PAYMENT OF MEMBERS.

HC Deb 07 March 1906 vol 153 cc522-65

MR. W. H. LEVER (Cheshire, Wirral)

rose to call attention to the question of payment of Members of Parliament, and to move: "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has now arrived when it is urgently required, in order to give to every constituency an equal, free, and unhampered selection of parliamentary representatives, that all members of Parliament should be paid by the State a sum at the rate of £300 per annum." He said that he had also intended to direct attention to the question of the payment of the election expenses of Members, but after the Resolution adopted by the House the previous evening that became unnecessary. In his opinion, the payment of Members was required to maintain the dignity and prestige of the House, and he believed it would enormously raise the efficiency of the House. Members were paid at one time, and with the gradual disuse of the system one very well-known writer in the first half of the seventeenth century declared that— It was the bane of Parliament that Members were not paid, because when they were paid the electors chose men who understood their duties and attended to them. While the great Benjamin Franklin, at a later period, said that— When Members of Parliament were paid they went to Parliament as a duty and not as a privilege. In 1780 a Committee of the House was appointed, and they recommended that Members should be paid, on the ground that— It would be a return to the wholesome practice of former times. He called special attention to the use of the word "wholesome." It was said that the payment of Members would also apply to a great many other representative bodies in this country—to county and borough councils, to urban district and to parish councils—and that it would strike at the root of the great system of voluntary service which had been established. But if they inquired into the constitution of those local bodies, it would be seen that they only supplied an argument for the payment of Members of this House. The county councils did their work in the daytime, their meetings being held in the most central part of the county, and unsurmountable difficulties were placed in the way of labour representatives who lived in the outlying districts in the way of time and fares, with the result that there was not a proper representation of those classes on our county councils. During the time that he served on the Cheshire County Council there was not a single representative of labour upon it, and he understood that that was the case now. The position of the London County Council in this regard was exceptional owing to the facilities of travelling, and consequently there were many representatives of labour on that council, who added dignity and prestige to its deliberations. Another objection raised to the payment of Members was that representatives of the mass of the people could and did get into Parliament. They had a great number of them in this Parliament, and other Members were proud of their presence, because the representatives of the people in the House exercised a wholesome in- fluence on the whole House. But these men could only come if they placed a burden on their friends, or upon that section of the community which sent them to Parliament. Was it right and just that a nation, in order to secure complete representation, should place such a burden on any one class? And could it add to the dignity of the House that Members should be placed in such a position—a position in which they could not have the fullest measure of independence which everyone desired. There was no alternative. They must have either sectional representation, and therefore incomplete representation, or the payment of Members by the State, with perfect freedom to carry on the business of the State, subject to the approval of the electors. The moderate amount of remuneration which he suggested in the resolution could not be any inducement to the "professional politician"—the man who might wish to become a Member of the House for purely selfish ends—nor could it be any inducement to a Labour representative, for a working man receiving 36s. or 40s. per week at the bench or in the mechanics shop would be infinitely better off than a Member of Parliament receiving £300 a year and having to bear the expenses incidental to the position of Members of this House. Nor would the sum be any inducement to the wrong kind of politician. Neither was there anything in the argument that if Members were paid the electors would be less vigilant in their duties than they were at present. The Labour Members in the present Parliament gave the House the utmost confidence in increasing their number, and in making it possible for the mass of the people to have at least a fair share in the representation of the country. Moreover, if they adopted this system, they would have a fairer representation of the whole country than they had had in the past. In this House they had a working model of the system he advocated. There were Members of the House who were paid—Members who constituted the Government. He submitted that it was not because they could not form a Government unless its Members were paid. He was confident that there were Members of the House who would be perfectly willing to take any position in the Government without a salary. But the House decided to pay the Members of the Government in order that there might be no hindrance in the choice of men to form the Government—men with strength of brain and of conscience, and not length of pocket should be the qualification. But they carried the payment of Members of the Ministry even further, for if they were satisfied that an ex-Minister was not in a position to maintain the dignity of the position he was in when a Minister, they voted him a sufficient sum to enable him to continue for the remainder of his days in such a position that he would not cast any indignity upon the House or himself.

This working model—the payments made to the Members whom he had indicated—inspired them with confidence that if they treated the rank and file of the House in exactly the same way they would not only suit their own convenience, but would also be considering the dignity of the House in carrying this Resolution. The £300 a year proposed was only an enabling salary. There was not a man in the House with the ability of those now there—he did not care of what rank they were—who could not turn his talents to such purpose as would make a greater amount than that. It was only sufficient to make the right kind of man thoroughly independent. It was not enough to attract the wrong kind of man. Out of that amount there would be a great deal of expense to be borne. Out of it a Member could settle the question of the postage stamps, and so relieve the Postmaster-General of a dilemma; he would also be in a position to pay his railway fares, and so settle the question whether Members should be granted passes from the railway companies. They would have to sit on railway companies and would have to judge them. The total amount of money that would be required to carry out this scheme was somewhere about £200,000 a year; but if they considered that this House was the one and only authority in this country free from the control of the other House—that this House had the sole control of the finances of the country—they would realise that the payment of £200,000 was merely 2s. 6d. per cent. on the amount the House had to control— very little more than a banker's commission and very much less than an insurance premium for fidelity. He did not think that any business firm would expect to get the management of its finances done so well and so cheaply. Would any man in business expect to get his affairs managed, involving such a large amount of money, for less than £300 a year? The amount was moderate, but at the same time it was ample, because they did not want to do more than make an enabling grant. He had been asked, since his Resolution was announced, whether it would not meet the case to make this payment of Members optional—to allow a Member to declare whether he would have it or not. He must say he could not accept that suggestion. It would be grossly unfair to every Member of the House. There was only one condition upon which he could accept such a, proposal, namely, that the names of the Members who received it should be kept strictly secret, and then he was convinced that when the amount paid was made public it would show that not a single Member had refused it. He begged to move.

MR. VIVIAN (Birkenhead)

, in seconding the Motion, observed that it could not be said that his hon. friend had any special interest in bringing it forward. His hon. friend would pardon him for that reference, for the contrast between the mover and the seconder from that point of view was very marked indeed. He desired to put one or two points in connection with the payment of Members and the attitude of workmen on this question. In seconding the Motion he was to a very small extent influenced either by the custom of foreign countries, where they paid Members, or even by the custom within the Empire itself, where, he understood, this country was practically the only exception. It was true that in past generations we had payment of Members, and some of our greatest politicians of the last century supported the reintroduction of this principle, notably, Charles James Fox, Roebuck, and Joseph Hume, but he felt that this was a practical question for them to settle in connection with the particular circumstances and conditions of their own country. They had to consider it in the light of the enormous change that had taken place during the last fifty years in the character of the Government of this country. The enormous amount of decentralisation that had taken place, and the extent to which the people of the country as a whole participated in the government of the country, made this question of more importance to-day than it had been in years gone by. It seemed to be the one great barrier left to the real representation of the people in this House. It was because of the great changes in the Government and in the electorate of this country that they were called upon to consider this question at the present moment. Mr. Balfour a short time ago used these words— Every wise statesman, be his politics what they may, would desire to bring the institutions of a country into conformity with the needs and wishes of the people of the country. What were the needs of the country today? One of the needs of the country to-day was that the people should have unrestricted choice in the selection of their representatives in this House. There should be no sense of inequality, no feeling of injustice on the part of any section of the community; the contest for a position in the House should he open to all in a real and practical sense. But he maintained that the choice was limited to-day by the absence of remuneration to Members of the House, and a large proportion of the people of the country felt that they were not free to have the representatives they desired to select. He felt certain that some hon. Members might probably regard this step as an attack upon wealth. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no"] He was glad to hear that "No, no" from the Opposition Benches. Large numbers of people assumed at any rate that wealth in itself was a mark of capacity. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no"] He asserted that Members who formerly represented the Party opposite held that view, and if the Party opposite had become so liberalised as to reject that doctrine he welcomed their conversion. He, however, was there to assert that the Party represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite had resisted, at every stage, the breaking down of the barriers to the free selection of representatives of the people. They had regarded existing conditions as obstacles to prevent the introduction of undesirables into this House. In that respect they were not unlike the Aliens Act passed last session, but unlike that Act they did not prevent the introduction of undesirables. The whole assumption that the possession of material wealth was the measure of political wisdom, virtue, and character was false. He maintained that there was no evidence to support that. Wealth was not the hall-mark of character, or ability, or even of political honesty, and with every generation it was less and less so. Broadly speaking, those personal qualities which were valuable in politics were possessed in no greater degree by those in this House having an income of over £500 a year than by those who earned less than that sum. With the spread of education we had given to a large number of people the opportunity to take a larger share in the government of the country, and with the gradual rise of large numbers of the working classes into positions of responsibility it was evident that no one section of the community had naturally a mono-ply of the qualities which went to make up a good politician. It was John Stuart Mill who said, in discussing the extension of the franchise to the working people, that the qualities for exercising rightly the duties of suffrage would come by their exercise. It was being proved that as the working people had the opportunity of exercising those qualities, those qualities grew. He made no claim for any special virtue in the class to which he was proud to belong. There might be labour leaders who took a narrow and sordid view of their position, and regarded themselves as mere delegates of the special interests they represented; but there were also in this House representatives of joint-stock interests in quite as low a way. His point was not to score one class against another, but merely to show that no section of the community had special qualities that would fit them to govern other sections of the community. His claim was that all should have an equal opportunity in taking part in the government of the country. He submitted that there was a pressing need at the present moment for the step now proposed. At any rate his opinion was that unless the community as a whole, through this House, boldly took upon itself the duty of remunerating the Members of this House, the poorer Members would get their remuneration from other sources, which, in the main, involved their regarding themselves as the representatives of the interests which paid them. Surely the ideal which ought to be aimed at in regard to representation in this House was that it was the interest of the country, using the term in its widest sense, which should be represented. That ideal could not always be attained. Circumstances were occasionally too strong for them, but they could here and there check, by judicious statesmanship, the inroads which sectional interests could make to the detriment of the commonweal. His point was that unless the public paid, others would, and it would be the interests of the others which would be looked after and not the interests of the public. One reason for his strong opposition to the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was that under it we should have a house made up of trade groups, the driving force of each of which would be the hope of public plunder. His desire was that they should as far as they could prevent that spirit from growing up in the House, and he submitted that unless the House took steps to ensure the payment of every Member in the House by the community as a whole, large numbers would continue to come into the House with small incomes. They would be paid by sectional interests, and they would feel that they must represent those interests instead of the interests of the country as a whole. He was conscious of the fact that the Labour Members who had come into the House were of a very high type, and the father of the labour Members, the right hon. Member for Morpeth, was a man of that stamp who set a splendid example of devotion to the public welfare. He asked that this step should be taken not merely because the work was worth paying for, but on higher grounds; it would secure more purity when they came to give their votes. He asked no favour on this question for the workmen. From his point of view workmen who asked for favours ought to be moved into the House of Lords. Unless a workman showed himself in his struggle with others, he did not care whether it was on the political battleground or elsewhere, unless he could prove in his own case the doctrine of the survival of the fittest, he had no claim to enter this House. It was as citizens that they claimed to be paid by citizens. Citizenship should be the basis of our political life, and not class or trade interest. Members of this assembly derived their mandate directly, of course, from the constituencies they represented, but they were also, in another sense, representatives of the nation as a whole. Again, they owned some allegiance to the Party under whose banner they served, and to whose influence to some extent their presence in the House was due. They had, as it were, three masters to serve—their constituencies, the country as a whole, and party allegiance. There was a tendency in some quarters to decry party allegiance, and cheap sneers cast at party Government were quite unjustifiable. He waited for a suggestion of a better method for conducting the business of the House than by the agency of one Party or another. Again, it was important to point out that Members of this House were not mere delegates. He should be sorry to see the time when Members became mere delegates of any one interest, or even of the interests of the constituency which sent them to Parliament. They had occasionally to act in accordance with their own judgment, and possibly in opposition to their constituents' wishes, or even the wishes of the country. Some independence of action was essential, although its degree was difficult to define; but what was certain was that independence and individuality would become less and less if Members were paid by sectional groups of interests to perform public work. Personally he refused to accept the proposition that a Member of the House should become a mere marionette pulled by some unseen influence behind the scenes such, as someone near him suggested, as the Tariff Reform League. He found that quite a number of eminent politicians supported the claims for the payment of Members, amongst them the right hon. Member for Berwick, who had been for many years a staunch upholder of the principle. He had been rather interested and not a little amused at some observations on this question which the right hon. Gentleman had lately made. They were as follows:— No doubt under a system of payment of Members some needy and unscrupulous adventurers will find their way into Parliament, but they will do so largely by displacing other adventurers who are less needy, but not less unscrupulous. Some people in arguing against payment of Members seemed to forget that there is room for improvement as well as for deterioration in the character of the House of Commons. He relied upon the right hon. Gentleman to support this Resolution and on the Government carrying it into practice. He had never been able to understand why a Member or his friends should have to pay heavy expenses to get into the House to serve the public, and even after he had got in to be regarded—as some hon. Member informed him they were—as a sort of glorified relieving officer for all and sundry in his constituency. Surely the time had come when it was desirable that that kind of thing should end, and that both Member and constituency should take a more serious view of politics. Modern conditions demanded that in future Members should give more detailed attention to the work of the House. Year by year the questions which came forward for settlement were increasing. Year by year the influence of Parliament was extending, as was also its control over the different aspects of our national life; and, unless Members received remuneration, these duties would not be discharged as they ought to be, and the interests of the public would suffer. It had been suggested that the charge should be made a local one. While not wishing to be dogmatic, he could scarcely agree to that suggestion; for it seemed to him that it would lead to the very evils which he had been arguing against. Some hon. Members appeared to regard themselves as commercial travellers for their constituencies, and their whole object seemed to be to secure Government orders for the towns they represented. He held that the highest and best interests of the public would be served only if the charge were made a national one. He was satisfied that the dignity of the House would be enhanced by this Resolution being carried into effect. The cost would not be great. His hon. friend had suggested that it would reach £200,000 a year. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would naturally plead poverty and that he had limited means at his disposal. The right hon. Gentleman would have no more ardent advocate for economy in public expenditure than himself. It was the one thing needed in order to get the national finances straight. The national credit had to be re-established, and the right hon. Gentleman would find no more ardent supporters in all his efforts than the Members of the House who supported this Resolution. The trade unions he was proud to be connected with were with him on this question. He maintained that the cost would be small, and when they considered what was to be achieved at that small cost, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to support the Resolution which he was now seconding. He felt confident that it would be one more step in the broadening of the character of this House, and causing the whole nation to feel that it was at least no longer a club, or the path to mere social distinction or society life, but that it was a real people's chamber in which the interests of the people were closely looked after and cared for.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has now arrived when it is urgently required, in order to give to every constituency an equal, free, and unhampered selection of Parliamentary representatives, that all Members of Parliament should be paid by the State a sum at the rate of £300 per annum."—(Mr. W. H. Lever.)

SIR HENRY KIMBER (Wandsworth)

said he was quite sure that no Member of the House would cavil at the manner in which the mover and seconder of the Resolution had supported it; but at the same time he ventured to submit that their argument did not lead logically to the conclusion they wished to arrive at. He desired to find as much common ground as he could with the hon. Gentlemen, and to associate himself with them in the belief that the presence of a large number of Labour Members in the House was a distinct advantage, because the House would be able to hear from them directly their experience and their point of view on the great labour questions of the day. He was not going to quarrel with the mover and seconder on the reasonableness of the amount of remuneration which they considered the labour of hon. Members was worth. Three hundred pounds a year must be admitted to be a moderate amount to pay for the exertions which any hon. Member had to put forth in doing his duty, but it was one thing for a man to deserve a sum of money, and another thing to take it out of the nearest pocket he could find in his neighbourhood. He submitted that the House itself, by any majority, had not the power to pass this Resolution. It had been vainly boasted that the House was omnipotent; but it was not omnipotent. There were many things it could not do, and among them it could not, as the custodians of the public purse, authorise its Members to dip their fingers into that purse and help themselves to what it might please them to take. It had been pointed out quite rightly that the members of the Government of the day were paid. That was true, but they had the sanction of the taxpayers outside, for they had to submit themselves to re-election after accepting paid office. Ministers were in a different position from the rank and file of the House. It was the Ministers of the day who were the servants of the public and not the ordinary Members. [Cries of "No, no."] That was a very important distinction. In the first place, they could not compare the labours of the Ministers of this great country with the labours of ordinary Members. The Ministers of the day were no doubt servants of the State, and were rightly paid, and it was the duty of ordinary Members to see that these servants performed their duties in a proper manner, and proposed laws for the benefit of the country. Members had first to consider their respective constituencies. ["Oh!"] Well they represented their interests, and not necessarily class interests, but their best interests, although they might be great or small. Each Member individually only represented one part of the country the whole of which that House represented. Therefore it seemed to him that the proper party to pay the representative was the constituency. Take the ordinary constituency of a Labour Member. It was necessarily large and made the Labour Member in this House all the more valuable. Suppose he represented 6,000 voters and was paid £300 a year; that would represent just about a farthing a week to every one of the 6,000 voters. That could not be considered a great burden. There was a line of ultra vires which even this House could not pass, and they could not put their hands in the pockets of the taxpayers and take out their money without their consent. If they passed this Resolution, they were going to mulct the taxpayers of the country in damages without their even being heard. Who was going to represent the interests of the taxpayers of the country, when Members of this House decided the case in their own favour? Quite apart, however, from the question of ultra vires, and in this he was sure he should have the support of the learned Attorney-General, it had been held ever since we had any system of jurisprudence at all, that the law would not permit any person in a fiduciary capacity to attempt to make a profit out of his trust, and would make accountable any person who made such an attempt. Suppose the House permitted what he ventured to say was an illegality, the Attorney-General or any body else could lay an information challenging the action of Members—they were in a majority or not—who voted for and carried a Resolution which took money out of the pockets of the ratepayers and put it in their own. It might be a new case, but he could not see any arguable ground against such a case being raised. He recollected an utterance of the late Lord Selborne on appeal in a case in which the Court below had decided that the plaintiff had sustained a wrong at the hands of the defendant but that there were no means by which he could find a remedy. Lord Selborne said— This Court, if it finds a wrong, will find an arm long enough to provide a remedy. One of the Attorney-General's supporters, only a night or two ago, reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that the law officers of the Crown were paid—and he was sure they were not too highly paid—for giving the Members of the House the best legal advice. He should therefore leave it to the Attorney-General to give them his advice, as to what would be their position if they voted for this Resolution and took money out of the pockets of the taxpayers. If they had a right to vote £300 a year why not £3,000. The appetite for salaries grew by what it fed on. They could, if the principle were upheld, take what they wanted without any restraint or scruple, except that imposed by conscience. But consciences sometimes became elastic, and they had seen a very fine illustration of this in the difference in a man's valuation of himself when he was only a candidate and when he became a Member. He hoped a very eminent member of the Government would take what he said as a pleasantry, which it was meant to be. Out of the House he put the maximum value upon himself or upon any other man of £500 a year. Now he as President of the Local Government Board valued himself at £2,000. which was four times as much. He was sure, however, that the work of the right hon. Gentleman was well worth the remuneration he received for his Department. But the episode showed that there was no limit which could be fixed. But even that was not all. The tendency of the payment of Members out of the pockets of the State, of which they were the custodians, had a tendency to deteriorate the character of the House. He should like to quote a statement by John Stuart Mill, which was approved by Henry Fawcett, in regard to what would be the effect of payment of Members in producing what is called the professional politician—the carpet bagger, who ran about the country, to see what support he could get to obtain a situation of £300 a year. He did not mean to say that every man of that kind would have no principle at all, and he quite admitted that in America there were some men of that class, though not popular there, who became very eminent men, and having devoted their lives to politics, did their best for their country, but as Mill said, the constant meddling of this class of men who felt bound to do something for their salaries would be in- tolerable. Whether constituencies might contribute to the support of their Member was a different question, but there was no reason to doubt that such a course as that now proposed would deteriorate the character of the body and would diminish the respect in which it was held by the public. Constituencies might send up independent men who were paid, but how could a man be made more free and independent by accepting a dole out of the State funds. The question might also arise whether or not in special cases, or in times of prosperity or depression, the allowance should be increased or decreased, but the effect of the whole proposal was to make a Member dependent upon the State. This would make him less free and independent. There was one more point he wished to make, and he desired it to be understood that he imputed no motives. He did not say that Ministers of the day or Members would have any intention to use a question of this kind for the purpose of exercising unfair or undue influence upon any Section of the House, but whatever the intention was, the fact remained that it could be so used. He should like to know whether the Government intended to support this Motion or not. If they did what was the only inference? That they wished to conciliate and obtain the good will of a certain section of the House. ["Oh*!"] That was fair comment and the fact was incontestable. That was one way of getting that support, and although they might say they did not do it for that, hon. Members might form their own private judgment as to whether that was not the effect of it. He was not going into ancient history, but he would simply refer to the histories of the Republics of Greece and Rome, and ask hon. Members to consider whether, among the causes which brought those Republics to grief, arrangements of this kind for applying and dividing public money among those who governed the politics of the State were not one of the first if not the chief cause of their downfall. He appealed to all Members, whether old or new, not to spoil the traditions of this House by allowing anything to be recorded on its journals which would enable an enemy to say that the Members of it had any pocket interest in managing its affairs. He begged to move the Amendment which, stood in his name.

MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)

seconded the Amendment on general grounds, because he thought that the legal and constitutional bearing of this question ought not to be lost sight of in this discussion. Adoption of this particular proposal was without precedent so far as our history went. When originally Members were paid, they were paid by their constituents, by means of a rate levied upon them. That was the case in the Plantagenet times, on various occasions since, and in the case of the famous Andrew Marvell in the time of Charles II. Now, however, it was asked that private Members, like Ministers, should be servants of the State, and not, as at present, be the servants of their constituents. They all took an interest in this House and wished to get the best men to serve in it. They all hoped that merely means and wealth would not affect the question, as they wanted to get the best men, irrespective of their private means or of those by whom they were supported. That was their common object but was it likely that this proposal would bring them any nearer to it? An hon. Member had said that £300 was no inducement, but if it was no inducement why give it? If, however, it was an inducement he thought it raised difficulties of a serious character. It would involve a serious strain being thrown upon Members who had no private means of their own in the event of certain important measures being brought forward, say Home Rule or Tariff Reform, or trades disputes, because if a Member were dependent for his living upon the salary he got as a Member of the House, he would feel that if he voted against them, he would loss his whole means of livelihood. It was obvious that there were questions in regard to which that spect of the case would arise, and he, therefore, protested against any departure of this kind. While he felt the force of the appeal that had been made he desired that Members of the House should be independent and should not be delegates. Edmund Burke, shortly after he had been elected for Bristol, told his constituents that they must remember that then he was not merely Member for Bristol, but a Member of Parliament, and that it was their duty to expect him to take a wide view of matters, and to act independently sometimes of them, and not to rely upon their support. Where should they be if this legislation was passed? They could not exercise that independence which was so essential to a Member of the House. He was not sure, in view of what he had just said, and in view of the experience of other countries, that that was the case. He was in the United States last year, and was very much struck while in Washington by the fact that much, more dignity was apparently considered to attach to eminent business men, or say, railway kings, than was supposed to belong to Congressmen and politicians. He might be wrong in attributing the cause entirely to the fact that the Members were paid, but he did think that that had something to do with it. There was no doubt a widespread feeling in the United States—he supposed it was largely in consequence of the Members being paid—that legislators were not in a position of such dignity as those who had come to the front more by their own business powers and independence. That was a reason which, he thought, would present itself to many Americans and to many citizens of foreign countries, and before this House launched themselves into an experiment of this kind, they must bear in mind the experience of other countries. Much had been said about professional politicians. He wanted to be saved from professional politicians, and that would not be if they paid themselves as was proposed. It was much more likely that they would not get so many Labour Members, and they would be much more likely to get—if he might so describe him without offence—that individual known as the briefless barrister. There was another point which had not been mentioned. If legislative attendance in the House of Commons was to be paid, he would like to know whether it was to be paid in the other House. [Cries of "No,"] Surely the legislative duties in either House were of a very similar character? [Renewed cries of "No."] Hon. Members seemed amused, but if they received £1 a day or whatever sum it was, they ought in justice to pay the same to Members of the other House according to the length of their sittings. He quite agreed that it reduced the proposition to rather an absurdity, but that was one of the strongest reasons for throwing out this Resolution. He did not want either House to be paid. The chief advantage, he believed, that was claimed for the Motion was that they would get candidates of all kinds irrespective of financial influences. He did not think they would be able to rid themselves of financial influences altogether, even if they paid members £300 a year each. If the object of paying this money was to get more Labour Members into the House—and if they got the best Labour Members he was extremely glad to see them—he could not think that that was really a good argument, because it could hardly be said after the last election that that result could not be attained under the present system. The large number of Labour Members elected at the last election was some proof at any rate that under the existing system they could get a very solid Labour representation, and that there was no need for spending another £200,000 of public money in order to secure any difference. The only other advantage he could think of was that Party funds would not require so much support. Under the present system the independence of the House had been well maintained, the Members elected had been true representatives of the electorate, and he saw no sufficient grounds for so drastic a proposal as was suggested in the Resolution.

Amendment proposed— In line 1, to leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'it is not competent or desirable for this House of its own Motion, and being the custodian and protector of the public purse, and acting therein in a fiduciary capacity to the taxpayers of this country, to vote for and to pay or appropriate to its own Members out of that purse any money for their own personal use and benefit." (Sir Henry Kimber.)

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

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

said he presumed that if this Motion were carried the Prime Minister would afford facilities for it to be put into immediate effect, because he remembered a debate in this House in the year 1893 when the late Sir William Harcourt saw that payment of Members would involve a great constitutional change, and that such a change ought not to be effected by a side stroke, but that it should be carried into effect by a legislative enactment. Now it was perfectly clear that if this were left to legislation there was no possible chance of the aspiration which had found expression in this Resolution ever being carried into effect, and therefore a very futile course had been adopted in bringing forward the Motion, unless they anticipated that the Government would put it into effect if carried by a substantial majority, and he knew no constitutional reason why it should not be carried into effect. There was a very simple expedient, and that was to embody it in the Budget. The only objection to this would be that in the event of a change of administration it would be competent for the new administration to leave it out of the Budget. He must say that he had in the past been a consistent opponent of payment of Members. But times changed, and, without any coercion on the part of his constituency, his views were considerably modified on this question. He differed from the mover of the Resolution in his appeal to foreign precedents. He did not think they were of much practical value.

MR. W. H. LEVER

said he expressly disclaimed any appeal to the practice prevailing in foreign countries.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said he believed it was the seconder rather than the proposer who used the argument.

MR. VIVIAN

said he also expressly disclaimed any such appeal.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said he was glad to hear it because it absolved him from the necessity of pointing out that the circumstances under which the payment of Members had been established in foreign countries had no bearing upon the desirability or undesirability of the practice. He appealed to supporters of the Resolution not altogether to disregard those considerations which had been urged with some force by the last speaker. He was far from thinking that the argument as to the "professional politician" should be dismissed with contempt; and he wished to point out that in no foreign country or colony where Members were paid had that payment resulted in the creation of a Labour Party in the sense in which such a Party now existed in this House. It was also a noteworthy fact that in Germany, Italy, and in England, in each of which countries there was no payment of Members, there was a larger body of Labour Members than in any Assembly where Members were paid. When he spoke of Labour Members he meant men who belonged to those who were euphemistically termed the working-classes of the country. What he wished to draw attention to was that the State was now being asked to incur an extra charge of £200,000 a year. He could not consider £200,000 a year a bagatelle. It would provide 13,000 people with old-age pensions. The income of the trade unions was £2,500,000, and to provide £300 a year to 100 of their own representatives would require only £30,000 a year. Organised labour was now returning with very little effort working-men representatives. The House was asked to give away £200,000 a year. What for? For working-class representatives. [Cries of "No."] He expected that "No," but he had the courage to repeat what he had said, and he would tell why he had said it. The briefless barrister, to which category he supposed he, more or less, belonged at the time he first entered this House, and the journalist could come into the House of Commons and carry on their profession, but the working men could not come into the House and carry on their business; and, therefore, it was solely in the interests of working men, and rightly so, that this scheme of payment of Members was formulated. What other class were they going to benefit? They would not seduce the farmer, the tradesman, or the struggling manufacturer from their business. The only people who would be got were briefless barristers, lecturers, and journalists. Why should they incur this great expense of £200,000 when £30,000 would suffice to provide for 100 Members, because the Labour Party did not expect to get more. ["Why?"] At present there were fifty Labour Members, it was not reasonable to expect that the number would be more than doubled; if it were, then further provisions could be made. He thought the Labour Party had done extremely well at the last election. The working man had no more difficult task than that of persuading his fellow-citizens that he should represent them in Parliament rather than the professional man or the capitalist. But the working men had no right to shape the financial policy of the country on the basis that they would be able to secure more than a hundred Members in the next Parliament. Yet those who spoke on behalf of working men were anxious to draw from the pockets of the taxpayers £200,000 when £30,000 would meet their requirements. That was his conviction, and he trusted that his hon. friends would believe that he was not animated with any petty or jealous motives in the attitude he was taking. Inasmuch as the Labour Members were now able to speak with authority in this House, he thought that at least they should limit the payment of Members to the exigencies of the situation and not insist upon payment being provided for other classes who did not require it.

MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

said he wished to say a word or two in support of the Resolution which had been so ably proposed by the hon. Member for Wirral and seconded by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. He was afraid it would be necessary for him to deal with some of the criticisms passed by the hon. Member for North West Durham before he proceeded to deal with the Resolution itself. The hon. Member for North West Durham had said, and he admitted its force, that it was possible in certain circumstances for Labour to secure representation in the House even under present conditions. But the House should not forget that every constituency of trade unionists was called upon to support in Parliament men who were not merely attending to trade-union questions, but to the business of the nation as well. These men surely should not be individually fined for filling a representative position in Parliament. It was quite true that the Labour Party had succeeded in geting a fairly good proportion of Members elected at the last election, and it had been suggested that there should be a limit to their number, and further that they could not hope to secure more than 100 in any future Parliament. He hoped in the future to see labour proportionately represented in this House just in proportion to its influence and numbers in the community in general, and anything like a fair proportion of representation labour would require far more than 100 representatives. It was not necessary for him to reply to all the criticisms of the hon. Member for North West Durham, but he might say that he would much rather the hon. Member had sat on the Opposition benches and delivered his address from the other side among the Tariff Reformers than from the Ministerial side. It was a most sinister speech, because it did not definitely oppose this Motion, but it was an attempt to damn this proposal by faint praise and he would sooner have a declared opponent than a false friend. He pointed out also that the late Sir William Harcourt stated in 1895, when this Question was discussed, that— When I have the opportunity I will do what I can to give effect to the principle embodied in this Resolution. The resolution which Sir William Harcourt supported and said he would adopt stated— That, as the principle of gratuitous public service, on which the representation of this House is at present based, limits the freedom of constituencies in the selection of their representatives, this House is of opinion that a reasonable annual allowance should forthwith be granted to all Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, the Government came to an end within a few months of the passing of that Resolution, or else the payment of Members would have been an accomplished fact. Several members of the present Government had when in Opposition made statements on this subject. The present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a debate in that House in 1894, said that— Having extended the franchise, the House of Commons was bound to make the choice of candidates free. The right hon. Gentleman also expressed the belief— That with good average human nature, payment intensified and did not weaken the sense of obligation. That was exactly the position of the Labour Party towards this proposal, and they wanted a definite statement from the Government as to what they intended to do. It was a most curious thing that he himself was represented in that House by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, who had always been hostile to labour interests in the constituency. He was surprised, having lived in the locality for some twenty years, and knowing how hostile he had been to everything connected with labour interests in his own constituency, at the hon. Member's observation that he wanted to see more Labour Members in this House. He only wished that the hon. Member's actions tallied somewhat with the opinions he had expressed this evening. The hon. Member for Wandsworth said the House was not omnipotent, but he would remind him that Mr. Pitt said it was, and he did not think even the hon. Member for Wandsworth would put his opinion upon that point against a gentleman of the calibre and Parliamentary reputation of Mr. Pitt.

SIR HENRY KIMBER

I would.

MR. J. WARD

said he thought the hon. Member possessed some modesty but evidently he had been mistaken. The hon. Member had said that they were not the servants of the State, but he should like to know if in making that statement he was speaking from his own personal experience, or was he applying his suggestion to the whole of the other Members of the House. He knew that the hon. Member for Wandsworth had had considerable experience in company business and the relationship between directors and shareholders, and he did not know whether his suggestion meant that Members of the House of Commons were in the position of shareholders and the Government were the directors. He thought the Members of the House of Commons were servants of the State. They had been appointed by their constituencies to perform public duties, and therefore they ought to be paid by the State. It had been said that this proposal was like putting their hands in somebody else's pocket, but he was not personally in that position at any rate. It was only necessary for him to point out that three paragraphs in his election address dealt with the very subject which they were now debating. His opponent devoted three parts of his address to pointing out what an enormous burden the payment of over 600 Members of Parliament would be, and he lost the election by nearly 4,000 votes. He thought that was a sufficient answer to the remarks of his hon. friend. He understood that lawyers were great sticklers for precedent, and yet the hon. Member for Wands-Worth said that this Resolution presupposed that payment of Members lad never occurred before. That was not true, because payment of Members had existed and would exist again. ["Not by the State."] At any rate, at one time the State compelled the constituencies to pay, and this proposal was merely an alteration in the method of collection. What did it matter whether the constituency paid the Member direct, or through the revenue of the country in the ordinary way? It had been said that if they were paid, hon. Members might sit here for the purposes of receiving salaries.

MR. CROOKS (Woolwich)

The Members of the late Government did that.

MR. J. WARD

said he did not desire to draw comparisons, but he thought that if the last President of the Local Government Board was worth £2,000 the present one was worth £20,000. He supported this Resolution because it would broaden the basis of representation. Once they had decided that this country should be governed by a democracy they could not limit it. They might try to curb it and put it down here or set it back there, but sooner or later they would be bound to admit the people to equal privileges in administering the affairs of this country. They could not have equal privileges so long as some were extremely wealthy and some were poor, unless some other steps were taken to make up for that inequality. That was exactly the position of the Labour Party. It was the duty of this House, after the verdict of the constituencies, to put that verdict into shape and practice by adopting this Resolution.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE (City of London)

regretted that the inconvenient arrangements of the House compelled the discussion of a question of these dimensions in an inadequate space of time, but he would put succinctly the reasons which induced him to give definite and consistent opposition to a proposal which, in his opinion, was an entirely idle and ineffective one. In the course of the twenty years during which he had had the privilege of serving in this House he had heard a good many abstract Resolutions moved, but he had never heard one which was so absolutely unpractical as that which was now before the House. If translated into a Bill or a Vote in Supply, no Member could vote for it because of the clear rule that no Member should vote upon a Motion in which he was personally interested. If the Government were to propose a Resolution in Committee in favour of a vote of £300 to each of the present Members of the House, there would not be a Member who would not commit a breach of order if he voted for it and would not be liable to have his vote disallowed. This was a perfectly altruistic Motion, and there was only one way in which the House could adopt it. He had drafted the words in which it would have to be done. They were:—"That every Member elected after this date shall be entitled to receive an annual payment of £300 provided he shall not have been a Member of the House at the time of the passing of this Resolution." According to the absolute and unbroken and essential rule of purity in that House, it would be impossible for the Members who were now in the House to vote to themselves, out of public moneys, £300, £500, or any other sum of money. Therefore, this became a perfectly ideal and altruistic Motion. He agreed that the amount proposed in the Resolution was a moderate one; but it came to £210,000 a year, and that would be a permanent charge; £210,000 was the in-interest upon £7,000,000, and the House was really called upon to vote in favour of the establishment of a permanent charge which amounted to a capital charge of £7,000,000 upon tie country. Last night the House decided to throw upon the resources of the country a charge of £50,000 or £60,000 a year. That was another £2,000,000 in capital sum. So that this House of Commons, which had come here resolute in its determination to effect economies, was beginning by placing upon the nation a capital charge of nine millions of money, the annual interest upon which was to go practically into their own pockets. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife was speaking on this matter on March 29th, 1899, he said— The total charge involved would be about £250,000 a year. That sum might very easily be obtained without imposing any additional taxation. A small charge like this could be met by rearranging official salaries upon a more moderate and reasonable scale, by reducing the ornamental sinecures, and by curtailing the grossly unreasonable pension and superannuation system. That right hon. Gentleman was now Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he wondered whether he was going to begin with the salaries, or with the sinecures, or whether he thought it would be very easy to interfere with pensions and superannuations which had been earned and granted under Acts of Parliament? He thought he had shown that this was a very serious thing from the point of view of finance, but there was another consideration. No one had ever heard him use the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument. If a thing was right they ought to do it. But the principle on which this Motion was based ought, if adopted at all, to be applied consistently. He agreed that Members of Parliament discharged duties of the highest importance, and many of them discharged those duties at large expense to themselves. But there were other large classes of persons who discharged most useful offices, which did not carry with them the social distinction which was part of the reward of hon. Members of that House. County councils borough councils, boards of guardians, county and borough magistrates, and members of Royal Commissions did good service to the State. The fact was that this country was happy in having an enormous amount of most valuable public service done for it by unpaid persons. He thought it would not be decent, it would scarcely be honest, for the Members of this House, having the control of the national purse, to take out of that purse £300 a year for each of themselves, and leave these less dignified servants of the State to do their work in these other capacities without any payment at all. Supposing this proposal—even if it were practical, and it was not—were adopted, what would be the result? That whenever there was a vacancy in a constituency they would offer for public competition an office which was paid for at the rate of £300 a year and which carried with it a great deal of social distinction, and possibly a good deal of business influence and value. There would be no entrance fee, and when the candidate had been nominated by ten members of the electorate, the country would pay the whole of the official expenses of the competition. That was a dangerous outlook. He believed that one absolutely universal failing of mankind was vanity; and when they had vanity and a chance of £300 a year he thought they would find plenty of candidates at the elections. It had been stated more than once that some check would be needed. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, with a courage which they all admired, had again and again pressed this question on the attention of the House, and if anybody was entitled to any credit for this Motion it was the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, who in 1892 said in regard to a similar proposal— If this proposal were adopted, I think it would be necessary to take some precautions against bogus candidates being started at the time of the election, and he suggested that there should be a deposit required to be returned if the candidate got a certain percentage of votes, and that there should be a second ballot. He did not say anything against those precautions, but they certainly would be precautions against the danger which this plan would set up. The reason which had been stated again and again for bringing forward this proposal was that it was not considered possible without it to send to this House a sufficiently large number of representatives of the great labour organisations of this country. But that reason had passed away. A good many of them were here. [An HON. MEMBER: A few of them] A good many of them. They were sent here as men who were well-known and trusted by the great organisations of labour in this country, which, with very little sacrifice indeed, could make provision for the maintenance of their representatives in this House. He confessed he should have thought it would have been more congenial to the Labour Members to be sustained in their position in that House by the free will offerings of their great trade organisations than by the reluctant payment of a tax imposed upon the whole country. He said the reluctant payment because he believed this proposal was unpopular in the constituencies. There were some instances where the matter had been put before the constituency; but he doubted whether there were half a dozen Members on the Ministerial side who in their election addresses or speeches told their constituents that they were going to propose that £300 a year should be paid to them. He knew that the Government with its great majority could pass a Bill on this matter; and if the guardians of the public purse chose to help themselves out of it, the other House would not interfere, and it would be too late for the constituencies to interfere. But there was another consideration. There was another special body in that House seriously affected by this matter—the Nationalist Members for Ireland eighty-two in number. The effect of this proposal if carried out would be to endow that Party to the extent of £24,000 year. That proposal he would absolutely resist to the last. It was not a loyal Party.

MR. JOYCE (Limerick)

Loyal to Ireland.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

said if he were to single out one Member of that Party and say he was a loyalist he would ruin his political future. It was a Party which had declared again and again that it was here, not to help the deliberations and work of Parliament, but to hinder them. It might be right or wrong that they should make that claim, but it had been made with unflinching frankness by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in this House only in April last. It was that Party which the Government, if they accepted this proposal, would be assisting and endowing with £24,000 a year. These were reasons why he objected to this proposal, and on all grounds he would resist it. First, it would be an expenditure of public money which was quite unnecessary. Secondly, they were the trustees for the constituencies. [Laughter.] Who laughed at that? Why every Member of Parliament who came here had the right to give his vote on the question of the salary of a Minister or the payment of men in the dockyards was a trustee. It was not his own money with which he was dealing, and which he had a right to give away at his will and pleasure. He had only a right as trustee to deal with the public money; as trustees they had no right to take the trust funds and put them in their own pockets without, at all events, consulting and getting the consent of the persons to whom the money belonged. Then, again, they ought not to select themselves as the persons to receive this payment. He should be the more reluctant to do it, because it was obvious that the adoption of the proposal would not only be a breach of trust but would add to the difficulties of their electoral organisation and the discharge of their Parliamentary duties.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,) Stirling Burghs

It is not my desire to occupy much of the time of the House, and there is not much time left for me to occupy. But, little as that may amount to, I will spare a moment or two of it to express the gladness with which we welcome back to the House the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. There were a great many of us who admired the manly consistency which, led to his absence, and we welcome him back to an arena in which, I think, he is much wanted. Although he hits pretty hard, and went entirely out of his way just now to discharge his darts against hon. Members from Ireland, it is a pleasure to see him taking part in our debates again. But I was astonished to see him make his début in our debates by adopting an extraordinary argument used by the hon. Member for Wandsworth. I am not equal to the task of chopping law or logic with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Heaven forbid! He said it would be an impossibility for us, in accordance with constitutional rule, to act on such a Resolution as this; that it would be a breach of trust, that it would be putting our hands into other people's pockets. If that is the deadlock to which he reduces us, will he tell me how this system came to be adopted through all the British Colonies? Were they all guilty of this felony? How in the world have they managed to introduce the payment of Members? The hon. and learned Gentleman, I should have hoped, would have thought Imperially on this subject. But what is the value of the argument to a plain man and no lawyer like myself? When you talk of a Member's not being allowed to vote for anything conducing to his personal interest, the interest that is meant is his personal interest as a private individual, and not as a Member of this House. To carry out a policy of which he and a great many others approve, and which they think will redound to the public interest—namely, enlarging the scope of the choice of the electors and improving in other ways the position of the representatives of the people—that is not personal interest. If it is, is the hon. and learned Gentleman himself quite free? Did he ever vote for his own salary?

SIR EDWARD CLARKE

I think I may say I never did, and I would not have thought of doing so.

SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN

The probability is that the hon. and learned Gentleman paired for the night. Let me have a home-thrust at this new champion of economy. He spoke of the idea that, if this were to be done, it might be done by the arranging of official salaries. All that I can say is that there is no official salary so capable of arrangement as was the salary of the Solicitor-General in his time. If we are to proceed on this suggestion, then of course we may expect to receive conscience money from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He spoke of the thin edge of the wedge. He used the argument, but said that he had no opinion of it. I remember Sir William Harcourt once said to me, when he heard a Member objecting to the thin end of the wedge— I wonder if anyone ever thought of beginning with the thick end of the wedge. So scrupulous is the hon. and learned Gentleman that the thick end of the wedge is the one which he prefers to use.

I come to much more serious business, and that is to state the view which I and the Government take. I am cordially in agreement with the principle of the Resolution, but it does not follow that it is on all occasions opportune to carry it into effect. In saying this I am only repeating what has been said on behalf of previous Liberal Governments in very plain terms. In 1893 a Motion of this sort was brought forward proposing, not a definite sum, but a reasonable allowance, and Sir William Harcourt, standing where I am, said that he accepted the Resolution, to be carried out as soon as possible, when we had at our disposal the time and the money which were necessary. In 1895 the same Motion was repeated, and Sir William Harcourt again said that it was a question of time and money. Again, last year the same question was raised on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division, and we supported it—I supported it, at any rate. That was a Motion for a reasonable stipend during a Member's Parliamentary life, It is rather an unpleasant way of putting it; no one likes to be reminded that he is mortal. But that was the state of things ten years ago. Has it improved? No, Sir; it is much worse. The impediment and want of money is much greater than it was then. The late Government have taken care of that. And now, why do I, and I think most of my hon. friends, if not all of them, agree With this Resolution? What, after all, is the object of our whole system of registration and of voting, from one end to the other. It is to obtain a genuine and straightforward representation of the people. And do we obtain that object now when the first question applied to a candidate, not openly, but behind the scenes, no doubt, is not, "Are you a man of sufficient character, ability, and sound sense to represent this constituency?" but, "Have you money enough either of your own, or derived from some other source, to meet the public expense of maintaining yourself in the discharge of your duties in attendance upon the House?" I believe that that is a most mischievous state of things. I conceive that the giving of a small allowance to a Member of Parliament, sufficient for his subsistence—and the difference, of course between this and other assemblies, such as boards of guardians and those to which the hon. Gentlemen referred, where excellent public work is done, is that there is no expense involved in their membership. It does not take members away from their homes and interrupt their daily lives. But the question is, what would be the advantage if this impediment in the way of a candidate were removed? In the first place there would be a free choice open to the constituency, which surely comes to something. Secondly, I maintain that under the present system—whether due to that system or not I cannot wholly say—but too often, I believe, the relations between constituents and Members are perverted The idea pervading men's minds is that a constituency is doing the Member a favour by returning him to Parliament. It ought to be exactly the reverse. The candidate is doing the constituents a favour by undertaking arduous, difficult, and often tiresome work for them; and until you get that balance readjusted I believe you will not remedy many of those evils from which we are suffering. Why is it that Members are so overwhelmed in some places by demands for subscriptions? It is because the constituencies look upon him as a man who has received a great benefit from them, and they hold that he ought to give a return. The whole of that conception of the relations between a Member and his constituents is entirely wrong. Then I hold that, if" every Member of this House had this small sum to cover the extra expenses he is put to by living in London, it would, so far from debasing, exalt his feelings of independence. He would no longer feel that he had to look to any one to maintain him in the position in which he stood. The burden of proof in this case rests upon those who would refuse a moderate payment to Members. We hear of the professional politician. What do you mean by a professional politician? If you take a man who devotes himself to his work, to the study of public affairs, in order to qualify himself here, and contrast with him a man who comes here as a pastime or a means of social advancement, which of the two is the better man? Have there not been in past Parliaments men who, quite independently of money, have had some purpose—a trade purpose or some other purpose peculiar to themselves, perhaps, or shared by others—to serve by their presence and action here?

I concur with Sir William Harcourt when he said that he had neither the time nor the money. No more have I. The policy upon which the Government have taken office and upon which they have been supported by their friends is the policy of retrenchment. [OPPOSITION cheers.] I am glad to hear that policy is so popular with those on the benches opposite. It is wonderful what a good dip in the brine of a general election does. There were no cheers from those Gentlemen last year for economy and retrenchment when Lord St. Aldwyn used to read his little homilies upon the necessity of stopping our extravagance. But now we are all for retrenchment. I am glad to hear it. It is not so easy to check the flow of expenditure. Still less easy is it to divert and bring it back to proper channels. But at this moment, when we are beginning to tackle this great question of expenditure and of retrenchment, it would be most inopportune for me to make any promise of action on this subject, because it would be an action which in my conscience I could not see any way of fulfilling at the time. We must wait until retrenchment and a wiser and more sober spirit in the people as well as in this House enables us to have funds in hand whereby we can effect this, as I consider, material improvement, and introduce that which would be a beneficial system in the best interests of the country.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said the Irish Party, to which the hon. and learned Member for the City of London had referred, would vote in favour of this Resolution, and for twenty-five years they had consistently voted for every popular reform. They would do so because they believed the suggested reform was in the interest of the democracy of Great Britain. The Irish Party had, however, never asked payment for their own services; they had never put forward this claim; they were content to be supported by the voluntary contributions of their own countrymen. If it would ease the conscience of the Unionist who drew a distinction between Irish and English Members in this House, the Irish were quite willing to be excluded altogether from this payment. They did not ask for it, and did not want it.

SIR HENRY KIMBER

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment so as to take the decision by one vote, but leave was refused.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 363; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 5.)

AYES.
Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)	Beck, A. Cecil	Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Bell, Richard	Byles, William Pollard
Acland, Francis Dyke	Bellairs, Carlyon	Cairns, Thomas
Adkins, W. Ryland	Benn, Jn. Williams(Devonport)	Caldwell, James
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T.C.	Bennett, E. N.	Cameron, Robert
Agnew, George William	Berridge, T. H. D.	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.
Ainswortb, John Stirling	Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Alden, Percy	Billson, Alfred	Causton. Rt. Hn Richard Knight
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch	Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Cawley, Frederick
Astbury, John Meir	Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire	Chance, Frederick William
Atherley-Jones, L.	Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N. E.	Channing, Francis Allston
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Cheetham, John Frederick
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)	Bowerman, C. W.	Cherry, R. R.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Brace, William	Churchill, Winston Spencer
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight	Bramsdon, T. A.	Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)
Barker, John	Branch, James	Cleland, J. W.
Barlow, John E. (Somerset)	Brigg, John	Clough, W.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Broadhurst, Henry	Clynes, J.
Barnard, E. B.	Brooke, Stopford	Cobbold, Felix Thornley
Barnes, G. N.	Brunner, J. F. L.(Lanes, Leigh)	Cogan, Denis J.
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Burke, E. Haviland-	Condon, Thomas Joseph
Beale, W. P.	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Cooper, G. J.
Beauchamp, E.	Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grins'd
Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)	Burt, Rt, Hon, Thomas	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,
Cory, Clifford John	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)	Murray, James
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Higham, John Sharp	Nicholls, George
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Hobart, Sir Robert	Nolan, Joseph
Crean, Eugene	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Norman, Henry
Cremer, William Randall	Hodge, John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Crooks, William	Hogan, Michael	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Crosfield, A. H.	Holden, E. Hopkinson	Nuttall, Harry
Crossley, William J.	Holland, Sir William Henry	O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Cullinan, J.	Hooper, A. G.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Dalziel, James Henry	Horridge, Thomas Gardiner	O'Brien, William (Cork)
Davies, David (Montgomery Co.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Hudson, Walter	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Davis, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Delany, William	Hyde, Clarendon	O'Doherty, Philip
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Dowd, John
Dewar, John A. Inverness-sh.)	Jackson, R. S.	O'Grady, J.
Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras N	Jardine, Sir J.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles	Jenkins, J.	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Dobson, Thomas W.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	O'Malley, William
Dolan, Charles Joseph	Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea	O'Mara, James
Donelan, Captain A.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Duckworth, James	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire	O'Shee, James John
Duffy, William, J.	Jowett, F. W.	Parker, James (Halifax)
Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness	Joyce, Michael	Paul, Herbert
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Kelly, George D.	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Edwards, Clements (Denbigh)	Kennedy, Vincent Paul	Philipps, Col. Ivor(South'mpt'n
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Kilbride, Denis	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Kitson, Sir James	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Essex, R. W.	Laidlaw, Robert	Pollard, Dr.
Evans, Samuel, T.	Law, Hugh Alexander	Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central)
Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lawson, Sir Wilfred	Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E)
Everett, R. Lacy	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)
Fenwick, Charles	Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.	Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington	Radford, G. H.
Findlay, Alexander	Lehmann, R. C.	Rainy, A. Rolland
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)	Raphael, Herbert H.
Flynn, James Christopher	Lewis, John Herbert	Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Lough, Thomas	Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lundon, W.	Redmond, John E. Waterford)
Fuller, J. M. F.	Lynch, H. B.	Redmond, William (Clare)
Fullerton, Hugh	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Rees, J. D.
Furness, Sir Christopher	Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs	Rendall, Athelstan
Gardner, Col. A.(Herefordsh. S.	Mackarness, Frederick C.	Renton, Major Leslie
Gibb, James (Harrow)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th
Gilhooly, James	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Richards, T.F (Wolverhampton
Gill, A. H.	Macpherson, J. T.	Richardson, A.
Ginnell, L.	Mac Veagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Glendinning, R. G.	M'Callum, John M.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Glover, Thomas	M'Crae, George	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Kean, John	Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradford
Grant, Corrie	M'Kenna, Reginald	Robinson, S.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	M'Killop, W.	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Greenwood, Hamar (York)	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)	Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	M'Micking, Major G.	Roche, John (Galway, East)
Grove, Archibald	Maddison, Frederick	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Gulland, John W.	Mallett, Charles E.	Rose, Charles Day
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Rowlands, J.
Hall, Frederick	Marks, G. Croydon (Launcestn)	Runciman, Walter
Halpin, J.	Marnham, F. J.	Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Hammond, John	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)	Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Massie, J.	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil	Masterman, C. F. G.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Meehan, Patrick, A.	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Menzies, Walter	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)
Harmsworth, RL(Caithness-sh	Mond, A.	Schwann, Chas. E.(Manch'ster)
Harvey, H. G. C. (Rochdale)	Money, L. G. Chiozza-	Scott, A.H(Ashton under Lyne
Harwood, George	Montagu, E. S.	Sears, J. E.
Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Mooney, J. J.	Seaverns, J. H.
Healy, Timothy Michael	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Seddon, J.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	Morley, Rt. Hon. John	Seely, Major J. B.
Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.	Morrell, Philip	Shackleton, David James
Henry, Charles S.	Murphy, John	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset E	White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)
Shipman, Dr. John G.	Thorne, William	Whitehead, Rowland
Silcock, Thomas Ball	Tomkinson, James	Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)
Simon, John Allsebrook	Torrance, A. M.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Sloan, Thomas Henry	Verney, F. VV.	Wiles, Thomas
Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)	Villiers, Ernest Amherst	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Snowden, P.	Wadsworth, J.	Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Spicer, Albert	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose	Wilson, Henry, J.(York, W.R.)
Stranger, H. Y.	Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)	Walters, John Tudor	Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Steadman, W. C.	Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)	Wilson, W.T.(Westhoughton)
Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)	Winfrey, R.
Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wardle, George J.	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)	Young, Samuel
Summerbell, T.	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Sutherland, J. E.	Waterlow, D. S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Lever and Mr. Vivian.
Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Watt, H. Anderson
Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)	Weir, James Galloway
Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)	White, George (Norfolk)
NOES.
Acland-Hood Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.	Dalrymple, Viscount	Morpeth, Viscount
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Dixon, Sir Daniel	Nield, Herbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon	Parkes, Ebenezer
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Pease Herbert Pike(Darlington
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.	Du Cros, Harvey	Percy, Earl
Ashley, W. W.	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Faber, George Denison (York)	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Balcarres, Lord	Fardell, Sir T. George	Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Fell, Arthur	Remnant, James Farquharson
Banner, John S. Harmood	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Roberts, S.(Sheffield Eccleshall
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Forster, Henry William	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry, N.)	Gibbs, G A. (Bristol, West)	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Haddock, George R.	Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hambro, Charles Eric	Smith, F.E.(Liverpool Walton)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hamilton, Marquess of	Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashford	Starkey, John R.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bull, Sir William James	Haworth, Arthur A.	Sullivan, Donal
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Helmsley, Viscount	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury SEdmd's	Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Campbell J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.	Hill, Henry Stavely (Staff'sh.)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hills, J. W.	Thornton, Percy M.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Turnour, Viscount
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Valentia, Viscount
Cave, George	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Lord J. P. J. (Stamford)	Keswick, William	Ward W Dudley(Southampton
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone E.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Whitbread, Howard
Chamberlain Rt Hn J.A.(Worc.	Lee, Arthur H.(Hants Fareham	Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)
Clarke Sir Edward(City London	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)	Liddell, Henry	Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin S.	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Lowe, Sir Francis William	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North	Magnus, Sir Philip
Courthope, G. Loyd	Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Henry Kimber and Mr. Evelyn Cecil.
Craik, Sir Henry	Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.
Cross, Alexander	Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 348; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 6.)

AYES.
Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)	Acland, Francis Dyke	Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Adkins, W. Ryland	Agnew, George William
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Dalziel, James Henry	Jardine, Sir J.
Alden, Percy	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Jenkins, J.
Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)	Davis, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Astbury, John Meir	Delany, William	Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea
Atherly-Jones, L.	Devlin Charles Ramsay(Galway	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S)	Jones, William(Carnarvonshire
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Jowett, F. W.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dickinson, WH(St. Pancras, N.	Joyce, Michael
Barker, John	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Kearley, Hudson E.
Barlow, John E. (Somerset)	Dobson, Thomas W.	Kelley, George D.
Barnard, E. B.	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Barnes, G. N.	Donelan, Captain A.	Kilbride, Denis
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Duckworth, James	Kitson, Sir James
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Duffy, William J.	Law, Hugh Alexander
Beale, W. P.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness	Lawson, Sir Wilfred
Beauchamp, E.	Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Beaumont, W. C.B. (Hexham)	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Lea. Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.
Beck, A. Cecil	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Leese, Sir Joseph P.(Accrington
Bell, Richard	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Lehmann, R. C.
Bellairs, Carlyon	Evans, Samuel T.	Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich
Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Lewis, John Herbert
Bennett, E. N.	Everett, R. Lacey	Lough, Thomas
Berridge, T. H. D.	Fenwick, Charles	Lundon, W.
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)	Fiennes, Hon. Eustace	Lynch, H. B.
Billson, Alfred	Findlay, Alexander	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Macdonald, JM.(Falkirk B'ghs
Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire	Flynn, James Christopher	Mackarness, Frederic C.
Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Waiter	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Bowerman, C. W.	Fullerton, Hugh	Macpherson, J. T.
Brace, William	Gibb, James (Harrow)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.
Bramsdon, T. A.	Gilhooly, James	MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E)
Brigg, John	Gill, A. H.	M'Callum, John M.
Broadhurst, Henry	Ginnell, L.	M'Crae, George
Brooke, Stopford	Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John	M'Kean, John
Brunner, J.F.L, (Lanes., Leigh)	Glendinning, R. G.	M'Kenna, Reginald
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Glover, Thomas	M'Killop, W.
Burke, E. Haviland-	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Grant, Corrie	M'Micking, Major G.
Burnyeat, J. D. W.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Maddison, Frederick
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Greenwood, Hamar (York)	Mallet, Charles E.
Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Markham, Arthur Basil
Byles, William Pollard	Grove, Archibald	Marks, G Croydon(Launceston)
Cairns, Thomas	Gulland, John W.	Marnham, F. J.
Caldwell, James	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)
Cameron, Robert	Hall, Frederick	Massie, J.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Halpin, J.	Masterman, C. F. G.
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Hammond, John	Meehan, Patrick A.
Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	Menzies, Walter
Cawley, Frederick	Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil	Mond, A.
Chance, Frederick William	Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)	Money, L. G. Chiozza-
Channing, Francis Allston	Harmsworth, R.L(Caithn'ss-sh	Montagu, E. S.
Cheetham, John Frederick	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Mooney, J. J.
Cherry, R. R	Harwood, George	Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)	Morrell, Philip
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)	Healy, Timothy Michael	Murphy, John
Cleland, J. W.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham	Murray, James
Clough, W.	Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.	Nicholls, George
Clynes, J.	Henry, Charles S.	Nolan, Joseph
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S.)	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cogan, Denis J.	Higham, John Sharp	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Hobart, Sir Robert	Nuttall, Harry
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hodge, John	O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Cooper, G. J.	Hogan, Michael	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd	Holden, E. Hopkinson	O'Brien William (Cork)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Holland, Sir William Henry	O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hooper, A. G.	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Horridge, Thomas Gardiner	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Crean, Eugene	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	O'Doherty, Philip
Cremer, William Randal	Hudson, Walter	O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Crooks, William	Hutton, Alfred Eddison	O'Dowd, John
Crosfield, A. H.	Hyde, Clarendon	O'Grady, J.
Crossley, William J.	Illingworth, Percy H.	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Cullinan, J.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

O'Malley, William	Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)	Torrance, A. M.
O'Mara, James	Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Verney, F. W.
O'Shee, James John	Scarisbrick, T. T. L.	Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Parker, James (Halifax)	Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)	Wadsworth, J.
Paul, Herbert	Schwann, Chas. E. (Manch'ster	Wadron, Laurence Ambrose
Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)	Scott, A. H(Ashton under Lyne	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Sears, J. E.	Walters, John Tudor
Philipps, Col, Ivor(S'thampton)	Seaverns, J. H.	Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Seddon, J.	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Pollard, Dr.	Seely, Major J. B.	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)	Shackleton, David James	Wardle, George J.
Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan
Priestley, Arthur (Granthan)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.)	Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E)	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Waterlow, D. S.
Radford, G. H.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Watt, H. Anderson
Rainy, A. Rolland	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Raphael, Herbert H.	Simon, John Allsebrook	Weir, James Galloway
Rea, Russell (Gloucester)	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	White, George (Norfolk)
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'	Sloan, Thomas Henry	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Redmond, John E.(Waterford)	Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)	White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)
Redmond, William (Clare)	Snowden, P.	Whitehead, Rowland
Rendall, Athelstan	Spicer, Albert	Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)
Renton, Major Leslie	Stanger, H. Y.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th	Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n	Steadman, W. C.	Wiles, Thomas
Richardson, A.	Stewart, Halley (Greenock)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ridsdale, E. A.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Stuart, James (Sunderland)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Sullivan, Donal	Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Robertson Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd	Summerbell, T.	Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)
Robinson, S.	Sutherland, J. E.	Winfrey, R.
Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd
Roche, John (Galway, East)	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E.)	Young, Samuel
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Rose, Charles Day	Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Lever and Mr. Vivian.
Rowlands, J.	Thompson, JW.H.(Somerset, E
Runciman, Walter	Thorne, William
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)	Tomkinson, James
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)	Helmsley, Viscount
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Worc.	Hervey, F.W.F(Bury S. Edm'ds
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Clarke Sir Edward(City London	Hill, Henry Staveley
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O	Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)	Hills, J. W.
Ashley, W. W.	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E	Houston, Robert Paterson
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hunt, Rowland
Balcarres, Lord	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.
Balfour, C. B. (Hornsey)	Courthope, G. Loyd	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Craik, Sir Henry	Keswick, William
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Cross, Alexander	Kimber, Sir Henry
Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)	Dalrymple, Viscount	Laidlaw, Robert
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks	Dixon, Sir Daniel	Lane-Fox, G. R.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon	Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham
Bowles, G. Stewart	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Boyle, Sir Edward	Du Cros, Harvey	Liddell, Henry
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Faber, George Denison (York)	Lowe, Sir Francis William
Bull, Sir William James	Fardell, Sir T. George	Magnus, Sir Philip
Burdett-Coutts, W.	Fell, Arthur	Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Meysey-Thompson, Major E.C.
Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ	Forster, Henry William	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Carlile, E. Hildred	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Morpeth, Viscount
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Nield, Herbert
Castlereagh, Viscount	Haddock, George R.	Parkes, Ebenezer
Cave, George	Hamilton, Marquess of	Pease Herbert Pike(Darlington
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C W	Hardy, Laurence(Kent Ashford	Percy, Earl
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cecil, Lord J. P. J. (Stamford)	Haworth, Arthur A.	Ratcliff, Major R. F

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.	Stone, Sir Benjamin	Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)
Remnant, James Farquharson	Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)	Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)	Wilson, A. Stanley (York E.R.
Rutherford, John (Lancashire)	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart Younger, George
Sandys. Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles	Thornton, Percy M.
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)	Turnour, Viscount
Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)	Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Viscount Valentia.
Smith, F.E.(Liverpool Walton)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk	Ward, W Dudley(Southampton
Starkey, John R.	Whitbread, Howard

Resolved, "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has now arrived when it is urgently required, in order to give to every constituency an equal, free, and unhampered selection of Parliamentary representatives, that all Members of Parliament should be paid by the State a sum at the rate of £300 per annum.—(Mr. William Lever.)