considering what that national liability was.
He would cite a few eloquent figures. The total funded debt, unfunded debt, terminable annuities, capital liabilities (of which this would be a part), guaranteed loans, and contingent liabilities 1200 amounted altogether to £738,000,000 in 1894, to £948,800,000 in 1904, and they now amounted to £973,000,000. Of course, he had not taken into account the liabilities of local authorities. Since 1894 the national liabilities, which he admitted were not all of the same character, but all of which might some day come upon them, had been increased by nearly one third, and they were now asked to increase them further by something like £5,800,000. He very much doubted, and always had doubted, the wisdom of this brick-and-mortar policy on the part of the Admiralty. His opinion was that the Admiralty ought to restrict itself to its proper sphere, the sea, and providing ships. It seemed to him to have failed in its misguided brick-and-mortar ambitions. He had seen that day a telegram in the paper which said that already Gibraltar had proved insufficient for the repairs required of it. He did not wonder at it; he always said it would be insufficient. There was, however, another point. If there had been a lesson which the present war had taught us, it was that it was not to arsenals ashore that we should look for repairs and the keeping up of our ships, but either to giving facilities of repairs to the ship herself in her own inside or by accompanying the Fleet with repairing vessels as the Japanese had done with such success that for two years their ships were kept going by their repairing ships and never had to go for repairs to an arsenal, although they had been fighting all the time. That was a very serious fact. It suggested the uselessness in time of war of our great arsenals and of the Admiralty's brick-and-mortar arrangements, and that their efforts should have been in another direction, that of giving their ships the power of making castings and making repairs themselves to a large extent; or of accompanying the Fleet, as the Japanese had done, with repairing ships.
Assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that £5,800,000 was required for the Admiralty's brick-and-mortar policy, this was not the form in which it should come before them, nor should it be suggested that they should raise it 1201 by loan. It should appear in the Estimates. The Public Accounts Committee had made every effort to get items removed from the naval works loan into the Estimates, but the effort of the Admiralty was quite the contrary. Only recently it had turned out that they were constantly endeavouring to take items off the Estimates and put them on the loans account. If they wanted this £5,800,000, let them put it on the Estimates. Then the House would have control over the expenditure. Once let them authorise the sum and pass the Loans Bill which specified what was to be done with it, and the House had no control left over it whatever. That was the great vice of the naval works loan system. The right hon. Gentleman said they were going to stop it. Yes, but after they had been indulging in it for ten years, and raising loans of £40,000,000, they were going to stop it in order to prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite having that opportunity of spending money of which the present Government had so largely availed itself. He did not think that was fair. If the policy were a sound one, it was not now, on the death-bed of the Government, that they should give it up; they should hand it over intact to their successors. It was because they did not believe in it that they were giving it up, and he did not believe in it. It was unsound; it deprived the House of financial control; and it led to extravagance and carelessness on the part of the Admiralty. It was altogether a bad policy. But if it were a bad policy to raise money for naval expenditure by way of loan instead of putting it on the Estimates—and he was convinced it was—now, and now alone, was the time to stop it: now was the time to put the gag on their naval expenditure, on this Resolution and not on the Bill. Was the Committee prepared to authorise an addition of £5,800,000 to this bad, wicked, and mischievous system of naval loans? In other words, was the Committee conscious of the great need for economy, and, above all, for the reduction of debt? If it was, it would call a halt. For his own part he would do nothing towards taking the first step in adding £5,800,000 to the Debt, and when the division was 1202 taken he would deem it his duty, in the interests of economy, to vote against the proposal.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E)
thought it would be much better to have the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill after the House had had an opportunity of considering the items involved. Considerable alterations had been made from the Bill of two years ago, and their effect could not be properly appreciated unless such an arrangement as he suggested were made. He doubted whether the Committee was aware of the great importance and the novel character of the large items in the Bill. There were a considerable number of them, into which from year to year charges of some magnitude were put, and paid for out of loan money. That was an important variation from previous Bills, and it was only by an inspection of the present measure that it could be seen whether a stop had been put to the practice. The Civil Lord had stated most frankly that the £2,500,000 put down for Rosyth did not represent the total estimated cost.
§ *MR. ARTHUR LEE
said the hon. Member had misunderstood him. The total estimated cost of the scheme for Rosyth was £2,500,000. What he said was that the present Government could not bind their successors, who might wish to spend more money; but so far as the present Board was concerned £2,500,000 was the total estimated cost.
§ MR. BUCHANAN
passing from Rosyth, said the statement of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the Chatham Dockyard extension meant the abandonment of the work, which was the main feature of the 1903 Bill, and a most important factor in our naval works policy. There was another important point. The total cost came out at £32,206,000, which was an increase of a little over £500,000. Consequently, seeing there was an increase of £2,500,000 on the one item of Rosyth, there must have been considerable reductions in other items. In view of these facts it was impossible to judge of the general principle underlying the policy embodied in the Bill, or adequately to 1203 criticise the particular items in the schedule, until they had had an opportunity of examining the Bill.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)
said that on this occasion he proposed to support the hon. Member for King's Lynn. Upon some of the items of the Bill his views differed entirely from those of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, but the question raised by the hon. Member on this occasion was not the particular items in the Bill, but whether the time had not come when this system of loans should be abandoned in favour of bearing these charges on the Votes. Two facts most material to that issue had considerably changed his opinion, as they had the opinion of many others within the last few years on this subject. One was that the Government of India, after the fullest consideration, had come to the conclusion that the system could not be justified in the case of India, where loans had been more resorted to than in this country, and they had placed on the Estimates the whole of the expenditure required by the Kitchener redistribution scheme. The other fact, pointing in the same direction, was that within the last year we had had a revelation of the extraordinary extent to which, by a loan system, the country might be committed to expenditure which, in a few years, by a reversal of policy, might be shown to be not only unnecessary but actually wasteful. In St. Lucia, Jamaica, Halifax, and a number of other places, money had been spent under Naval and Military Works Acts which were still running, and under which instalments of capital and interest were still being paid, and, owing to a change of policy, the country had been saddled with large expenditure which ought never to have been incurred at all. In view of these facts the case against the loan policy had been immensely strengthened, and as that was the question raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn he should support him in the division.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
said he would not deal with the general question, though he might say that it was a little 1204 ungrateful to oppose the Resolution considering that his hon. friend had announced on the part of the Government the intention to abandon the loan system for the normal method of placing sums on the Votes. The situation which had justified the loan system had come to an end, and, therefore, the Government proposed to revert to the system of dealing with the annual needs of the Navy on the annual Estimates. But he would not enter upon the question of policy; he rose to reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Perthshire, who had asked him to reverse an arrangement arrived at earlier as to the course of business. It would be very inconvenient to make that alteration after he had done his best to meet the wishes of Members interested in the Unemployed Bill, and who had gone away justified in the belief that that Bill would not be taken on Friday, and that the Naval Works Bill would be taken on that day. Nothing that had since passed appeared to justify the change, and the Naval Works Bill ought to meet the wishes of the critics of the system. There were one or two questions of interest to be discussed, but they would not require any lengthened study of the Bill, and he hoped the arrangement for Friday, arrived at by common consent, would not be interfered with.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that if it were in accordance with precedent he would be glad to see if that could be done.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he would be very glad to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman on that point. He understood that it would go to the printers that afternoon, and no exertions would be wanting on the part of the Admiralty to ensure its being in the hands of Members at the earliest opportunity.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said he should vote with the hon. Member for King's Lynn on the ground that it had been made abundantly clear that these works loans had led to a large amount of expenditure which in a short time was shown to have been not only unnecessary but positively wasteful. There was also another ground on which he should vote against the present proposal. The Prime Minister had stated that it was not the intention of the Government to include any more of these loans in Works Bills, but that the burden would be placed on the ordinary Navy Estimates. That was a policy which he and many others on that side of the House had advocated for many years, and it was hardly satisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should at the eleventh hour make such a distinct change of policy and claim credit for having done it. He thought it was a wrong policy to continue these loan works which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty admitted were not going to be continued in the future. He had stated that next year they were going to transfer some of the smaller items such as the amounts for Rosyth and other places to the Estimate. If that was a right policy for the future it was right this year, and instead of asking for £6,000,000 in this way, some of the items ought to have been included in the Navy Estimates this year.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
regretted that the policy in regard to loans was not going to be reversed in toto. They were grateful for the statement which had been made upon this point by the Prime Minister, but he would remind the House that a similar statement was made in 1903 to the effect that this policy of loans would be abandoned, and that it was only adopted temporarily.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)
I promised not to take any new item.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
said that strong objections were held against this loan policy, and he should vote for the proposal made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
appealed to hon. Members to allow the division to be taken, because there would be a full opportunity of discussing this Bill at a later stage.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said the situation was worse than he expected, and he always took a gloomy view of Loan Bills. They had been led to expect some improvement and had been told that the way would be opened up for the House to escape from the situation they had got into. He was very glad that a distinct protest had been made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. There was no necessity, in his opinion, for this Bill at all, because the Government admitted that they had nearly £2,000,000 in hand and that ought to be quite enough for the requirements if the year. He was glad that a division was to be taken and he should vote against the Resolution.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 219; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 297.)1209
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O.||Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Arrol, Sir William||Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Atkinson, Kt. Hon. John||Baird, John George Alexander|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Percy, Earl|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Graham, Henry Robert||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Groves, James Grimble||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Banner, John S. Harmood||Hambro, Charles Eric||Purvis, Robert|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Pym, C. Guy|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Randles, John S.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Haslam, Sir Alfred's.||Rankin, Sir James|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Bigwood, James||Heaton, John H.||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Bill, Charles||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Bingham, Lord||Hickman, Alfred||Renwick, George|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Bond, Edward||Hogg, Lindsay||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Brassey, Albert||Hoult, Joseph||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Howard, John (Kent, Faversham||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropshire||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Hunt, Rowland||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Jeffrey's, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA(Wore.||Knowles, Sir Lees||Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew).|
|Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Chapman, Edward||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks).|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End||Spear, John Ward|
|Coddington, Sir William||Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs).|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Stroyan, John|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Lowe, Francis William||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Denny, Colonel||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Tuff, Charles|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Macdona, John Cumming||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon||MacIver, David (Liverpool||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W.||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton|
|Doughty, Sir George||H'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd.|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon A. Akers-||Malcolm, Ian||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE.(Wigt'n.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriesshire||Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E.R.)|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward||Milvain, Thomas||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.).|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r||Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Wolff, Custav Wilhelm|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Finlay, Rt. Hn. Sir R B(Inv'rn'ss||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas||Morpeth, Viscount||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Morrison, James Archibald||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Myers, William Henry||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Forster, Henry William||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Abraham, William, (Cork, N. E||Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Flynn, James Christopher||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Allen, Charles P.||Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||O'Dowd, John|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Malley, William|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Hammond, John||O'Mara, James|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Harcourt, Lewis||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Black, Alexander William||Hardic, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||Parrott, William|
|Boland, John||Harwood, George||Partington, Oswald|
|Brigg, John||Hayden, John Patrick||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Helme, Norval Watson||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Brainier, Sir John Tomlinson||Higham, John Sharp||Reddy, M.|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Holland, Sir William Henry||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Horniman, Frederick John||Richards, Thomas|
|Burns, John||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Burt, Thomas||Hutton, Alfred E. (Money)||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Buxton, NE (York, NR, Whitby||Jacoby, James Alfred||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles (Poplar||Joicey, Sir James||Russell, T. W.|
|Caldwell, James||Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Cameron, Robert||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Shackleton, David James|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Jordan, Jeremiah||Shaw, Thomas (Hawink B.)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Joyce, Michael||Sheehy, David|
|Chance, Frederick William||Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Kitson, Sir James||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Labouchere, Henry||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Lambert, George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lamont, Norman||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (Northants|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Langley, Batty||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Crombie, John William||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Tennant, Harold John|
|Cullinan, J.||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Levy, Maurice||Thomas, David Alfred (Mertbyr|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Lewis, John Herbert||Toulmin, George|
|Delany, William||Lloyd-George David||Ure Alexander|
|Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway||Lough, Thomas||Wallace, Robert|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Lundon W.||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Lyell, Charles Henry||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Fadden, Edward||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Weir, James Galloway|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||White, Patrick (Meatb, North)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Moorey, John J.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Elibank, Master of||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)|
|Ellice, Capt EC(S. AndrewsBghs||Muldoon, John||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Murnaghan, George||Woodhouse, Sir JT.(Huddersf'd|
|Emmott, Alfred||Murphy, John||Young, Samuel|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Fenwick, Charles||Newnes, Sir George||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Ferguson, K. C. Munro (Leith)||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)||Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Gibson Bowles.|
|Field, William||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Gibson Bowles.|
|Findlay Alexander(Lanark, N.E||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid|
|FitzMaurice, Lord Edmond||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow.