§ LORD R. CECIL(Marylebone, E.) rose to call attention to the letter appearing inThe Times of Friday last, under the heading "Honours and Party Funds" and purporting to be written by the hon. Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Lea).
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
As this question was adjourned from last Friday because of the absence of the†See (4)Debates, clxxvi., 485–6.347 hon. Member for East St. Pancras, and as we are all anxious to get to the debate on preference, may I ask if it cannot be arranged to put the matter off again till to-morrow?
§ LORD R. CECIL
then asked, in accordance with the usual formal course, that the letter be read at the Table.
§ The CLERK at the Table read the letter as follows—
§ "SIR,—I put a Question to the Prime Minister to-day at Question time in the House of Commons, with reference to a knighthood conferred on a director of a company which had been admitted from the Treasury Bench to have been guilty of a gross fraud on the Admiralty—one endangering a first-class battleship with all its crew
§ "I found that the rules and regulations of the House debarred me from criticising such acts of the Sovereign, even when those acts are committed on the recommendation of, or at the instigation of, either the Prime Minister on members of the Cabinet.
§ "I think therefore it is only right that the matter should be ventilated through the columns of the Press.
§ "If ever there has been a Government since 1832 which was pledged up to the hilt to strive for ideals held in respect by the democracy of this country, it is the present Government with its vast majority of Liberals and Radicals
§ "A fortnight ago we spent three days in the House of Commons discussing a pious Resolution affecting the veto of the House of Lords. In the course of that debate Liberals and Radicals got up and vied with each other in denunciation of the principle of hereditary legislation.
§ "At the time of this debate I put a couple of Questions to the clerks at the Table. These Questions were refused. I asked in those questions that the Prime Minister should give the House an assurance that no addition should be made to the peerage whilst this Government was in power, and, further, that the Prime Minister would in no case recommend to the Sovereign any persons for baronetcies or other forms of so-called honour, I think this line of conduct would have been consistent on our part; but, sir, there is another and graver aspect to the matter. These honours are bought and sold, the proceeds going principally to the war chest of the Party in office at the time these so-called honours are conferred. The Party funds are presided over by the Chief Whip. At times of election, if candidates come forward and cannot pay their expensesin to to, grants-in-aid are given; and should the candidate become a Member, his vote and support of the Government are looked upon as secure, no 348 matter what the issue or what pledges he may have given his constituents. Should he rebel and vote according to his conscience, to his pledges, or to what he is persuaded his constituents would wish him to do, then he is reproached by the Party Whips for not having held to what they look upon as a bargain. A fund is, perhaps, necessary, and, were the fund public, no harm would be done. Those who had subscribed would be known, and their intentions could be judged.
§ "Sir, in inditing this protest, I sincerely and humbly hope that it may be the means of abolishing one of the hypocrisies of public life.
§ Yours faithfully,
§ "HUGH CECIL LEA
§ "House of Commons,
§ "July 11 the."
§ LORD R. CECIL
The portion of the letter which I venture to submit is clearly a breach of privilege is that which runs as follows—The Party funds are presided over by the Chief Whip. At times of election, if candidates come forward and cannot pay their expensesin toto, grants-in-aid are given; and, should the candidate become a Member, his vote and support of the Government are looked upon as secure, no matter what the issue or what pledges he may have given his constituents. Should he rebel and vote according to his conscience, to his pledges, or to what he is persuaded his constituents would wish him to do, then he is reproached by the Party Whips for not having held to what they look upon as a bargain. A fund is, perhaps, necessary, and were the fund public, no harm would be done.I think the House will agree that that is a serious charge. It amounts to this, that the hon. Member with all responsibility which attaches to any utterance in this House, charges the Government of the day with amassing a fund by very discreditable means, and then using that fund for the attempted corruption of certain hon. Members. That that is not too strong a summary of how the letter will be understood universally is shown by a letter which appeared in theDaily News to-day, over the signature of a well-known Liberal writer, Mr. Chesterton, who says—So long as that mass of money remains unaudited, that mass of money is omnipotent. Rich men pay into it and are made Peers; poor men are paid out of it and are made slaves. But the thing is not written down anywhere, so that we can neither prove the bribery nor abolish the slavery.Now, Sir, that seems to be almost as serious a charge as it is possible to bring against the Chief Whip, against the hon. Member who happens to be the Chief 349 Whip of the Ministerial Party, and also a very serious charge—and this, to my mind, is the public importance of it—against the independence and integrity of the House of Commons. We heard a little time ago that it was desirable that the will of the people as expressed by this House should prevail. There will be found not a few people who will say that if this charge is uncontradicted and un-investigated that it is natural the Government should desire that form of the will of the people to prevail since they had already paid for it. I venture to submit that if the charge made by the hon. Member is untrue, it is a great outrage on the decency of public life, as well as a great breach of the privileges of this House. If, on the other hand, the charge be true—if it be really the case that there is an organised attempt to sell honours in order to corrupt Members of Parliament—then it is one of the most vital and important matters with which this House can possibly deal. That it is a breach of privilege I submit to the House is undoubted. On a less serious question in 1893 Mr. Gladstone said—If I am asked whether a charge of corruption against the body of Members of this House constitutes a breach of privilege, I am afraid it is not possible for me to give any answer but one, and that in the affirmative.I propose simply to move, "That the letter of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras, published inThe Times newspaper on Friday last, is a breach of the privileges of this House, and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations made in that letter of the hon. Member and to report their opinion thereupon to this House."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the letter of the hon. Member for East St. Pancras, published inThe Times newspaper of Friday last, is a breach of the privileges of this House, and that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations made in the letter by the hon. Member, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.)
Sir, it is a matter of sincere grief to me that I should be accused of a breach of the privileges of this House, for I regard this House with the greatest respect 350 and veneration, as the most indispensable and essential of all the institutions of the country. The statements I have made were made, on the contrary, with the sole desire to maintain the purity of both Houses of Parliament, and especially to maintain the reputation of this House with the country. The charge that honours are bought and sold is no doubt a serious one, but the House knows well, every candid Member knows from his own private conversations and public reading, that the charge is not made now or by me for the first time. So long ago as the 16th December, 1905, theSaturday Review, although a supporter of the then existing Government, made similar charges, accompanied by names, in an article entitled "The Adulteration of the Peerage." Since then the charge has been repeated in published correspondence and in letters to the Press, whereof one signed "M.P." presumably a Member of this House, appeared in theMorning Post last Saturday, while another appears in theDaily News of this day. And during nearly two years such charges have been matter of common conversation. This is a matter which involves the honour of this House. I humbly conceive that when such charges as these have been made, have been so often repeated, are still so generally current, and have now been made the object of a Motion in this House, and of other Motions still on the Paper, it behoves those involved to claim and to secure that they shall receive due investigation by some competent and independent tribunal, possibly a Committee of this House—a secret Committee if that be preferred—with power to send for persons, papers, and records. I believe that such a Committee would be indisputably convinced that the most serious grounds and the most pregnant facts exist, giving colour to the allegations made, but I beg the House to believe that, should it happily prove to be otherwise, no Member of the House will more rejoice than I at its being established that now, as of old time, the high honours of this realm are reserved for personal merit and public service, and are not the object of sale and barter. In 1715 this House impeached at the bar of the House of Lords 351 that famous Tory Premier, the Earl of Oxford, and the 16th Article of the Impeachment was founded upon his recommendation to Queen Anne in 1711 of twelve Peers with the object, as was alleged, of turning the then Whig majority of the Lords in a Tory majority for the greater convenience of the Ministry. By which, says the 16th Article of the Impeachment—The said Earl did most highly abuse the influence he then had with Her Majesty, and prevailed on her to exercise, in the most unprecedented and dangerous manner, that valuable and undoubted prerogative which the wisdom of the laws and the constitution of this Kingdom hath entrusted with the Crown for the rewarding signal virtue and distinguished merit; by which desperate advice he did not only as far as in him lay deprive Her Majesty of the continuance of those seasonable and wholesome counsels in that critical juncture, but wickedly perverted the true and only end of that great and useful prerogative, to the dishonour of the Grown and irreparable mischief to the constitution of Parliament." (Mahon's History of England, Vol., I. page 128.)Sir, I submit to the wisdom of this House that things have reached a point when full investigation is imperatively demanded, and when an independent judgment of an impartial tribunal alone can set at rest allegations which affect the very foundation of the Constitution. Sir, I have repeated charges which the House well knows have long been current—thatsuch desperate advice has of late years again been given, and that the true end of the prerogative has of late years again been wickedly perverted. For myself, Sir, I humbly submit myself to the judgment of this House, begging only that it will believe that what I have done has been done out of the sincere and honest concern I feel for its interests, its credit, its honour.
§ MR. SPEAKER
It is the custom for an hon. Member to withdraw when his conduct is under consideration by the House.
§ MR. LEA having withdrawn,
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs) rose to address the House.
§ MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it 352 seems to me manifestly unjust that the hon. Member should be called upon to withdraw.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I understand that the practical effect of what has occurred is this. The noble Lord opposite, having brought forward a matter which he considers involves a breach of the privileges of this House, and you, Sir, not having expressed any opinion of your own in the matter, which would, I am sure, be conclusive with the House, it is left to the House to judge for itself whether the matter does involve a breach of privilege or net; and it falls to me as part of my duty to tender such advice as I can to the House on the merits of the case. The observations of Sir Erskine May which have been quoted do not appear to me to deal with the specific question to which the noble Lord directs the attention of the House. The noble Lord said that he founded himself upon the latter part of the letter dealing with the alleged moral effect of the practice which he attributes to us upon the action of Members of the House, and he imputes to a large number of his colleagues in this House a willingness to surrender their conscientious opinions, their pledges, and the known desires of their constituents in consequence of their—
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
No, the writer of the letter brings the statement forward that colleagues of his are willing to surrender the promptings of their conscience, and the pledges they have given, and the wishes of their constituents, because they have received pecuniary assistance from the Whips of the Party to which they professedly belong. That is a different question altogether from the mode in which and the motives with which honours are bestowed by the Crown. That is not directly a question of breach of privilege that I can see, and, therefore, I think I 353 should do well to confine my observations to the specific charge, the more or less hypothetical charge, the vague charge, still the very serious charge, which the hon. Member has brought against his colleagues in the House. Let me add that if it is a charge against the Government, it is equally a charge against those who were responsible for the government of the country in previous years, and it is equally a charge against the groups, the Parties of Members sitting below the gangway opposite, who are all equally in the habit—I do not say equally, because I do not know anything about it, but we believe are in the habit of subsidising their Members and, therefore, may be assumed to have the same sort of ignoble and unworthy claim upon their Members, as is attributed on this occasion. What we have to consider to-day is whether the charge so made constitutes a breach of privilege. In dealing with that question by itself I would remark that steadily, and I think in increasing degree, the House has shown itself very unwilling to plunge into these cases of privilege. We have not had many of late years. They seldom, when they are accepted and acted upon, redound to the dignity of the House. The powers of the House to enforce the opinion it entertains of them by some treatment given to those who have committed the breach of privilege are very small, and altogether, as I say, there has been a growing feeling that it should only be in an extreme case that the House should take notice of a charge of this kind. I entirely share that view myself. I believe that in this case, although such accusations or imputations as are brought in this letter against Members of the House are improper and unseemly, and I think unworthy, yet the House, by taking this serious notice of thorn, as suggested by the noble Lord, would not add to its own dignity, and they are better left to the judgment of the country as they stand. I shall end by moving—as was done on a previous occasion by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—as an Amendment to the noble Lord's Motion, "That the House do now proceed to the business of the day." But perhaps it is only right that I should say something, which can only be of a general kind, with regard to the particular 354 allegation made. I am certain from what I have heard that my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, who conducted the affairs of the Liberal Party when we were in Opposition—I mean conducted their affairs in the sense of organisation and discipline among the Members—and my hon. friend who now has that duty imposed upon him, give a most explicit denial to the assertion that they have brought influence to bear on this ground of pecuniary assistance having been given to a Member. They give an explicit denial to the imputation that they have ever used that fact in order to coerce or induce a Member to give a vote in a particular way. On their behalf and on my own, I give a most categorical and straightforward denial. I do repeat, and I think our countrymen will believe, that this is so, and that, although accusations of this sort may be made in letters and in newspapers and elsewhere, the House will best consult its own dignity by avoiding taking undue notice of this impropriety, as I think, on the part of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, and that, therefore, the proper course for us to take is to proceed, as I shall move, to the business of the day. I beg to move.
§ Amendment proposed—
§ "To leave out all the words after the word 'that,' in order to insert the words 'this House do now proceed to the business of the day.'"
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
It seems necessary that I should add something to what has fallen from the Leader of the House. I think the course he has taken, which precisely follows one I recommended to the House when I was in his place, is best adapted to maintain the dignity of our proceedings. It is to be remembered that if this charge had been made, not by a Member of this House, but by a newspaper, we should have had one of those old conflicts with the Press which never yet redounded to the credit of the House. I do not think we ought to take a different measure with regard to one of our own Members from that which we are prepared to take 355 in reference to the owner of a paper. That being so, I do not see that any better course can be put before the House than that recommended on the authority of its Leader. I have not the least doubt that what he says about his own Party is absolutely true, and if a similar assurance is required with regard to that Party of which I am a member, that assurance I am quite ready to give. Let me say further, that I hope the hon. Gentleman, against whom I trust we do not intend to proceed, will himself see the propriety, when he is called at your instance, Sir, of expressing his regret for what has fallen from him. Whether or not he chooses to take that course, which is the right and best course, I am convinced that it would not be to the honour and dignity of this House to proceed further with the matter.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he was afraid that personally he could not accept the suggestion made by the Leader of the House, even though it had been supported by his right hon. friend. The question of a breach of privilege committed by a newspaper was really and substantially different altogether from a breach of privilege by a Member of that House, They ordered the editor to attend and they reprimanded him. That was not a result open to a Member of that House and it was a substantial reason why he was personally unable to accept the suggestion. It had been said, and no doubt truly said by the right hon. Gentlemen, that, so far as they knew, there was no truth in the charge made by the hon. Member; but he thought it of enormous importance to Members of that House that this should be stated, not only on the authority of right hon. Gentlemen, but by clear evidence and a searching investigation. He saw no method of making that investigation except by appointing a Select Committee, and he thought the House would be very ill-advised indeed if it left itself open to the charge that, after an accusation undoubtedly affecting its honour, publicly made, and publicly brought to its notice, it prevented the investigation of that charge. It was a matter in which every Member of the House had as great an interest even as right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Opposi- 356 tion Bench and the Treasury Bench. They were all guardians of the honour of the House, and he appealed to hon. Members to support him in the division which he was forced to take in order to ascertain what the feeling of the House was in the matter.
§ MR. SHACKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)
said the Prime Minister had made a reference in his speech to the Labour Party, though he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had any ill-will in what he said; but some of his hon. friends seemed to think that the reference conveyed the idea that they were a subsidised Party ["No."] Some of his hon. friends he knew took that view, and he wanted to correct the impression. So far as the Labour Party were concerned, he could safely say that whatever money they received all information in regard to it was public property. The subscriptions they received from their people all over the country, and their payments were published quarterly, after having been duly audited. As far as they were concerned, they were perfectly willing that there should be an inquiry.
§ MR. R. DUNCAN (Lanarkshire, Govan)
said that as a Member comparatively new to the House he felt some diffidence in speaking upon a subject of such vital importance to the well-being of Parliament, and on which such opinions had been expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. There could be little doubt that some customs or practices were handed down which perhaps without being actually culpable, did call for amendment, and this matter, he believed, touched upon one of these. Were they to refuse to take the course which led to investigation and possible reform, it seemed to him they would lose, and justly lose, some of the confidence of the country. It would be held that they were afraid to look into the real state of affairs. For that reason he supported the Motion of the noble and learned Member for Marylebone.
§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)
said that charges of a most serious character had been made by a Member of that House, and what did the 357 Prime Minister say in reply? He said he had consulted the Home Secretary and the Patronage Secretary, who had informed him that neither in this nor the last Parliament had any influence been brought to bear on the ground of pecuniary assistance having been given to the party. Was the Prime Minister prepared to get up and state that honours had never been conferred for payments made? If the Prime Minister would get up and say—
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order. That is not the point. It is true that some imputations of that kind are contained in the letter, but that is not the point of privilege which has been raised.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
pointed out that the noble Lord's Resolution was divided into two parts, and the second part asked that a Select Committee should be appointed. The allegation in the letter was that honours were bought and sold, and they wanted to know whether that was true or not.
§ MR. MARKHAM
said he would deal with the matter in accordance with the latter part of the noble Lord's Resolution. The question before the House was a very simple one. It was a notorious fact that honours were bought and sold for political services, and this charge had been made before, not only by the hon. Member for East St. Pancras but also by the late Member for Northampton. He was prepared to give an instance during the time of the late
§ administration where an honour was given for the rendering of a political service.
§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member appears to be mixing up two things. Assuming the allegation which he makes is true, that would not constitute a breach of privilege. The hon. Member is not confining his remarks to the breach of privilege, but he is raising constitutional questions which are not relevant to the question before the House.
§ MR. MARKHAM
said that if the Prime Minister would rise in his place and say that the allegations contained in the letter were unfounded he was prepared to vote against this Resolution.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
thought hon. Members were at liberty to consider whether the whole contents of the document constituted a breach of privilege or not. The document contained a very serious charge, not against any particular Minister, but against successive Ministers of corrupt conduct.
§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, order. The point the hon. Member is raising is not, as I have already pointed out, relevant to the matter we are now discussing, and he must not raise that question again.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 235. (Division List No. 282.)359
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Ambrose, Robert||Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Fell, Arthur|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cleland, J. W.||Fletcher, J. S.|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Beauchamp, E.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Craik, Sir Henry||Gilhooly, James|
|Bignold, Sir, Arthur||Crean, Eugene||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius|
|Black, Arthur W.||Cullinan, J.||Halpin, J.|
|Boland, John||Curran, Peter Francis||Harris, Frederick Leverton|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Donelan, Captain A.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Duffy, William J.||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Hazleton, Richard|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Faber, George Denison (York)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Roche, Augustine (Cork)|
|Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edmd's)||Meagher, Michael||Roche, John (Galway, East)|
|Hills, J. W.||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Rose, Charles Day|
|Hodge, John||Mooney, J. J.||Seely, Major J. B.|
|Hogan, Michael||Morpeth, Viscount||Shackleton, David James|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Hudson, Walter||Nolan, Joseph||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford. East)|
|Hunt, Rowland||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Jowett, F. W.||O'Grady, J.||Steadman, W. C.|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)|
|Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)||O'Malley, William||Verney, F. W.|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Wardle, George J.|
|Liddell, Henry||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Lowe, Sir Francis William||Parker, James (Halifax)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Lundon, W.||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Young, Samuel|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Younger, George|
|Macpherson, J. T.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)||Redmond, William (Clare)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Remnant, James Farquharson||Lord Robert Cecil and Mr.|
|M'Micking, Major G.||Richards. T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)||Markham.|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Glendinning, R. G.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.)||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Greenwood, Hamar (York)|
|Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Gulland, John W.|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major||Clough, William||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Coats. Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis|
|Astbury, John Meir||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hart-Davies, T.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Cooper, G. J.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Haworth, Arthur A.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Cremer, Sir William Randal||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Barker, John||Crombie, John William||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Crosfield, A. H.||Henry, Charles S.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Crossley, William J.||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)|
|Barnard, E. B.||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Beale, W. P.||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Bennett, E. N.||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Idris, T. H. W.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Jackson, R. S.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Dobson, Thomas W.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Branch, James||Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Elibank, Master of||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Erskine, David C.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Esslemont, George Birnie||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Evans, Samuel T.||Lamont, Norman|
|Bull, Sir William James||Everett, R. Lacey||Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Fenwick, Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Ferens, T. R.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Forster, Henry William||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Cameron, Robert||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Fullerton, Hugh||Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Furness, Sir Christopher||Long. Col. Charles W. (Evesham)|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S).|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Lough, Thomas||Pullar, Sir Robert||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Lupton, Arnold||Radford, G. H.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Rainy, A. Rolland||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Raphael, Herbert H.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Thornton, Percy M.|
|M'Callun, John M.||Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro')||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|M'Crae, George||Rees, J. D.||Toulmin, George|
|M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Rickett, J. Compton||Valentia, Viscount|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Menzies, Walter||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||Wason Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Whit bread, Howard|
|Mond, A.||Rogers, F. E. Newman||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Montagu, E. S.||Rowlands, J.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Runciman, Walter||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Morgan, T. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Russell, T. W.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Morse, L. L.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Murray, James||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)|
|Myer, Horatio||Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Napier, T. B.||Sears, J. E.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Seaverns, J. H.||Williamson, A.|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)||Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Partington, Oswald||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Paulton, James Mellor||Smeaton, Donald, Mackenzie||Winfrey, R.|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. S. Stuart-|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Soares, Ernest J.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Perks, Robert William||Stanger, H. Y.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Pirie, Duncan V.||Stavcley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Pease.|
|Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
§ Proposed words added.
§ Resolved, "That this House do now proceed to the business of the day."