§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 204,100, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
§ Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 194,100, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."—(Major Seely.)
§ MR. J. WARD, continuing his speech in support of the reduction, declared that there was a strong opinion among organised labour associations that much 1508 of the Army expenditure was unnecessary because it was useless and unproductive. He urged the Secretary for War to make a definite statement that retrenchment should begin with the least possible delay. £29,000,000 was a very considerable item, and, considering the geographical position of our country, we ought not to be called upon to spend such a large sum especially as Ministers had declared there was no danger of invasion. They should, he thought, have a definite statement from the Prime Minister as to what he was prepared to do in the direction indicated. Remarkable progress had been made during recent years in the principle of submitting questions of international dispute to arbitration. Since His Majesty came to the Throne, remarkable progress had been made in that direction, and he hoped there would be little fear, at least so far as European nations were concerned, that difficulties would arise hereafter that could not be settled by that means. The working-men of this country were not in favour of excessive expenditure on armaments. They looked with more distaste upon this form of expenditure than upon any other. They considered it to be largely useless, and totally unproductive. He had been struck, during the debate, by the variation in the views of experts on military matters. One set of experts thought it was not possible to reduce the home establishment, but that it might be 1509 possible to reduce the establishment abroad. Another set of experts took an altogether opposite view. That was generally the case with experts. They could generally get an expert opinion on either side of almost any subject, and it was for the commonsense man—the average man in the street—to decide between the experts, or so-called experts. He would agree with both sides, and he thought he was entitled to do so if officers of reputation differed so considerably. By this means he had expert opinion in favour of reducing both the home and foreign establishments. That perfectly satisfied him. An Army for a country like ours could only be for aggression. So far as he knew the history of his country, the Army had always been used for that purpose. [Cries of "Indian Mutiny."] We naturally thought the Indians were the aggressors, but no doubt the natives of India thought we were the aggressors. It depended upon which side one stood as to his point of view. He had been given to understand by the Prime Minister in the late Government it was not possible to successfully attack this country. He did not think it was. We relied very largely for our defences upon the Navy. The Army was for aggression, and therefore they were in favour of reducing it. Some time ago it was stated that this country had formed a strong alliance with Japan and that such alliance put a possible attack upon our Indian Empire outside the range of possibility. Of course if it were now declared that the treaty could have no such influence, then a good deal of reason for the alliance disappeared. Militarism was the curse of Europe. Democracy groaned under its intolerable burden. War, they believed, was wrong, and in the next generation that would be the opinion of the majority of civilised peoples. If it were wrong for two individuals to settle their disputes in the old brutal fashion of killing or murder, it was equally wrong for States or nations to do the same. They were told that it was absolutely necessary that they should become soldiers in order to defend this country, but he was confident that a happy and contented people under any circumstances, whenever the occasion arose, 1510 would always be ready and able to-defend their liberty and homes.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Croydon)said the speech of the hon. Member who had just spoken was not based upon knowledge nor did it greatly illuminate the subject. The Minister in charge of the administration of the Army had stated that he was fully conscious of the feeling of the House and the country in favour of a diminution of military expenditure, and he had also stated that he was dealing with a very difficult task and a very delicate organisation, and he asked for time in order to deal with that organisation in a way which would not do harm but good. The hon. Member who had just spoken had urged that prudence must not be exercised, that time must not be taken. He would ask the House to analyse those propositions. The hon. Gentleman had told the House he was against war. He supposed there was no Member of that House who would not say that he was against war. But the hon. Member had told them that the action of the British Army in India in repressing the mutiny was merely a question of the point of view. That was perfectly true. It was a question whether we or the sepoys were to be victorious. The hon. Member spoke of a peaceful nation having some method other than war of effectively resisting attack. If his principle had been adopted we should have lost India. There might be a code of ethics which would reconcile us to the loss of India, but there was no economic code which would reconcile the working people of this country to it. The hon. Member looked forward to a time when war would be abolished. He was old enough to remember the Civil War in the United States, and the discussions on it in this House. There was a great problem that was bound to be solved, and was capable of being solved only by a struggle for life and death. When the flag over Fort Sumter was fired on, the people of the United States had no hesitation and they fought for four years to establish a principle. They all knew the history of the great struggle for the unity and liberation of Italy. We feted Garibaldi in the City of London, wrote odes to him, sent addresses to him, 1511 and hailed him as a God-created apostle of liberty. But it was only by war that the question could be settled, and it was because the French marched 180,000 men across the Alps and fought the battles of Solferino and Magenta and because the campaign of 1859 was followed by that of 1866 that Italy was liberated. Were they to say that we had now arrived at a time when that method of deciding a great issue had gone? Though the hon. Member desired that it should be gone, could he guarantee that it was gone? He could remember when a Liberal Minister told the assembled Parliament that the European sky was without a cloud, and six weeks later the war between France and Prussia broke out. Mr. Cobden proved in page after page that for economic reasons France neither could nor would go to war, and the assertion in regular succession was followed by the Crimean war, the Italian campaign, the Mexican campaign, and the Franco-German war. That was a prophecy just as well established by an appeal to general principles as that of the hon. Member for Stoke, and no doubt just as capable of drawing the cheers of hon. Members. The hon. Member had talked with scorn of expert opinion. In the matter of the heating of a kiln or the temperature of a fiery mine the hon. Member would not perhaps accept expert opinion as conclusive, but he would pay a great deal of respect to it, and he would not speak of it as he had just spoken of military opinion. There was a great deal of experience to which the world could go in the matter of these military questions. There were several nations who had said "Let us cast aside our weapons and turn our sword into ploughshares." [Cries of "Which?"] Holland, Venice, and perhaps Austria before 1856 were cases in point. But when some nations had neglected military precautions, had other nations accepted the peaceable proclamation? Not at all. As long as there were nations preparing the whole of their manhood for war it was impossible for a nation such as ours to disarm, although we had no hostile intent against any European Power, The hon. Member for Stoke did hot believe in his own theory, for he was in favour of naval preparation. If he believed in the protection of arbitration 1512 treaties, then he must say, "Down with the Army and down with the Navy." If he did not say that he was clearly inconsistent. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that we could not afford to dispense with that protection. He agreed with the hon. Member on one point. He thought that there was great room for a reduction in the expenditure of the Army. But he did not agree that the hon. Member's method of arriving at that reduction was either wise or business-like. He felt strongly, however, that what the right hon. Gentleman had said was the belief of every one who had hitherto had anything to do with the administration of the War Office in late years. Personally he had said over and over again in the House that there was room for a reduction in Army expenditure, and he had given evidence of the sincerity of his intention. Every year that he had been in office the personnel of the Army had been reduced. There had also been a reduction this year, and he was confident that there was room for a still larger reduction. Indeed he would let the House into a secret. Whether the right hon. Gentleman liked it or not, there must be a reduction in the Army. As there were 39,000 men coming out of the Infantry this year and probably a maximum of 22,000 going in, it need not surprise the House at all if at the end of twelve months the right hon. Gentleman came down and told the House he had effected a reduction in the infantry. He was most anxious, however, to see that the desire for the reduction should be made consonant with the interests of the Army. He had always held that they ought to reduce the infantry with the colours on the home establishment. The right hon. Gentleman had discussed the way in which that reform might be achieved. He did not altogether agree with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman nor did he think on reconsideration the right hon. Gentleman would abide by the opinion which he now held. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would see that there was an incongruity, an absurdity almost, about his proposition to-night, and that the only method of reducing the Army was by rejecting the double battalions. The right hon. Gentleman had said a great deal about policy governing Army expenditure. Within 1513 limits he agreed, but to a certain extent he did not agree. There were always two parties to a policy, and in the history of wars he had always found that there was an aggressor, and that it was not always a matter of choice as to whether we should engage in a war or not. Whether we chose or not, we might be compelled to take part in a war; and he thought it was rather a curious proceeding to have a system which compelled us to make our Army policy correspond with the accident of our organisation. We had more battalions abroad than we had at home, and circumstances compelled us now to keep battalions in the Colonies. That might be described as the result of policy, and if the policy held, why were we to bend our policy, to distort our policy in order to keep up an artificial system? If it were true that our policy required a certain number of battalions in India and in the Colonies, then by the right hon. Gentleman's rule we must keep battalion for battalion in this country. The right hon. Gentleman made a mistake when he spoke about the battalions on short tour abroad. The battalions abroad in the Mediterranean and in South Africa were not battalions fit for war. If he examined the nominal roll of these battalions he would find that they would have to be strengthened by reservists to the extent of 400 and 500 men, owing to the need that would arise to bring home that number of men now serving in the battalions, and to send out five or six hundred men to take their places, so as to make those battalions fit for war. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be quite right to reduce the number of the troops at home. With that policy he agreed. It was, however, an absolute fallacy to suppose that you could make war with scratch armies. If they broke up battalions as suggested, they would lose 400 trained officers—the one thing 1514 we wanted most—800 non-commissioned officers, 6,000 men in the reserve; and they would have to recreate those battalions the moment they came to war. What could be done was perfectly consistent with what the right hon. Gentleman had said. They could follow the example of the Navy. They could reduce the establishments for the battalions at home. They could have the equivalent of the skeleton crews of the Navy. They could keep those battalions in a position in which they would be reinforced and revived in time of war. Once destroy them, and they would be paralysed and utterly unable to recreate them for effective purposes.
The right hon. Gentleman had made a tremendous demand upon their confidence. They were prepared to honour that draft, and to give him time. But before finally allowing him to proceed upon his task, he would venture upon one word of caution. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to substitute for our Regular Army an incoherent, unorganised, undisciplined force, of which as yet they knew nothing, and of which even the skeleton had not been made apparent to their eyes. There were some of them who felt very anxious lest he should be led into destroying before he was able to replace. He believed there was no military opinion extant which supported the view that they could enter upon war with an amateur army, ill-officered, ill-supplied with non - commissioned officers, and ill-trained; and there was no military authority at all for the proposition that they could in haste create one. He had looked at the record of armies of that kind in the field. He had looked at the reports of the army of the Loire. That was an army levied en masse, and included men of some six months training under officers some of whom were Regular officers. This force took 1515 the field in the crisis of their country's fate. They were well led so far as their commanders went; but they were badly officered. They were fighting in their own country, they were in enormously superior numbers. He had before him General Chanzy's reports of what that army did. Occupying the strongest positions the country afforded, they were utterly destroyed and broken up, and their failure was explained by every authority by the youth and military inexperience of the men. As far as his power went, he should at all points press the right hon. Gentleman to tell them, before he took any step in the direction of making more unorganised armies, that he had behind him the military authority of anybody at all. He should want the right hon. Gentleman to tell them categorically that he had learnt from the officers of this country, or of any other country, that we could successfully engage in war with troops without adequate training, and without a full supply of officers—and officers not merely attached from time to time to casual battalions, or who were merely giving up a small portion of their time to the military profession. He would not press the right hon. Gentleman now, however. He knew well that this question was far too important to be discussed in one evening, and that the right hon. Gentleman himself would greatly dislike the House of Commons to be hurried in a matter of this kind. He knew the right hon. Gentleman would be patient with them and tell them, stage by stage, what changes he desired to make. The right hon. Gentleman had made a demand upon them which he believed every man of common sense in the House would consider a reasonable demand; he had asked that he should be allowed to give attention to the great problems before him, and had given assurances which he for one respected. 1516 If they accepted those assurances they would agree that the line the right hon. Gentleman had taken was the right one, that he must be allowed with patience and attention to study the problem, so that when he had studied it he would be able to apply his knowledge to the true benefit of the Army.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI am sure that those Members of the House who are new to these debates and who are not, like some of us, seasoned on the topics that have been discussed to-night must have been greatly interested by the close insight afforded to them into the intricacies of military organisation. They have had the cloudy mysteries of the wrongly-called linked battalions at one end of the long chain, and they have had the terror as to the North-West Frontier of India at the other, and from one of these extremes to the other rival opinion has raged. I think that the general discussion may have been of no small assistance to my right hon. friend; but, after all, we are only to-night beating the air, as it were, because the Minister in charge of these Estimates, with this tremendous task before him, has made an appeal to the House to have confidence in him, or, if that is too strong a word, to have patience with him while he examines the whole of these intricate problems and tries to arrive honestly and laboriously at the best organisation to give to the Army. There is no Army in the world which has to be fitted for such various uses as our Army, and therefore the problem exceeds in difficulty that presented to any other country. But my right hon. friend very properly disclaims any parti pris in the matter. I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down attributed to him certain views upon this subject and upon that—not in any extreme way—but my right hon. friend has wisely kept himself free from any explicit expression of opinion; 1517 he has only been a few weeks in office, and, as I have said, the curtain has been sufficiently rifted to-night to let the House see what a complicated business it is. My right hon. friend appealed to the House to help him lift this question of the organisation of the Army out of the region of Party controversy. I have often preached—it is not always practised, for, after all, we are all human—but I have often preached the doctrine that these Army questions—I mean purely definitely Army questions—ought to be treated between the two sides, or the half-dozen sides, if such there are, of the House without any reference to other topics on which we differ. My right hon. friend, in appealing to the House to give him that assistance, I think did right. But I am speaking only of the questions of organisation; when we get to the question of the strength of the force you should maintain, the nature of that force and the amount of money to be expended, that depends upon general policy, which is another matter altogether, as to which it is almost ridiculous to expect any close continuity such as you could have upon a strictly technical matter like the organisation of the Army. Let there be no doubt as to the ground we take on those questions of general policy which determine military expenditure. Our desire is to be as little provocative as possible, to make as little as possible inroads upon the reserves of the national resources. We desire to cultivate economy as much as possible. But let me look back upon the years through which we have passed, the ten years during which we have seen this military expenditure, Army and Navy, going up steadily year by year in a relentless course, and surely it is not possible, holding the views that we hold, not to endeavour, with all our might, to check that course of increasing expenditure, and, if possible, to reverse the stream. I say we are bound to strain every nerve to stop that 1518 growth of expenditure. It is not easy to check expenditure that has been going on so long. The habit of expenditure, the habit in the public services and in the public offices, as well as in this House, and expenditure of the sort which we have been witnessing, has this peculiarity—that one branch of it creates, or apologises for, and leads to another. And, therefore, as I say, it is about as much as we can do, in the initial stages at any rate, to prevent the further growth of the evil before we see how far we can go in cutting down the evil itself. My right hon. friend, I think the House will agree, has done well in that respect. He has, broadly, reduced the Estimates as he found them when he came into office by £1,500,000 or £2,000,000. That was no easy task, and it shows that my right hon. friend has an earnest anxiety in the direction of economy.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERmade an interruption which did not reach the gallery.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWhen my right hon. friend came into office he found that the Estimates proposed for the coming year were £1,750,000 greater in extent than the Estimates of the previous year.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI must really ask leave to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. That is a very serious statement. The right hon. Gentleman found no Estimates prepared by me. He found, what a Minister always finds, a rough sketch of Estimates which are always furnished for the decision of the Minister. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there has been a reduction on the Estimates of the previous years of £1,500,000? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Yes."]
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI repeat what I said. Of course, they 1519 were not the ultimate, final Estimates. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh !"] The odd thing was that the Navy Estimates, upon which there was to be a reduction, were issued, no one knows for what reason, before the general election at a time of the year when no one expects the Navy Estimates to be issued. But the Army Estimates were not so issued. No doubt the Estimates I speak of were the sketch Estimates for the coming year—that is to say, the demands of the Department upon the Government, and my right hon. friend succeeded, by applying himself to it, and with the help of his military advisers, in wiping out that excess. But there have been some sweeping assertions made, even by friends of my own, in this debate which I accept and accede to, under limits. It is often said that the only way you can reduce Army Estimates is by reducing the men. Of course, reducing the men on a large scale is the easiest way of producing an effect on the Estimates. But there may be a less costly organisation of the same number of men, and in the administration there may be a great deal of saving to be effected. I think my hon. and gallant friend himself was a little too hard on the ha'porth of tar. He said, "You will always be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar." If you carry that theory too far I am afraid there will be a great demand for tar, if they know that any excess in that article is to be regarded as perfectly harmless expenditure. I was brought up in the old school of Mr. Robert Lowe, who was a great economist and whom I have often heard from this place proclaiming, what I believe to be perfectly true, that although you do not deal with very large sums when you are saving on stationery and sealing wax and wafers, yet if you take no effort to save on the sealing wax and wafers you will be extra vagrant in other matters. Another thing which I do not agree with is this. I, like the rest of the world, am of the Blue Water school— 1520 that is to say, I am of opinion that the Navy is the main defence of these islands, and I yield to no reasonable person, in a desire to maintain the Navy in all the strength and efficiency that are necessary. But when I hear people saying that the country will not grudge any money spent on the Navy, I cannot imagine a more foolish and more mischievous assumption. We have only to go back a year or two to see that large sums can be saved from the Navy Estimates which were alleged to be absolutely essential for the safety of the country. I do not say at present that that can be done now, but I do say that, whether it be the Navy or the Army, when we see an opportunity of saving money we will save it, and we will endeavour to reduce the heavy burden which, as we think, unduly presses on the taxpayers of the country. I hope that my hon. friend will not press this Motion to a division. Although I thoroughly understand his keenness in the matter, and although, while this constant yearly development of expenditure was going on such Motions as this were, in my opinion, perfectly justified, and would be justified in the case of this or any other Government, if they were prosecuting the same course of spending more and more upon these services, yet, when you get a Government here which declares that it will do all it can, and strain every nerve to cause great reductions in military expenditure, that its honour and good faith are bound up with its doing it, then I think it is a little hard that such impatience should be shown. We have only had a few weeks to consider the whole question, and as our policy is the policy of peace and economy, because we believe that to be the policy also of strength and efficiency—because that is our policy, and because I am conscious that we deserve a little more confidence than my hon. friend is showing us by this Motion, I trust I may ask for that 1521 confidence. I promise, on behalf of the Government, that we will do all we can to fulfil, not the pledges or promises that any one has made, but the professions that we have put forward and the principles which possess us in regard to these matters.
§ MR. GUEST (Cardiff District)said there was no man who believed more firmly in the necessity for a reduction in the expenditure upon the Army than he. He would remind hon. Members who were not Members of Parliament some years ago that he was the first man to move a reduction in the expenditure upon the Army, and he yielded to none in his desire to effect a reduction in the military expenditure of the country. He had always agreed with the view that war was the most futile and ferocious of human follies. He hated and disliked war, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Stoke in his appeal in the direction of peace. He set great store upon the efforts which the Labour Party were making upon this question, for he believed that the efforts of the Labour movement the world over was more likely to ensure peace than all the best efforts of diplomatists in the past. He thought, however, that the intention of his hon. and gallant friend to divide on the reduction was ill-advised and hostile to the Government, and he appealed to him to withdraw the Amendment. If it was pressed to a division it ought to be resisted with all the force which the Government could command. He had looked upon this as a pro forma Motion, moved for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House to the great desirability of moving in the direction of a reduction both in the number of the Army and the expenditure upon it, and it never entered his head that it was going to be pressed to a division. The Secretary of State for War last week made a pronouncement which met with the ap- 1522 proval of almost every section of the House, and he indicated in a way that left no room whatever for doubt that his object and the object of the Government was to effect a reduction in military expenditure. He thought that ought to be sufficient for them for the present. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman had been in office only some three months and that he had already given a great earnest of the direction in which he was moving, they ought to be satisfied with that. Personally, he should not be satisfied with a reduction of 10,000 men, because 50,000 was what he hoped they might see next year. At present the Secretary of State for War had gone as far as any reasonable man could expect in the short time he had been in office. He again appealed to the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. HUNT (Shropshire, Ludlow), who rose amid loud cries of "Seely, Seely," said that he was very glad to have heard the excellent speech made by the Secretary of State for War, and he was pleased to hear that he was in favour of a great national Reserve in case of emergency. In the present temper of the country he thought the only way in which they could get that great national reserve was by encouraging rifle and air-gun clubs. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide, divide."] They need not trouble to interrupt because he intended going on till twelve o'clock. The Labour Members appeared to think that they could do altogether without war. He was afraid that they were altogether wrong. On Member of the Labour Party had gone almost as far as to say that if they were attacked they would not retaliate. [Cries of "No, no!"]
§ MR. J. WARDYou had better attack me and see.
§ MR. HUNTsaid he wished to say that for some unknown reason man was made a fighting animal, and until they altered that they were sure to have war. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] The defence of this country was not a Party question, and every Socialist ought to say that he was ready to defend his country. [Renewed interruptions and cries of "Divide, divide."]
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil), rising to a point of order, said he had twice overheard the hon. Gentleman use the expression, "I do not care a damn." He asked whether the use of such expressions was permissible.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that of course the hon. Member for Ludlow was in possession of the Committee, but he was sure the Committee desired to hear before 12 o'clock what course the hon.
§ and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool wished to take.
§ MAJOR SEELYsaid that, deeply as he regretted to have to differ from the Prime Minister and the Secretary for War in this matter, he felt bound to go to a division. He had proposed a reduction in numbers which meant a reduction in money of about one and a-third millions on Army Estimates amounting to £29,500,000. This Parliament had been returned for the purpose of introducing economy. He had asked that this reduction should take place not this year, but next year. Since, therefore, they had no assurance whatever that we should not start again on the £29,500,000 basis, he felt that he must divide the Committee. He did not suppose many Members would follow him into the lobby, but, if he went alone, he would still make his protest against extravagance.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 56; Noes, 296. (Division List No. 16.)
1527| AYES. | ||
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Fullerton, Hugh | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Hodge, John | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Hudson, Walter | Seddon, J. |
| Bottomley, Horatio | Johnson, John (Gateshead) | Sullivan, Donald |
| Brace, William | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Summerbell, T. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Jowett, F. W. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Clough, W. | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid | Thorne, William |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. | Vivian, Henry |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lehmann, R. C. | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Macpherson, J. T. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Cox, Harold | Maddison, Frederick | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Cremer, William Randal | Money, L. G. Chiozza- | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | O'Grady, J. | |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Parker, James (Halifax) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Major Seely and Mr. J. M. Robertson. |
| Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Pollard, Dr. | |
| Fenwick, Charles | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) |
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. | Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. |
| Agnew, George William | Cory, Clifford John | Holden, E. Hopkinson |
| Alden, Percy | Courthope, G. Loyd | Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Cowan, W. H. | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester) | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Horridge, Thomas Gardiner |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Craig, Captain James (Down, E. | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Crooks, William | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O | Crosfield, A. H. | Hunt, Rowland |
| Ashley, W. W. | Crossley, William J. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Dalmeny, Lords | Hyde, Clarendon |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Dalrymple, Viscount | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Astbury, John Meir | Davies, David (Montgomery Co. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire |
| Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt Hn. Sir H. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (City Lond | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Duckworth, James | Keswick, William |
| Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness | Kincaid-Smith, Captain |
| Barker, John | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Kitson, Sir James |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. | Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) | Lambert, George |
| Beale, W. P. | Elibank, Master of | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Lamont, Norman |
| Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne | Erskine, David C. | Layland-Barratt, Francis |
| Beaumont, W C.B. (Hexham) | Essex, R. W. | Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington |
| Benn, John Williams (Devonp'rt | Everett, R. Lacey | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Fell, Arthur | Levy, Maurice |
| Bertram, Julius | Ferens, T. R. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Billson, Alfred | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Liddell, Henry |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire | Findlay, Alexander | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Forster, Henry William | Lough, Thomas |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Fuller, J. M. F. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Branch, James | Furness, Sir Christopher | Lynch, H. B. |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Maclean, Donald |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gill, A. H. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Joh | M'Callum, John M. |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Crae, George |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gooch, George Peabody | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Grant, Corrie | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Burnyeat, J. D. W. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent) |
| Cairns, Thomas | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Marnham, F. J. |
| Caldwell, James | Gulland, John W. | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Cameron, Robert | Haddock, George R. | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Menzies, Walter |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hamilton, Marquess of | Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r) | Molteno, Percy Alfred |
| Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. | Montagu, E. S. |
| Cave, George | Hart-Davies, T. | Montgomery, H. H. |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Haworth, Arthur A. | Morrell, Philip |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r |
| Cherry, R. R. | Hedges, A. Paget | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Helmsley, Viscount | Nuttall, Harry |
| Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Clarke, Sir Edward (City London | Henry, Charles S. | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.) | Paul, Herbert |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS. Edm'd | Paulton, James Mellor |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Higham, John Sharp | Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Phillipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.) | Simon, John Allsebrook | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Radford, G. H. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Watt, H. Anderson |
| Rawlinson, John Frederick P. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Wedgwood, Josiah C |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Stand) | Whitbread, Howard |
| Rees, J. D. | Snowdon, P. | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Rendall, Athelstan | Soares, Ernest J. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Renton, Major Leslie | Spicer, Albert | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Rickett, J. Compton | Stanger, H. Y. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Starkey, John R. | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Robinson, S. | Stuart, James (Sunderland) | Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Sutherland, J. E. | Williamson, G. W. (Worcester) |
| Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Rose, Charles Day | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.) |
| Rowlands, J. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Runciman, Walter | Tomkinson, James | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Toulmin, George | Winfrey, R. |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd |
| Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Verney, F. W. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart- |
| Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester) | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | |
| Sears, J. E. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Shackleton, David James | Walters, John Tudor | |
| Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton |
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ While the original Question was being put—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR, seated and with his hat on, said: I desire to raise a point of order. May I respectfully ask whether there was not an arrangement at Question time, or, perhaps, an understanding arrived at, that this discussion should not terminate to-night? I do not desire to suggest that there is a question of bad faith or good faith, but—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURQuite true, it is not.
§ MR. HALDANEMay I say on that point—
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.