§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th August], "That the Report stage of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill be brought to a conclusion in three allotted days; and (a) That the new Clauses and Clauses 1 to 5 of the Bill be proceeded with and proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day: and (b) That the Clauses of the Bill following Clause 5 to the end of Part II. of the Bill (if and so far as not previously disposed of), be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day; and (c) That the remaining Clauses of the Bill and the Schedules and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage of the Bill to a conclusion (if and so far as not previously disposed of) be proceeded with on the third allotted day, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day.
§ At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, or if that day is a Friday at 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any new Clauses or Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given (but no other Clauses or Amendments), and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
§ Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any allotted day shall, instead of being taken on that day as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill for that day, and any Private 633 Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding the Standing Order "Sittings of the House."
§ At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday or Saturday at 5 p.m., Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
§ After the passing of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill stand as first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion to recommit the Bill, nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order 10, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without Debate.—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ Question again proposed.
§ * MR. CHAPLIN (Surrey, Wimbledon)
said he could not allow the Motion to pass without expressing his surprise and even his astonishment that the Prime Minister should have thought it his duty to make that proposal to the House without offering or even attempting to offer a single reason of any sort or kind in justification of it.
§ * MR. CHAPLIN
said he was perfectly well aware of that, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had reminded him, for curiously enough the report of the Prime Minister's speech absolutely confirmed his view that there was not the smallest reason for or justification of this action. The right hon. Gentleman had claimed that the Government had endeavoured to allot the time in such a way as to give the best opportunity for considering important matters, and no doubt they had done so, but the result of the endeavour had been singularly unfortunate. During the discussion at an earlier period of the Session of the new rules as to Standing Committees the Prime Minister, as reported in Hansard, claimed to have enlarged the liberties and privileges of Members on the Report stage to make up for the curtailment of Committees in the Whole House. That 634 undertaking, given on the 11th April this year, had certainly not been fulfilled. He quite acknowledged that the Bill now under discussion was not so extreme as the other Bills before Parliament dealing with the land of the United Kingdom, because it did not introduce the principle of dual ownership nor did it involve such a complete revolution in our land system as was embodied in the Scottish and Irish Land Bills. But it did propose the most drastic changes in our land system in England that he ever remembered since he came into Parliament, which changes required earnest and most serious consideration. No one pretended that any complaint could be made of the proceedings of the Committee upstairs, and they escaped the violent closure so repeatedly applied to the Scottish Bill. That proved that no time was wasted, and yet it took fourteen days to consider the Bill in Committee, and many of the sittings were much prolonged. The Bill contained forty-seven clauses and two long and important schedules. Yet only three days were offered for discussion on Report. Enormous interest was taken in this measure out of doors, as the letters coming to him by every post testified; but excellent precautions were being taken to prevent any reports reaching the public of the views of the House of Commons on some of the most important questions involved. It was not a very courageous policy, but the knife of the guillotine would be resorted to instead of the weapons of argument. Let them consider how the time for discussion was to be allocated, and the character of some of the questions which would have to be discussed. The first five clauses of the Bill, overriding the wishes of the county councils, which occupied the Committee five or six days, were to be disposed of in one day on Report. Nothing in his judgment could be more important than that proposal, which was an absolute and entire departure from the principles of legislation hitherto adopted in this country. In Clause 5 there was a proposal for compelling the county council to pay out of its own funds for proceedings of which it entirely disapproved. It was the last clause in that section of the Bill—and Subsection (3) of that clause, which was only inserted in the Committee after a division in which the Government was defeated—would be the last question for consideration that night. Neither of 635 these questions might even be reached. Ten most important questions were raised in the next nineteen clauses, all of which were to be discussed on the second day. There were the questions whether the new holders should be owners or only leaseholders; whether it should be compulsory purchase or compulsory hire by the county council; the number of dwellings to be erected on an allotment or small holding; borrowing powers; repayment of expenses to the county council in certain cases; the transfer to the parishes of the control of the allotments, even where no parish council exists; the limitation of parish borrowing powers; the relative size of allotments to small holdings; the power of the Government Department to override the county councils in their views on the question of allotments, and the new clause inserted at the last moment giving the London County Council power to establish colonies of allotment holders, a power which surely should have been given to the borough councils. On the third day they had twenty-one clauses and the schedules to consider, all again dealing with most important matters, including that of the compensation to be given to the owners and occupiers, or sitting tenants, who were to be dispossessed. He thought the House was entitled to some explanation from the Government of the reasons by which they had been guided in depriving the House of anything like an adequate time to deal with proposals which he considered to be, if not as extreme as the proposals for Ireland and Scotland, the most serious proposals with regard to the land in England and Wales he could remember since he first entered Parliament. He held that the pressure of time was no excuse for this procedure, for it was the duty of the Government, when they had decided to bring in this important measure, to introduce it at such a reasonable time in the session that it could be fittingly and properly discussed in both Houses of Parliament.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said there were in this Bill two principles which were undoubtedly controversial and matters of importance; but they had, he contended, been decided by the House on the Second Reading, and the Government were entitled to 636 assume that they were not likely to be raised on the Report stage. The first of those two principles was embodied in the clause which related to the action the Board of Agriculture might take in default of action by the county council. He could not agree that that principle was a complete novelty in our legislation. There was, at all events, the precedent of the Defaulting Authorities Act. In that case the action of the central department was of a hostile character, whereas the action of the Board of Agriculture under this Bill would proceed on friendly rather than on hostile lines. But the debate on that principle was, as he had said, concluded by the Second Reading of the Bill. With regard to the proceedings in Committee, it was only fair to the right hon. Gentleman who led the Opposition upstairs to say that he acted with the greatest possible consideration for what was fair both to the Government and to the Opposition, and displayed also the greatest care for the proper economy of time. The other important principle raised by the Bill was that of compulsory hiring, and that again, he contended, was concluded on the Second Reading. It was very hard to see that on any day the House would really have very much to do in any of the compartments into which the Bill was divided. With regard to the first five clauses, any one who objected to the principle contained in them ought to have opposed the Second Reading. The next day was to be devoted to a number of clauses relating to the Amendment of the Small Holdings Act of 1892, and not one of them appeared to him to raise any great controversial matter. Then with regard to the question of the acquisition of land, which was to be dealt with on the third day, the points connected with that question were points of detail only. Ho held that the Government had given a very fair and ample amount of time in which to deal with the groups of clauses.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E)
said he could not allow the doctrine laid down by the Solicitor-General to pass without protest. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that if they took objection to hiring as against purchase, or the overriding of the county councils, they ought to have opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, or taken those exceptions on the Second Reading, because these were among the 637 principles of the measure. If they had followed that course and voted against the Second Reading, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends would have gone down to the country and denounced them as being opposed to any extension of the system of small holdings and allotments. The hon. and learned Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen supporting the Government had not acted on that principle when in opposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman was vigorously opposed to the Aliens Bill. Did he vote against the Second Reading? Of course not.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said he had been informed that they had not voted against the Second Reading, but it did not matter whether they had or had not, it was immaterial to his point, which was that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the passing of the Second Reading, with or without a division, settled all the principles of the Bill, and that they had no business to raise them again, and had no claim to discuss them.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
I said that we were fairly entitled to assume that when the Second Reading of a Bill is passed without a division the House has accepted the vital principles of the Bill.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Had the Opposition accepted the vital principles of the Aliens Bill? Of course they had not. They fought every line of it as far as they could, whether they divided upon the Second Reading or not. The distinction which the hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn as to vital principles was one invented for the purposes of that debate. Had they divided on the Second Reading of this Bill every hon. Member knew, as he had said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have gone to the country and told the people that they were opposed to an extension of the system of small holdings and allotments. He submitted that the right test was that they divided on the Second Reading when they believed that it was impossible to make the Bill a good Bill by changing it in Committee or on Report. They could have altered the 638 principle of this Bill in Committee into one of purchase had the majority of the House been willing to do so. Then as to overriding the local elective representatives, they could perhaps have altered that in Committee, if they had been allowed to discuss it. He had only risen, however, to enter his protest against the doctrine invented by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought on the spur of the moment, to justify the course which the Government were now taking. He protested against the view that, because they allowed the Second Reading of a Bill without opposition, therefore they were to be taken as having accepted the great and important principles of the measure.
§ MAJOR SEELY
said he wished to enter a protest with regard to certain details of this Resolution relating to the prevention of adjournments of the House under Standing Order 10. He was aware that right hon. Gentlemen opposite joined with his right hon. friend the Prime Minister and Members on the Treasury Bench in regarding unfavourably these motions for adjournment, because they were anxious to get on with the business; but private Members were of opinion that although it was of importance to pass Bills, it was of infinitely greater importance that they should retain their power to discuss grievances. This matter had become acute only last week when hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to move the adjournment in regard to the state of affairs in Belfast. They ought to have been able to move the adjournment. Troops had been called out in large numbers, and danger was anticipated, and matters of the gravest consequence had arisen which that House ought to have found it possible to discuss. By the Motion which they were now going to pass, and which followed the precedent set by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and was, therefore, no Party question, they were depriving themselves during the remainder, or a great portion, of the session, from moving the adjournment of the House. He appealed to his right hon. friend the Prime Minister, who had again and again expressed his view that this was a Parliament House, and that its principal function was debate. While he did not in the least dispute the necessity for guillotine Motions of this kind, deplorable as they undoubtedly were, 639 still he appealed to his right hon. friend that when next he moved such a Motion, he should leave out the obnoxious words, "nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order 10." He could not vote for a Motion of this kind in future if it contained those words, but, since it followed precedent so closely, in the circumstances he should vote for it on this occasion.
§ * MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)
said the Solicitor-General had referred to this measure as having nothing controversial in it, but the hon. and learned Gentleman would remember there were two subsections which tended directly to destroy the operation of the Act of 1892. One subsection would make almost impossible any further effort of the county councils to put in operation the Act of 1892; he referred to the five acres limit for small holdings, and in regard to which, he was happy to say, the Government were defeated by two and the Act was saved. So much for the uncontroversial character of the measure. The other subsection, which still remained in the Bill, was a direct attack on the Act of 1892, and the effect of it would be that where there was a colony of peasants now in existence, as they died, under certain circumstances the holdings would be extinguished as ownerships and would be let as tenancies. These were very controversial matters in his opinion, and if the country had known the principles of the measure—and they were bound to let them know some way or other, in spite of the hole-and-corner manner in which this Bill had been conducted—they would have rejected it unanimously. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor - General had made very light of the coercion of the county councils, and had cited the Education Act, but he had forgotten that in the case of the Education Act the central authority supplied the bulk of the money, and therefore they naturally had something to say. But in this case the local authority supplied the money, and it was the local authority that was to secure repayment. Therefore there was no precedent to be found in the case of the Education Act. The Government were afraid of the example of the Act of 1892, which was an unqualified success so far as it had been put into force, and therefore 640 they wanted to stifle discussion, and, so far as they were concerned, they would succeed in stifling discussion.
§ MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)
said hitherto all the speeches had been from the Front Benches, and he thought, therefore, that it was just as well that they should hear an independent voice from the back benches. All previous speakers had addressed themselves to the merits of the Land Bill which they were to discuss next week or three or four days; in anything he desired to say he would try to keep as much as possible to the Motion. He should vote without hesitation with the Prime Minister, though he would do so with great reluctance. Ho voted without hesitation because he desired to support the Government in this kind of legislation. It was not that he loved the guillotine more, but that he loved sterility loss, that he would vote for the Motion. He would vote for it also because it applied to legislation dealing with the most important of all questions, namely, the land question. They desired to bring together the land and the people. Wed them and there was joy, divorce them and there was sorrow. But he voted for the Motion with reluctance, because no one detested the guillotine and closure more than he did. When they had to pass a guillotine Resolution by the aid of the closure things had got to a point at which he thought the House of Commons should reconsider its ways. He applied that criticism to all Parties, and not to any particular Party, because it was the duty all of to consider how the great traditions of the House could best be maintained without the introduction of measures of this kind. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He hoped the cheers of hon. Members opposite augured well for their future action, because they had not been unwilling recently to waste the time of the House. [Cries of "No."] Hon. Members opposite had occupied the time of the House with the deliberate purpose of wasting Government time. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no."] If they did not get rid of the guillotine and the closure it would compass the ruin of the House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition had said that the guillotine in the end must lead to the destruction of the British Government. He regarded free discussion as the life-blood of that assembly, and he hoped all parties would 641 strive to maintain the great glory of the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: Are you going to vote against this Motion?] He agreed that the conduct and speeches of the Opposition made this Motion necessary. [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: What have we done?] The Leader of the Opposition had said that laws enacted under the closure could not have the same weight and authority with those who had to obey them as if they had been passed in the old fashion. Whenever he had spoken with his colleagues on this question they all agreed that the guillotine was bad, but they replied, "What can we do? There were some things they could do. It had been suggested that a business Committee should allocate the time to be given to the different parts of all important measures. He thought it would be a great improvement. ["Agreed."] It had been pointed out that there were certain Standing Orders which would enable Mr. Speaker and the Chairman to exercise a more rigid control over speeches which were obviously made for the purpose of wasting time. It had never been his misfortune to be in opposition. [Cries of "Divide, divide," and "Question."] The Standing Orders did not allow an hon. Member to make irrelevant remarks.
§ * MR. SPEAKER
I am afraid I shall have to put that Standing Order in force myself against the hon. Member, who is really taking a very comprehensive view of this question. He is departing from the strict limits of the Motion before the House.
§ MR. BYLES
said he was much obliged to Mr. Speaker for giving him such a striking example of the kind of repression he was advocating. ["Question."] If they stuck to their old methods of procedure and remembered what they were doing to the House of Commons by this policy; if they only showed in regard to this question some of the patriotism which hon. Members laid claim to, they would try and put the conduct of the business of the House under such conditions as Mould render Motions of the character they were now considering quite unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon had argued that the practice of individual closure should be revived in this House. Many years ago 642 a Speaker of the House of Commons laid down the ruling that an hon. Member had the right to speak but the House had the right to judge whether they would hear him. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] On another occasion a Member's speech was interrupted by humming, and the Member was obliged to resume his seat. [Cries of "Hum, hum."] He was glad hon. Members opposite had been so quick to learn this lesson. Probably some hon. members like himself occasionally went to the Oval and Lords to see a cricket match. There was often a keen contest in those matches, just as there was between one Party and another in that House, but when a man had his middle stump knocked down he generally acted in a sportsmanlike manner, and hon. Members in a minority ought to accept the decision of the umpire, which in the House of Commons was the Division Lobby.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
said there was really no valid reason for a guillotine Motion in this case. Notice had been given of the Motion before a single Amendment to the Bill had appeared on the Paper, and before anyone knew how many Amendments were to be put down, or how long the discussion on the Report stage was likely to take. It had been admitted by every speaker on the Government benches that the Unionist Members had not wasted time in the discussions in Committee. Time had been needlessly consumed by hon. Members opposite, and that had been admitted by some of their own speakers and in their own papers. He was confident that if, instead of proposing a guillotine Motion, the Government had given reasonable time, say until midnight on three or four days, for the consideration of the Bill by the House, the discussions could have been got through without the application of the closure. The division of time in the proposed Motion was such that some of the most important matters in the Bill must be shut out from discussion. On the first day much time might be taken up in the discussion of the new clauses, and he was afraid there would not be much opportunity for the discussion of the really important clauses of the Bill which were to be disposed of on that day. Clause 5 was the last in the group to be dealt with on the first day. That was possibly the most important 643 clause in the Bill, and they knew perfectly well that there was no chance whatever of its being adequately discussed. He hoped it would be possible to alter the allocation of time so as to begin the second day's discussion with Clause 5. The question of allotments came at the end of the second day's group, and he did not think they would get a word said upon it.
§ MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.)
asked the Prime Minister whether it was essential to retain in the Resolution the words "nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order 10," which would have the effect of preventing the adjournment of the House being moved to call attention to any definite matter of urgent public importance on any day when the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill was put down at the first Order of the day. At the present moment there was a very serious situation in Belfast, and at any moment there might be a terrible massacre. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member opposite that this was too serious a matter to be allowed to go without protest. If the Prime Minister could see his way to delete these words he and his colleagues would readily vote for the Motion.
§ to the suggestion, for to allow opportnnities for moving the adjournment of the House would be inconsistent with the conception of the guillotine Resolution. The portion of time at the disposal of the House for the transaction of its business was already too short.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
said it would be perfectly easy to put words in the Motion to provide that if a certain amount of time was taken up in the discussion of a Motion for the adjournment of the House, an equivalent amount of time could be given to the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill later on. He thought that would meet the whole case.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
said that that was part of the proposals of the Procedure Committee which the Government hoped would secure the assent of the House.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 48. (Division List No. 398.)645
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cheetham, John Frederick||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Clynes, J. R.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caith'ss-sh|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cooper, G. J.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Cowan, W. H.||Hazel, Dr. A. E.|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Crooks, William||Henry, Charles S.|
|Beale, W. P.||Dalziel, James Henry||Holden, E. Hopkinson|
|Bell, Richard||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.||Duckworth, James||Hudson, Walter|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Idris, T. H. W.|
|Bethell, T. B. (Essex, Maldon)||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Black, Arthur W.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Elibank, Master of||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire|
|Brace, William||Erskine, David C.||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Branch, James||Essex, R. W.||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Brigg, John||Everett, R. Lacey||Kelley, George D.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Fenwick, Charles||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Findlay, Alexander||Lambert, George|
|Byles, William Pollard||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lamont, Norman|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Gooch, George Peabody||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Stanger, H. Y.|
|Llewis, John Herbert||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||O'Grady, J.||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Lough, Thomas||Paulton, James Mellor||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Lupton, Arnold||Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Ure, Alexander|
|Maclean, Donald||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Pullar, Sir Robert||Walters, John Tudor|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Radford, G. H.||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|M'Callum, John M.||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Waring, Walter|
|M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Rees, J. D.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|M'Killop, W.||Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton||Waterlow, D. S.|
|M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Rickett, J. Compton||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Maddison, Frederick||Ridsdale, E. A.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||White, Luke, (York, E. R.)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Marnham, F. J.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Massie, J.||Rowlands, J.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Russell, T. W.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Sears, J. E.||Wilis, Arthur Walters|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Seddon, J.||Wilon, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Seely, Colonel||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|Morrell, Philip||Sherwell, Arthur James||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Murray, James||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Napier, T. B.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Nicholls, George||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease|
|Nolan, Joseph||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Snowden, P.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Craik, Sir Henry||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Balcarres, Lord||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.||Du Cros, Harvey||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Barrie H. T. (Londonderry, N.||Fell, Arthur||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)||Stanley, Hon. Arthiur (Ormskirk|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Gordon, J.||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cave, George||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.||Hunt, Rowland||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Wyndham, Et. Hon. George|
|Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Younger, George|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Moore, William||Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Nield, Herbert|
§ Ordered accordingly.