HC Deb 30 July 1907 vol 179 cc858-89

Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to the Earl of Cromer, O.M., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., K.C.S.I., C.I.E., in recognition of his eminent services as Agent and Consul-General in Egypt," resumed.


said that, in accordance with the notice he had already given, he rose to object to the Vote. He did not think it was necessary to say that in the action he was taking he was not in the slightest degree actuated by any personal motive or feeling against Lord Cromer. Personally, he had no acquaintance with Lord Cromer, and he shared the feeling which was generally aroused by the statement of the Prime Minister that Lord Cromer had returned from Egypt in a shattered condition of health. His action was inspired entirely by the view he took of the matter from the point of view of the public. He submitted that Lord Cromer was not entitled to this unprecedented and enormous sum of money. The Prime Minister had frankly admitted that it was an unprecedented demand upon Parliament. He had told them that while it was true that great military leaders, such as Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener, had been granted large sums of money for services rendered over and above the pay to which they were ordinarily entitled, there was no precedent for granting a sum of money of this kind to a civil servant. He asked the right hon. Gentleman at Question time one day to refer him to the case of any civil servant in the position of Lord Cromer receiving a large Parliamentary grant, but the only precedent the right hon. Gentleman had given him was that of Sir Rowland Hill, who received a special grant of £25,000 in addition to a pension of the full amount of his salary. He noticed to-night with some interest that the Prime Minister did not refer to the precedent of the grant to Sir Rowland Hill; he entirely refrained from referring to any other so-called precedent. He himself maintained that there was really no precedent for the Vote which the Prime Minister now asked Parliament to give. The case of Sir Rowland Hill was not a precedent. Sir Rowland Hill was the author of a great and far-reaching reform, which carried with it immense benefit to all classes of the community. His services were entirely exceptional, and they had been of immense benefit to the Irish people. Therefore, there was in his case some reason why, having acted greatly to the advantage of the British taxpayer, he should be shown some special consideration. But he submitted that Lord Cromer had rendered no such advantageous services to the taxpayer, and. in his opinion, in these times when so many demands were made on Parliament for money for the benefit of large sections of the people who were in dire distress, to ask for this money for Lord Cromer, distinguished though his services might have been, was to do something entirely inconsistent with the spirit of Liberal principles and would be extremely disappointing to large masses of the supporters of the Government. He might be told that Lord Cromer had rendered great services to the Egyptian people. The Prime Minister in his very earnest speech recommending this Vote had reminded the House of the immense services Lord Cromer had rendered to the finances of Egypt; they were told that Lord Cromer found Egypt practically on the verge of bankruptcy. He believed it was perfectly true that Lord Cromer had rendered considerable services to the finances of Egypt, but if he was to be rewarded, surely the reward should come from Egyptian finance, and not from the taxpayers of this country who, after all, had not derived any financial advantage from the reforms effected by Lord Cromer in Egypt. If it was desirable that he should receive this money, then it should be paid to him from Egyptian sources. It was not fair or just that the taxpayers of this country should be asked to pay this enormous sum to Lord Cromer at the very time when, as they knew, they could not leave the House and walk the streets to their homes without seeing on every hand signs of the existence of a large class of deserving unemployed people. He asked the House to consider what Lord Cromer's position in Egypt had been for twenty-four years. During all that time he had been in receipt of a large and adequate salary. He knew that the salary had not at all times been the same, but it had been a considerable salary at all times. Recently it had been over £6,500 a year. Lord Cromer, moreover, was entitled to a pension at the present time of £900 a year. He held that no matter how much they might admire the services of Lord Cromer, they were not entitled to set up a new precedent by voting £50,000 of the people's money to a public servant who had received an adequate salary all the time he had been in Egypt. If Lord Cromer was entitled to this, what about other noblemen who in the opinion of some people had equally deserved the country's favour and bounty? He had never heard of anybody else receiving a grant of this kind. Why was it not proposed for Lord Milner, for instance? He had never heard the most ardent admirers of Lord Cromer speak of him in terms of higher praise and glorification than had been used of Lord Milner. An hon. Member objected; he would sit down to give him an opportunity of explaining to what he objected.


My objection was to speeches which were made from the Treasury Bench concerning Lord Milner in debate last session.


To what statements does the hon. Gentleman refer?


Uncomplimentary statements.


said he was anxious to deal with the matter in a spirit of fairness and without extravagance of language. If the hon. Gentleman challenged him, however, he could assure him that there were people in this country and in Egypt who were prepared to refer to Lord Cromer in terms quite as strong as those which had been used of Lord Milner. What had been particularly the services of Lord Cromer? Had they been in any way political? Was any Member of the Government prepared to get up now and give some information as to the instructions which Lord Cromer received when he was sent to Egypt? He was sent to Egypt, to do what? To carry out the policy of the Government of that day in Cairo. And what was that policy? Acting in co-operation with the Sultan of Turkey, Lord Cromer was to see that the power and authority of the Khedive were re-established with a view to enabling the British Army of occupation to evacuate Egypt. The present Duke of Devonshire, the Marquess of Hartington in those days, declared that the limit for the continued occupation of Egypt might be set at six months. Instead of that, the British Army of occupation had been twenty-four years in Egypt, and there was not the slightest talk or mention of evacuating that country. [Cheers.] Yes, and he asked the hon. Gentlemen who cheered, was Lord Cromer to receive £50,000 because, instead of carrying out the policy of evacuation which he was ordered to do, he had made Egypt into a British province, occupied by an Army which could not for a moment be withdrawn? If Lord Cromer was to be rewarded in this way because he had not carried out the policy of evacuation, but because he had made Egypt into a British province, that could only be characterised as false and fraudulent in the face of the civilised world. [Cries of "Oh, shame," and "With- draw."] He was perfectly ready at any moment to withdraw any statement which he could not substantiate, but he reiterated that if it were true that Lord Cromer's instructions, when he was sent to Egypt twenty-four years ago, were to carry out the policy of restoring the authority and privileges of the Khedive with the view to evacuation; and if it were true that the present Duke of Devonshire desired to set a limit of six months to that evacuation being carried out; and if it were true that Lord Cromer had strengthened the hold of England on Egypt—then something was done which undoubtedly was fraudulent in the eyes of the civilised world. He noticed that the Prime Minister in his eulogy of Lord Cromer had spoken of the manifold benefits which he had conferred on the Egyptian people in every direction. He quite admitted that Lord Cromer had certainly regulated and put upon a sound basis the finances of the country. [An Hon. Member on the Opposition Benches: And everything else.] The hon. Gentleman above the gangway said, "Everything else." He challenged that statement in every way. Apart from public works and finance, Lord Cromer's work in Egypt had been singularly unsuccessful and unfortunate. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, that was his opinion, and it seemed to him that there must be something in what he was saying, since it roused such strong opposition from hon. Gentlemen above the gangway. They would have plenty of opportunity later on of proving that he was wrong. They were told that Lord Cromer had so reorganised the Egyptian Army that it was in a very highly satisfactory condition at the present moment. He denied that. If he were asked on what he based his denial he replied that it was on the almost unanimous opinion of the Egyptian people themselves; and if there were any hon. Gentlemen in the House who with that spirit of insular superiority which was sometimes manifested imagined that the Egyptian people did not count, he contended that they were extremely mistaken. The Prime Minister had talked of imposing the ways and methods of civilisation on the Egyptian people. He maintained that educated Egyptian people were quite as civilised and as well entitled to form a sound view in regard to their country as Englishmen were in regard to their country. He insisted again that Lord Cromer's policy in regard to the Egyptian Army had been a total failure. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] With very few exceptions every command was held by Englishmen, and the greatest possible irritation and indignation was felt in Egypt in consequence. Last year, when there was some probability of a quarrel with Turkey, the British garrison in Egypt was reinforced because not the smallest attempt could be made to trust the Egyptian Army as reorganised by Lord Cromer. The position in Egypt was much the same as in Ireland, where every position of honour and emolument was in the hands of Englishmen, and the Egyptian people were made to feel that they were but hewers of wood and drawers of water in their own country. Let them take the Department of the Interior and Public Works. That Department was filled by Englishmen who were ignorant entirely of the circumstances of the case. Lord Cromer himself admitted that crime in Egypt had recently increased to an extraordinary extent, and the only explanation given was that that crime was the result of increased prosperity. Then as to the question of education, he asked any hon. Gentleman who took an interest in education what he thought of the position in Egypt. The almost unanimous opinion of the people of Egypt was that the educational policy had been that of checking education so as to keep the mass of the Egyptian people in such a state of ignorance that there should be no political advancement. That was a policy that could not succeed. The Department of Justice was almost entirely under English directionl There were one or two native Judges it was true, but with very few exceptions justice was administered by English persons who were entirely ignorant of the language of the people of the country. When he was told that Lord Cromer had placed the Department of Justice in Egypt on a satisfactory basis he denied it absolutely. If he were asked for an instance where justice had not gone straight- forward in Egypt, he was compelled to refer to what took place at Denshawi last year. The Prime Minister in hi-strong and able appeal for Lord Cromer had spoken of him as a great man of peace and as a man who had exercised humane methods, and had said that if a reward was given to men for success in war, whose success had been the success of rapine and devastation, should not there also be a reward for a man of peace like Lord Cromer? But Lord Cromer had not always been a man of peace nor had he always acted humanely; and things had been done in Egypt under his administration and with his sanction at which civilisation stood shocked to-day. A more savage and ruthless miscarriage of justice never took place in the name of civilisation in any part of the world than that which took place at Denshawi, and it made the matter worse to know that that miscarriage of justice was still going on. In the prisons of Egypt at the present time men were suffering under absolutely unjust sentences. What took place at Denshawi? It was a gruesome story, well known to many Members of' the House, but better known and hoarded in the hearts of the Egyptian people from one end of the country to the other. Five British officers went for a pigeon-shooting expedition to an Egyptian village. The Government knew perfectly well, as was admitted by the Foreign Secretary last year, that these pigeon-shooting expeditions we re repugnant to the people of the villages. These five officers when they arrived were asked by the people to desist from shooting the pigeons and not to offend or outrage the well known sentiments of the people. They refused. A scuffle ensued, and one woman standing by was shot. Two men were also shot but were not killed, but the indignation of the people was none the less. The officers were mobbed. Supposing the conditions had been reversed, and instead of five officers going into an Egyptian village with arms in their hands, five foreigners entered an English village under like conditions, and a woman was shot while her husband was standing by and two men were shot, what then would have been the nature of the scuffle? The officers were mobbed. Two ran away, and one after running a great distance died of sunstroke. That was the evidence of the medical man. As a justification for what afterwards took place they were told in the journals of this country that that officer was cruelly beaten to death. He absolutely denied it; the treatment that that officer received was not such as to cause death. He died of sunstroke after running so far in the great heat. What should have been the result in such a case? Ought not at any rate the practice of these shooting expeditions at once to have been denounced and the officers reprimanded for their conduct? What should have been the punishment, if any punishment was considered necessary so far as the people who had attacked these officers were concerned? He knew what punishment would have been meted out by public opinion in this country; but how did Lord Cromer deal with the case? How was it dealt with by this great humane gentleman, to whom they were asked to give a fortune while our streets were filled with men, aye, and women too, who had not the price of a bed? A special tribunal was summoned, consisting of Englishmen with one native Judge who was to be relied upon—a man of that class who could always be found in every subject land—and on the report of a secret inquiry which took place four days before the trial began it was decided that these villagers should be punished with death, on the sole testimony of the officers, without cross-examination, and that half an hour should be allowed for the defence of the fifty-seven prisoners. Four of these men were condemned to be hanged, eight to be scourged in public, nine to various terms of imprisonment with hard labour and to be lashed, and by an act of special brutality the husband of the woman who was shot was sentenced to penal servitude for life, when his only crime was that his hot blood rose when he saw his wife killed and he endeavoured to avenge her. If there was any Englishman who believed in what was right he would not give a farthing of this money at any rate before a statement had been made that this man should be set at liberty and an end put to a thing which was a shame and a disgrace to England. How was this savage sentence carried out? The four natives who were condemned to death for the murder of the man who died from sunstroke and for attacking other British officers were hanged, and six others who were convicted of complicity were flogged. The prisoners were conveyed in carts to Denshawi, guarded by a detachment of infantry. The gallows and the flogging-post followed. The cavalcade arrived at Denshawi early. A space of 60 yards wide was roped off close to where the attack had been made, and the gallows and the whipping-post placed in the centre. Then a man was hanged, and left hanging while two of the other men were flogged, and then another man was hanged and two more flogged, then the remaining two were hanged and the other culprits flogged. The men and women of the villages who were grouped at some distance off wailed dismally as their relatives and friends suffered and the condemned men met their death with calm. Was there a Member present who could say there was any measure of proportion between the crime committed and the sentence inflicted? There was no proportion whatever; and further, this single incident of Denshawi, if it stood alone, made it impossible for any man who loved fair play to vote for the grant under discussion. He appealed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say that he considered the punishment excessive, and to release the men who were still incarcerated. He did not grudge Lord Cromer the honours and titles he had received, but he did draw the line at asking for the money of Irish as well as English taxpayers to make a presentation to a gentleman whose name would for ever be connected with what was a blot and a disgrace on the name of the British Empire.

*Mr. H. BEAUMONT (Sussex, Eastbourne)



I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt with expressions of that kind.


It is a truly worthy sentiment from an English gentleman, and it is not at all surprising when we look across the floor and see that the hon. Gentleman is a relative of a noble peer named Lord Clanricarde.


The expression which I used, and which I am quite ready to withdraw, did not refer to the state of affairs in Egypt, but to what the hon. Member said about Lord Cromer.


said it was really a matter of indifference what the hon. Gentleman thought. What they were now discussing was a matter of serious importance to this country and for the people of Egypt as well, and the grimness of the tragedy could not be removed by any such interruption as that of the hon. Gentleman. Was Lord Cromer to be rewarded on the proposition of the Liberal Party because of his sacrifices in the cause of freedom, liberty, nationalism, Home Rule, self-government—call it what they would? Why, it was notorious that almost the last words of Lord Cromer, on leaving Egypt, were in bitter hostility to the national sentiment of the Egyptian people. He declared against Egyptian self-government, and that was one of the reasons why he was to be rewarded. At any rate it was a reason which an Irishman could not accede to. Apart from any other consideration, the hostility of Lord Cromer to the strong spirit of Egyptian nationality was a reason why there were men who would vote against the grant. Lord Cromer had done well for the finance of Egypt, and he had come home from that point of view personally above reproach. But be that as it might, he objected to the proposed Vote from the point of view that Lord Cromer was an opponent of national sentiment, and because he believed that it was an outrageous proposition to ask for large sums of money in this way when they knew, and the Chief Secretary knew perfectly well, that there was not a Department in Ireland which was not almost starved for want of money. Ireland, unless he was greatly mistaken, certainly could have no part in this transaction, and he opposed the grant just as he had opposed the grants to Lord Kitchener and Lord Roberts.

MR. KETTLE (Tyrone, E.)

said that he, as an inexperienced Member, with considerable diffidence, also ventured to oppose this Motion for a grant to Lord Cromer; but he remembered the humane traditions of the Nationalist Party, and how they had always taken the side of the oppressed and outraged. But, inexperienced as he was, he was not going to be diverted from his purpose by the clamour of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway, who were so accustomed to plundering the public funds, and some of whose pensioners, if he mistook not, at that moment sat on the Front Opposition Bench, who had such a tradition of plunder behind them. The £50,000 to be voted was to be taken from the miserable and destitute population of this country and of Ireland, and a proposition such as that would receive the support of hon. Members above the gangway as a matter of course. Really he did not remember to have seen the Opposition united before in support of the Government. When they heard statements of principle on matters of social reform made from the Liberal benches they were not accustomed to see such cordial support given by the Opposition as they now saw being given in regard to this grant. Anyone who professed to adhere to Radical principles must feel extreme moral discomfort upon going into the division lobby in support of the proposed Vote. What was the explanation? It was that the present Liberal Government had no foreign policy at all; they took over the foreign policy of their predecessors. The result was that, encouraged by their traditions and by the advice tendered in such organs as the Daily Mail, the Government had come forward with this proposal to-night. In India they had proclamations of coercion; in Egypt donations to retired despots. He had listened with interest to the Prime Minister's eloquent statement in which he mentioned everything that would probably have been taken for granted, but he did not say a word about Denshawi. When he heard the almost complete silence with which this proposal was greeted, he wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was enjoying his task. What was the case against the grant? There was the general argument against such donations to retired civil servants. It had been in the past customary with savage communities to honour the victors in war, and the bloodier the war the bigger the honour. That custom still survived in some communities which laid claim to civilisation. In the past they had opposed such grants to Lord Kitchener and Lord Roberts, and they were going to oppose the grant to Lord Cromer. Why did the Government not organise the Civil Service upon a proper basis? Either they had been paying Lord Cromer a sufficient salary or they had not. What was the justification, as a matter of mere common sense and scientific argument, of this exceptional grant? He made no attack upon the personal character of Lord Cromer, although he felt bound to say that the personal vices of despots had always seemed to him to be the most attractive thing about them, because, in the practice of those vices at any rate, they used up a certain amount of energy that might otherwise have been spent in the oppression of their fellow beings. They made no personal attack upon Lord Cromer. It had been said that he was a poor man. That might be so and it might not be so. If it were true it was very creditable to Lord Cromer; but that was a very poor argument for taking £50,000 from people who were infinitely poorer. He did not deny that under Lord Cromer's association with Egyptian affairs there had been a considerable advance in the material prosperity of that country. If they examined Egyptian Budgets they would find that Lord Cromer had always been much more willing to provide money for material advancement than for the work of education. The explanation of that was that the more educated the people became the more restive they were likely to grow under such a state of affairs as existed in Egypt. The opposition to this Vote was in the nature of a protest against the whole spirit and temper of Lord Cromer's administration. They protested against the manner in which Lord Cromer had gone beyond the terms of his original appointment, and had broken —in obedience, he supposed, to orders from home—the definite undertakings given by the responsible Government of this country. They protested against the fashion in which he had treated the Egyptians as an inferior race. They protested against the way in which he had outraged Egyptian public opinion and refused to allow it to play any part in the shaping of Egyptian policy. The indiscretions of 1906, which brought this country to the verge of war with the entire Moslem world, established a sufficient case against Lord Cromer. When they placed beside that the infamy of Denshawi, how could anybody holding Liberal principles vote for a Motion of this character? His hon. friend the Member for East Clare had spoken in detail about the Denshawi incident. The importance of that question was not so much its savage details of which his hon. friend had given such a graphic description, but the fact that it demolished at one blow the entire Cromer myth. It showed that after twenty-five years of English administration they had once more been obliged to have recourse to the gibbet and the lash in order to terrorise the Egyptians into an acceptance of our rule. A retired Anglo-Indian bureaucrat was thought to be extremely suitable for Egypt. He remembered listening to the Foreign Secretary last year when this question was under discussion, and on that occasion the right hon. Baronet said that the machinery of Government in Egypt was so confused and complicated that nobody except Lord Cromer could keep it going. Since then the Government had appointed Sir Eldon Gorst as Lord Cromer's successor. He was amazed to hear Lord Cromer spoken of as a man who had resisted the temptations of European financiers in Egypt, because the entire history of that country for the last quarter of a century had been a constant struggle between Egyptian freedom and European finance. Lord Cromer went to Egypt as the chosen darling and protector of European finance. In the year 1881 the announcement was made that there was going to be a development of representative institutions in Egypt. Lord Cromer was in Egypt as a book-keeper, an official receiver for a sort of bankrupt concern. He went there for six months twenty-four years ago, and now the Government was sending somebody else to continue the temporary occupation. He agreed with his hon. friend that if Lord Cromer was to be rewarded, he should be rewarded out of Egyptian funds. Lord Cromer ought to be very popular on the Stock Exchange, if it were possible to associate feelings of gratitude with that assembly. He had stated what was the legal and proper position of Lord Cromer in Egypt, but during the whole tenure of his office his labours had been devoted to pressing his influence in entirely illegitimate spheres. He had got a dominant influence over the administration of Egypt. He had devoted his energies to an attempt to Anglicise the administration of Egypt, and especially education. He had devoted himself to undermining the influence of the native responsible rulers. The Prime Minister had referred to the introduction into Egypt of ideas drawn from Western civilisation. Was it really suggested that nobody could keep a set of books properly and observe ordinary commercial honesty, unless he had the advantage of serving under an English administrator? Lord Cromer had not shown the slightest originality in anything he had done in Egypt. Every idea with which his name was associated was laid before Egypt by the old Egyptian National Assemby. The emancipation of the fellaheen, the abolition of forced labour, the rehabilitation of finance, and the purification of justice—every single item in Lord Cromer's programme of reforms would have been carried out by Egyptian Ministers, but, as things stood, they had been partially fulfilled by a foreign administrator. He would not keep the Committee much longer. [Cheers.] He had no doubt that hon. Members above the gangway would much prefer this Motion to pass without any opportunity for discussion. The more that was said upon it the blacker their case would be found. He thought something more should be said on certain aspects of the Denshawi incident. That incident had resulted in four hangings, two life sentences, and a number i of long terms of imprisonment. There had been 400 lashes given to innocent Egyptian villagers. They were asked to give Lord Cromer £50,000, which was a little more than £100 per lash. It had been stated that the trial took place before a special tribunal. He maintained that it was a tribunal tainted through and through with illegality. It was stated in newspaper reports at the time that before Lord Cromer left Egypt for England he had instructed the Minister of the Interior to send a gallows to Denshawi before the trial began. Before this Motion went to a division the House was entitled to some explanation from the Foreign Secretary. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards this incident last July was profoundly unsatisfactory. He did not in the least suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had any personal responsibility for the infamous outrage at Denshawi. He believed the Foreign Secretary was a humane man, and that if he had had time to consider the matter the capital sentences would probably not have been carried out. But the right hon. Gentleman stood behind the action of the Judges and officials who ordered these executions, and he had refused to grant the smallest concession of justice to the men still in prison. At first when the incident occurred it was said that Egypt was torn asunder by religious fanaticism, but as soon as responsible people went to investigate the matter, it was found that there was not a shred of foundation for the statement and that contention was given up. Then it was stated that there was profound political unrest, and when that was found to be equally baseless, it was given up. The next report that came to the notice of the House was from a gentleman called Finlay, who stated that this was a brutal and premeditated murder, and that was the evidence on which the House went in supporting the Foreign Secretary. The judicial Report of the special Court abandoned that position completely. He asked the Foreign Secretary to hold out some hope of release for the men still in prison. What was the Government going to do with Egypt in future? The suggestion had been made that it should be annexed and treated as a Crown Colony. [Cheers.] He noticed that suggestion was received with great applause by hon. Members above the gangway. The debate would be followed with more intense interest in Egypt than perhaps hon. Gentlemen above the gangway appreciated. The House was now asked to set the seal of its approval on the policy of Lord Cromer in Egypt. During the first three years Lord Cromer was in Egypt he was under Liberal influence, and they were honourable years. He was afterwards under Tory influence. There was now in Egypt a national movement of respectable character and dimensions. What answer was the House going to make to the reasonable proposal of that national movement? The House had tried else where to subordinate national movements to Imperial sentiment; and he did not suppose that the answer would be very generous or favourable one. He would always rejoice in two things: that they had failed in Egypt in crushing the national movement, as they had failed in Ireland, and that as an Irish Member he had had the opportunity of voting and speaking against this subordination, and against this donation and dole to a retired despot.

MR. GRAYSON (York, W.R., Colne. Valley)

said that the condition of the House presented to him a very interesting and curious spectacle. He saw all the benches packed with enthusiastic politicians, and the Government beaming with the consciousness of their splendid majority. When one heard speeches of a very similar character from both sides of the House one wondered at first what question was being discussed. Had someone discovered the solution of the poverty problem; were they introducing a measure of old-age pensions for incapacitated workmen; or had a rumour slipped out that the new Member was going to make his maiden speech? He perceived what before he came to the House he found it necessary to tell his constituents—that on certain questions both the Government and the Opposition would be found standing together, while on ordinary superficial political questions they would be found in whole-hearted opposition to each other. He did not intend to traverse Lord Cromer's administration in Egypt, but while it gave him gratification that the question of grants for civil political services was at last entertained, as distinguished from grants exclusively for military services, he opposed the Motion, feeling that the Government had no mandate to vote away a large amount of public money for this purpose, whereas it had a mandate to use every cent at its disposal to solve some of the most ghastly social problems. He remembered when the Liberal candidates were fighting at the last General Election it was such promises as they then made in regard to old-age pensions for worn out and incapacitated working men and women that gained for them so great a majority of votes. When he looked around him he realised that the present Government had the most magnificent and glorious opportunity that any Government had ever had; yet enthusiasm could be evoked from those crowded benches, with the united support of the Opposition, on the question of giving a grant to an Egyptian official, while outside the walls of that House people were dying of starvation—men and women who had given good and substantial service to the State were tottering to paupers' graves. He felt that the attitude displayed by even Radical Members of the Government was eloquent of the position which was causing such a revolution in the country at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer found extreme difficulty in finding money for old-age pensions, though he explained pathetically that his heart was right, but that he had not the ability to find money to satisfy the demands of the necessitous poor. The right hon. Gentleman had put aside a half-hearted nucleus to be the basis of a possible scheme of old-age pensions in the future—a nucleus of such small dimensions that it seemed the most futile attempt that could be made by a responsible Minister. Yet, when some great official, who had all his life received a large salary for the services he had rendered, and a pension in addition, was in want of a fortune of £50,000, the result of the labour of the people of this country, the Government had absolutely no difficulty in getting the money. He felt that there must be some underlying reason for the attitude which the Government had adopted that night. Much surprise had been evinced on all sides of the House when a large industrial constituency had left behind it its traditions and clung to some new political doctrine. Was it any wonder to find that the Government was being discredited in the country? The attitude adopted by the Government could not have been better devised if the object had been to help the most revolutionary schemes that had been propounded in the country. Granting that Lord Cromer's services had been resplendent and had conferred everlasting benefit on Egypt, a Government such as that which was now in office might have placed on record their gratitude in some more transcendental manner than by voting £50,000 of public money. What was taking place among the people who were to subscribe the money to be granted to Lord Cromer? The unemployed were walking the streets, men and women able and willing to work were denied that elementary right by the Government now in power. All our constitutional politics were a mockery and a sham while they made no serious attempt to grapple with this problem. He warned hon. Gentlemen opposite that if this policy was persisted in there would not be only one electoral change, but they might look forward to the day when all the front bench would be occupied by Socialists. [Laughter.] That was not a subject for mirth for those who wanted the status quo, because under their eyes the most energetic propaganda was being carried on for Socialism, not by the Socialist propaganda, but by the impotent statesmen and the impotent Government who deserted the pledges they gave to the people at the election and entered upon the course of helping its friends. In this his first speech in the House he felt the privilege of having such a night on which to deliver it, and to state the issue clearly and explicitly as it was to be presented to the country. On the one side there was organised capital and organised capitalistic instincts; on the other side organised labour determined to work out its own destiny.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,) Northumberland, Berwick

This House, I am sure, has listened to the hon. Member with the interest and attention which I have never know it fail to give, and which I hope it will never cease to give, to one who addresses it for the first time. If I do not follow the hon. Member in his argument, I trust the hon. Member will believe that it is not because I underrate the sincerity of his feeling, or doubt it, or depreciate the importance of the large problems touched upon. It is because I find it to be difficult to deal with those large problems on this particular Vote in such a way as to advance by practical suggestions or discussion the remedy for the great evils which we all know to exist at home and for which we desire to find remedies in measures of social reform. My intention is rather to bring the debate back to the ground on which it has been placed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I think that with one exception the arguments brought against the Vote by the hon. Member for Clare are really answered and anticipated by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The one exception is the Denshawi incident. I admit that it is a grave incident, and I do not intend to dismiss it without comment. The hon. Member said that there is no precedent for the Vote. There has been a precedent, but, while admitting that precedents for a grant of this kind and for services of this kind are rare, they are not more rare than Lord Cromer's services in Egypt. This grant is associated with peace and economy. Lord Cromer's services in Egypt would have been remarkable if Egypt was a British Colony in which we had a fair start and a free hand. But instead of having a fair start Lord Cromer had as bad a start as he could possibly have had. He found Egypt overwhelmed with debt, sunk in poverty, its Government corrupt, neither order nor justice known in it. He could get no financial help from the outside. He had to build up a system of good government and progress in the country out of the country's ruined resources. Nor had Lord Cromer a free hand. He was not the Governor of the country. He was charged not to destroy or impair the existing forms of government, and he had to work through the Khedive and native Ministries. It is true that he had behind him the British Army of occupation, and could in any moment of crisis make the British will prevail. But force is not the means by which good government can be built up in any country. It can only be built up by the personal qualities through which Lord Cromer secured his ascendency in Egypt. Time, and a long time, is also necessary for it, and surely what was necessary to a man in Lord Cromer's position was the assurance that our occupation of Egypt, with a force behind him, would be permanent. But that was entirely wanting. He himself did not know, the British Government did not know, how long that occupation was to be continued. A situation of that kind was enough to discourage any ordinary man from putting his hand to the great task to which Lord Cromer put his. It is true that as time went on British Parliaments and Governments extended to Lord Cromer a confidence rarely before extended to any civil servant. But that was not the case at first. He won confidence step by step, and himself created that prestige which is one of the greatest evidences of his success. If to-day the British occupation be accepted at home and abroad, it is not because of the original intention, or the deliberate policy of the British Government; it is mainly due to regard for Lord Cromer's work and the reluctance to imperil it which has confirmed that occupation. It has been suggested that this grant should come from Egyptian funds. I trust that no British representative in Egypt will ever in any way whatever be a burden on Egyptian funds. The work Lord Cromer has done has been admitted at home and abroad, and has created British prestige; and it is the part of the British Government to recompense the valuable work he has done. Gratitude is due to him not only for what he has done in Egypt. The British taxpayer is indebted to him, not only for what he has done, but also for what he has avoided. Few know all the dangers and difficulties from which he has saved this country, and his retirement has exposed this country to risks, which as long as he was in Egypt, were hardly realised. The situation in Egypt was closely connected with foreign policy as a whole, but no one ever interfered less with the general direction of foreign policy than Lord Cromer, who took care to subordinate his own work in Egypt to whatever might be the exigencies of the British Government's policy at home. It is almost impossible to estimate what the burden on the British taxpayer would have been had we had in Egypt in those early years a man less steadfast, less patient, and less sure than Lord Cromer. He had to address himself to the difficult task of reforming Egypt, he had to carry a load of uncertainty with regard to the occupation, he had all the time to do his utmost to avoid foreign complications, and if he has succeeded it has been only by the highest and rarest qualities—wisdom, unfailing courage, and most sovereign faith. And now, to-night, surely what we wish to do is to review his work as a whole. Is it really fair or just to him to take any particular instance of Egyptian administration, to dwell upon it, enlarge upon it, and say that that is a reason why the House of Commons should refuse to recognise the value of his services? The very essence of his position was that he should work steadily for reform in Egypt, and should not attempt to make himself responsible for administrative details. The situation in Egypt was always complicated by the mixture of European and Egyptian officials, the most difficult to work with. Lord Cromer did his utmost to maintain a large proportion of Egyptian officials in order that they might be trained to a sense of public spirit and responsibility, though in earlier years it involved a risk of the miscarriage of administrative details. Lord Cromer has devoted himself to general policy, and it would be most unfair to make him responsible for every detail of Egyptian administration. But now that one detail of Egyptian administration has been singled out, the Denshawi incident, it is very remarkable that it should be one that took place when Lord Cromer was out of the country.


said Lord Cromer had entirely approved what had been done.


I am coming to that. The hon. Member for East Tyrone used language which, I think, implied that the sentences had all been arranged by Lord Cromer before he left Egypt. That is absolutely untrue. Lord Cromer did not know what the sentences were till he arrived in this country. But he held, as I myself hold, that the Judges acted with every desire, to secure justice; that their motives were pure, and that we ought to abide by their sentence, and he expressed his opinion in a despatch which was laid before the House. The hon. Member for East Clare, if he had read the whole of it, would have done a little more justice to what Lord Cromer's view of the subject is. He upheld the conduct and action of the Judges, and expressed his opinion that some reform should be introduced into the special tribunal. He abolished flogging in Egypt; and this is the only instance for many years where flogging has taken place. This special tribunal was brought into existence ten years before or more.


Is it right to say that Lord Cromer abolished flogging in Egypt? In his despatch he blamed Lord Dufferin for having done so.


Perhaps the hon. Member is correct, that Lord Dufferin abolished flogging; but during Lord Cromer's time in Egypt flogging was not in the penal code; and if the hon. Member says that Lord Dufferin was the first to abolish it, I am quite willing to accept that. There had been no flogging in Egypt, except under this special tribunal, for many years. As to the Denshawi incident itself, I really think that it is not relevant to this particular Vote. It is most unfair to take a single isolated incident, of which the knowledge reached Lord Cromer later than it reached us, and to make that a peg on which to hang a depreciation of the whole of his work in Egypt. This case, however, has been dealt with, and I wish to say that I do not think the hon. Member for East Clare gave a fair account of it to the House. The sentences on the Denshawi offenders were passed after a public trial, in which no restrictions were placed upon the counsel for the defence. What were the actual circumstances? Some British officers went to shoot pigeons at the village of Denshawi. The rule is that they are not to shoot pigeons in any village without previously obtaining permission from the head of the village. In the previous year permission had been given, and on this occasion the officers were led to believe that permission had again been given, and that the shooting had been sanctioned by the village authorities. The hon. Member for East Clare said these officers ignored the wishes of the people. If so they did it unwittingly, and directly objection was taken they desisted. Even when they were mobbed they did not attempt to defend themselves and gave up their guns. I think it is most unfair for the hon. Member for East Clare to bring any charge against the conduct of the officers. The hon. Member said the officers should have been punished. That was most unfair, because they were given to understand that they had permission from the head of the village to shoot the pigeons and they began to shoot, but directly they were told that they were wrong they desisted shooting, and gave up their guns. The guns were taken from the officers, who did not fire them. What is the state of things at the present moment? Several men are now in prison under very long sentences, some for fifteen years and some for life. The men who are now in prison are all persons who took part in the violent and brutal attack upon these officers. One officer lost his life, and another was so injured that he did not recover for a very long time, if he has yet recovered, and he had to be invalided home. For that attack the men actually in prison have been there for one year. I do not think anybody can say that one year is too long a time for anyone to be kept in prison for participating in an attack persisted in with great brutality against men who were unarmed at the time they were attacked. The number of prisoners is no doubt large, and I can well conceive that it may be urged that the real people who planned the attack and were responsible for it have been executed, and that some of those now in prison were led away by the feeling of excitement at the moment to do more than they fully realised at the time. But men must be held responsible for the consequences of their acts, and although I do not for one moment say on the part of the British Government that there would be any opposition to a reconsideration of these sentences at the proper time, a year after the event is too soon to make any promise of that kind, and if the sentences are revised it must be done by the deliberate and calm opinion of the Egyptian Government at a time when the exercise of clemency is likely to have a good effect.


I am sure that the right hon. Baronet does not wish to treat me unfairly in this matter. Does he say that before the assault on these officers took place a woman and two men had not been shot?


Oh, yes, Sir, I do. An officer began to shoot pigeons. He was then mobbed. He stopped shooting pigeons directly he found that there was any objection. He was mobbed the people took his gun from him, and after he had been mobbed and the gun taken from him the gun went off. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh!"] All the Papers have been laid before the House. What I object to is any imputation upon the conduct of the officers who did all they could in the matter. That is fully borne out by the evidence at the trial which has been laid before the House. When I come to review Egyptian administration and consider the various questions which are asked me with regard to it, one thing which strikes me is that those questions are based upon the assumption that the administration of Egypt is being judged by the high standard of government which we apply to ourselves at home. It is Lord Cromer's work alone which has made that possible, and if you judge his work by the standard which existed before he went there—take the Egyptian Army or any department of government you like—there is no criticism you can make. The work has been carried out by British advisers and British and European officials, but Lord Cromer has proved that native material and native administration is not only workable but is also a great instrument of progress. Nothing is more untrue than to say that ho has treated the Egyptians as an inferior race. He has constantly enjoined on British officials that they are to treat the natives with respect, sympathy, tact, and discretion. It has been his object constantly to draw the Egyptians more and more to bear their share in the Government of their country. No fair-minded man can fail to have been struck by the fact that that is the governing note which he has persistently followed in his policy. As to the actual amount of the grant, the Government do not, of course, propose it to the House as an adequate measure of Lord Cromer's services. It is impossible to measure by a cash payment services such as he has rendered over a large number of years. It would be invidious to attempt it.

MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)

Why make the attempt then?


The circumstances of the post in Egypt have been exceptional. The salary of £6,500 has been in later years much too small for the expenses of the post, which have grown very largely with the prosperity of Egypt. The expenses of the post having grown, it is at the present moment impossible to hold it without spending a considerable private income. That is really spent on the public service, and that is what Lord Cromer has had to do. The pension he gets from the Government is £900 a year. The pension of an ambassador after thirteen years service would be £1,700. Lord Cromer, with twenty-four years service, which is at least equal to that of any ambassador both in results and importance, receives £900 because he has been a consul-general and not an ambassador. I think it is absolutely wrong that there should be this difference. The post in Egypt is at least equal to any embassy. That is the state of things at the present time. It was always understood that when Lord Cromer retired from his post he would receive a larger pension. But the Government have preferred that there should be special recognition on a very special occasion, and, instead of coining to the House for any special provision in the way of pension, they decided to propose a grant to Lord Cromer, and to limit the sum to £50,000. Surely, of all men, it may be said that he has created wealth for others. [An HON. Member: "Let them pay him."] He has created wealth for others, being careful all the time that the wealth he created in Egypt should be distributed among the people of Egypt. Somebody has mentioned the Stock Exchange in connection with Lord Cromer's work in Egypt. No man has been more careful that Stock Exchange speculators should not get the benefit, and anyone who reads page 100 of the last Report will realise how strenuous Lord Cromer has been to ensure that, in the development of the wealth of Egypt, it will not be the speculator or the promoter, or the Stock Exchange, but the fellaheen, who will reap the benefit. It has always been the ambition of this House as a whole to deal with great services in a generous spirit. The House as a whole has never been narrow or grudging in recognising real merit, and, though there has been opposition from some quarters to this Vote, I would appeal to the House to pass the Vote in a really generous spirit recognising thereby what has been the most distinguished and honourable public service abroad which has come before the House of Commons in our time.

*Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON (Northumberland, Tyneside)

said the right hon. Gentleman had advanced some very weighty arguments in support of the grant, and he had also, like some previous speakers, created some difficulty for those who wished to hold the balance evenly between the two sides. It was a little unfortunate, at least from his point of view, that Lord Cromer had been referred to by the supporters of the grant in language of such unstinted panegyric. One was not surprised that the Prime Minister in moving such a Vote should have used language of panegyric, and that he should be seconded in similar terms from the front Opposition bench. The fact remained that the language used in these panegyrics could not possibly be the ultimate verdict of history. They often heard expressions used in debate as to what the verdict of history would be. History was not ultimately written by front benchers, nor were the estimates of what constituted great men, which were so freely proffered in the House, the estimates by which they would be regarded in the future. [Interruption and cries of "Order!"]


Order among the bondholders.


said he had not risen to make an attack on Lord Cromer. His special purpose in rising was to indicate the reasons for not making an attack on Lord Cromer. He simply wished to state that a difficulty had been put in the way of those who were not going to oppose the grant, by the panegyrics which had been passed on Lord Cromer. The Foreign Secretary had made a speech by way of general answer to a number of particular questions, but he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to proceed on the assumption that we had a right to ask in regard to Egypt as high a standard of good government as we exacted in our own affairs. That seemed to be an explicit admission, and he was glad to recognise the reasonable tone of it. Egypt was clearly not getting the standard of good government which we exacted in this country. For instance, there was the strongest disposition on the part of hon. Members on the Opposition benches to resent any questions in regard to Egyptian matters. Hon. Members seemed to form their opinions without the smallest possible knowledge of Egyptian affairs. They applauded the right hon. Gentleman when he said that penny postage was impossible on account of the coinage. But penny stamps did exist. But on the other hand the right hon. Gentleman had alleged that in every department of Egyptian administration there was a vast improvement. He ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman did not look with sufficient minuteness into some departments of Egyptian administration. He did not go so far as hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cries of "Divide!"] He had listened to a great deal of irrelevant eloquence on the other side of the House, and he did not propose to abandon his opportunity of stating his views on this subject. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He would not say with hon. Members opposite that there was any deliberate suppression of education in Egypt; but he did say that there had been in Egypt a failure to maintain higher education at the level which Lord Cromer found there. He did not wish to press further the line of criticism of the administration. The right hon. Gentleman urged that the Denshawi episode was not strictly relevant to the discussion, but notwithstanding that he went on to defend it at such length as to carry the balance the other way. The Denshawi incident lay at the door of this nation and Government, and it there were any censuring to be done it would have to include the Foreign Secretary himself, who practically endorsed the episode. The right hon. Gentleman had bestowed on him his censure for saying a few plain truths with regard to the affair, and even announced that one of the officials concerned would be promoted. That official had been promoted. If this Vote was to be made an occasion for something in the nature of a retribution of Lord Cromer the censure should include the Home Government. And, what was more, this House had made itself party to an absolutely autocratic, system of government, of which the natural result was such an abuse of justice as that afforded by the Denshawi affair. To denounce the grant in face of such a position was to strain at a gnat and to swallow a camel. No matter what a man's abilities were—and those of Lord Cromer had been on some grounds over-estimated—no man could act as an autocrat without suffering deterioration in several respects. [Continued cries of "Divide!" during which the hon. Member's remarks were inaudible.]

MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)

, on a point of order, wished to ask whether hon. Members opposite were justified in persisting in their remarks to the extent that had been indulged in while another Member was speaking.


said he could not say it was out of order to call "Divide!" for the practice had been indulged in for many years past. He did not think,

however, that it often tended to the shortening of the proceedings.


said he had never used the expression "Divide," although he had had sometimes at least as much cause as hon. Members had against him at present. He really wished to say a word which he thought was not opposed to the line they had taken that night. In so far as it had been suggested that this grant should be withheld from Lord Cromer because of the miserable misdeed at Denshawi, he ventured to say that such a retribution was ill-calculated and did not represent a policy of which the House should be proud. The Denshawi event should be a warning against all attempts of retribution. It arose out of a moderate attempt at retribution, which ended in a tragedy and was succeeded by an abominable revenge. This nation, having created an autocracy in Egypt, having sent Lord Cromer to occupy the post so created, and having backed up the system of which Lord Cromer was the representative, was not entitled to haggle at the business of giving a grant.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 254; Noes, 107. (Division List No.350.)

Acland, Francis Dyke Branch, James Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)
Acland-Hood, Rt Hn.SirAlex. F. Bridgeman, W. Clive Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Agnew, George William Brotherton, Edward Allen Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh) Cory, Clifford John
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J.T.(Cheshire Courthope, G. Loyd
Anstruther-Gray, Major Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Craik, Sir Henry
Arkwright, John Stanhope Buckmaster, Stanley O. Crombie, John William
Armitage, R. Bull, Sir William James Crosfield, A. H.
Ashley, W. W Burns, Rt. Hon. John Crossley, William J.
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Dalmeny, Lord
Astbury, John.Meir Carlile, E. Hildred Davies, David (Montgomery Co.
Balcarres, Lord Carr-Gomm, H. W. Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)
Balfour, Rt Hn. A.J.(City Lond.) Castlereagh, Viscount Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cavendish, Rt. Hon. VictorC. W. Dewar, Sir J.A.(Inverness-sh.)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Cawley, Sir Frederick Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.
Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Barker, John Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Doughty, Sir George
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A.)Wore. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Barran, Rowland Hirst Chance, Frederick William Duckworth, James
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsal1
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Cheetham, John Frederick Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Beauchamp, E. Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Elibank, Master of
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Erskine, David C.
Bellairs, Carlyon Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) Eve, Harry Trelawney
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Everett, R. Lacey
Bowles, G. Stewart Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Faber, George Denison (York)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Fardell, Sir T. George M'Callum, John M. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Fell, Arthur M'Crae, George Sears, J. E.
Ferens, T. R. M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Severns, J. H.
Ferguson, K. C. Munro M'Micking, Major G. Seely, Major J. B.
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Manfield, Harry (Northants) Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Menzies, Walter Shipman, Dr. John G.
Fletcher, J. S. Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Simon, John Allsebrook
Forster, Henry William Micklem, Nathaniel Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Freeman-Thomas, Freeman Molteno, Percy Alport Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Fuller, John Michael F. Money, L. G. Chiozza Smith, F. E.(Lverpool, Walton)
Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.) Montagu, E. S. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gibb, James (Harrow) Montgomery, H. G. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Stanger, H. Y.
Gooch, George Peabody Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen) Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Grant, Corrie Morley, Rt. Hon. John Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Morpeth, Viscount Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Greenwood, Hamar (York) Morse, L. L. Strachey, Sir Edward
Gretton, John Muntz, Sir Philip A. Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Murray, James Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Napier, T. B. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Harmsworth, R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Harwood, George Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Nield, Herbert Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)
Haworth, Arthur A. Norton, Capt. Cecil William Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Nussey, Thomas Willans Thornton, Percy M.
Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Tomkinson, James
Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S. Edm'ds Parker,Sir Gilbert(Gravesend) Toulmin, George
Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Parkes, Ebenezer Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Holden, E. Hopkinson Paulton, James Mellor Turnour, Viscount
Holland, Sir William Henry Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Valentia, Viscount
Holt, Richard Durning Pearce, William (Limehouse) Verney, F. W.
Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Houston, Robert Paterson Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton) Waring, Walter
Hutton, Alfred Eddison Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Idris, T. H. W. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan
Illingworth. Percy H. Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Pullar, Sir Robert Waterlow, D. S.
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Radford, G. H. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Kearley, Hudson E. Rainy, A. Rolland Whitbread, Howard
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Raphael, Herbert H. Whitehead, Rowland
Kimber, Sir Henry Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Kincaid-Smith, Captain Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro' Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Rees, J. D. Williams Llewelyn (Carmarth'n
Lambert, George Rendall, Athelstan Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Renton, Major Leslie Wills, Arthur Walters
Lamont, Norman Rickett, J. Compton Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Ridsdale, E. A. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Roberts,.Charles H. (Lincoln) Wilson. P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wodehouse, Lord
Lewis, John Herbert Robson, Sir William Snowdon Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Roe, Sir Thomas Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S) Rogers, F. E. Newman Younger, George
Lough, Thomas Rose, Charles Day
Lupton, Arnold Runciman, Walter TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Lyell, Charles Henry Russell, T. W.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Cleland, J. W. Dobson, Thomas W.
Alden, Percy Clough, William Donelan, Captain A.
Barnes, G. N. Cobbold, Felix Thornley Duffy, William J.
Beaumont, Hon. Hubert Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)
Bell, Richard Cooper, G. J. Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Bennett, E. N. Crean, Eugene Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Black, Arthur W. Crooks, William Esslemont, George Birnie
Boland, John Curran, Peter Francis Ffrench, Peter
Bowerman, C. W. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Flavin, Michael Joseph
Byles, William Pollard Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Flynn, James Christopher
Fullerton, Hugh Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Gill, A. H. Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Robinson, S.
Glover, Thomas Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs) Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Grayson, Albert Victor MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Macpherson, J. T. Seddon, J.
Halpin, J. MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down S.) Shackleton, David James
Hayden, John Patrick Mac Veigh, Charles (Donega1,E.) Snowden, P.
Hazleton, Richard Maddison, Frederick Summerbell, T.
Healy, Timothy Michael Masterman, C F. G. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Higham, John Sharp Meagher, Michael Thorne, William
Hodge, John Murnaghan, George Vivian, Henry
Hogan, Michael Murphy, John Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Myer, Horatio Walsh, Stephen
Hudson, Walter Nolan, Joseph Walters, John Tudor
Jacoby, Sir James Alfred O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Jenkins, J. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) O'Grady, J. Wardle, George J.
Jordan, Jeremiah O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N. Weir, James Galloway
Jowett, F. W. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. White, George (Norfolk)
Joyce, Michael Parker, James (Halifax) White, Patrick (Heath, North)
Kekewich, Sir George Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wilkie, Alexander
Kettle, Thomas Michael Pollard, Dr. Wilson. Henry J.(York, W. K.)
Kilbride, Denis Power, Patrick Joseph Wilson, W. T (Westhoughton)
Laidlaw, Robert Reddy, M.
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Redmond, John E.(Waterford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. William Redmond and Mr. Arthur Henderson.
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.) Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)
Lundon, W. Richardson, A.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again To-morrow (Wednesday).