§ Resolution reported,—"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the salaries and remuneration of the Director 523 of Public Prosecutions and assistant directors appointed under any Act of the present session to amend the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, and of the Expenses incurred in pursuance of such Act."
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
moved an Amendment to limit such salaries to £3,000. He said he regretted the President of the Board of Trade had not remained in his seat, because the right hon. Gentleman himself moved a similar Amendment to a similar Resolution four years ago, and he would like to know how it was the right hon. Gentleman was not supporting him in the example he himself had given. He was prepared to admit that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, although based on the same premisses, was not so reasonable as his own, but he wished it not to be forgotten that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who now led the House, voted for that Amendment and was present through the whole debate, so that he had no excuse for suggesting that he went into the lobby without knowing what exactly was before the House and what had transpired in the course of the discussion. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion actually went so far as to arraign the action of the then Government. He noticed that the President of the Board of Education, although in the House, was looking the other way; perhaps he was regretting he had not followed the example of his colleagues and left the House, for he also made an extremely eloquent speech in support of that Amendment, and if he had forgotten it he would be only too pleased to refresh his memory by reading the report from Hansard, with a copy of which he had fortified himself. But that was not all. Some ten days ago in Committee on the Resolution he called the attention of the Attorney-General—who, although he took no part in the debate, certainly voted for the Amendment to which he had referred—to the fact that the Resolution did not appear on the Order Paper—an omission which gave rise to the debate of 8th June, 1904. It was true that the Resolu- 524 tion appeared in the Votes, but then hon. Members had not time to read through all those Papers in order to see if any of the Notices had reference to the business for the day, and it certainly would very much simplify matters for every Member of Parliament if there appeared on the Order Paper for the day all Resolutions and Notices which referred to the particular business to be dealt with. The hon. and learned Gentleman who pleaded the other day that he was not very proficient in Parliamentary procedure gave a distinct pledge—[the ATTORNEY-GENERAL dissented]—gave a distinct pledge, as he would see on reference to Hansard when printed—that if he had been guilty of any error he would remedy it. Yet in spite of that the very same cause of complaint existed that day and the Resolution he had to move did not appear on the Paper; indeed, he doubted if, with the exception of himself and possibly the hon. and learned Gentleman, there was a Member of the House who had seen the Resolution. He would ask the Attorney-General how it was that, having given a distinct pledge in this matter, he had not carried it out. He had also a question to put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who also made a speech on the occasion he had referred to and complained that the Home Office had made no estimate whatever of the expenses likely to be incurred. Incidentally, he might say that none had been made in this instance. But the Financial Secretary on the occasion in question was extremely eloquent and talked in a most determined manner about the bad practices of the late Government. A week ago only lie asked the hon. Gentleman if he would kindly communicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the feeling which existed on that side of the House and request the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to avoid a recurrence of what they considered to be an unnecessary concealment of business to be taken by the House. The Financial Secretary in reply to that appeal nodded and smiled, but so far as he could see there had been no other result. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were right in their assertion four years ago that the Government were acting wrongly, what was their position to-day? Were they going to 525 stand up in a white sheet and express penitence for their own shortcomings, or were they going to carry out their own promises? He thought the Attorney-General might have made a better defence than he did a week ago. He wished to be perfectly fair to him in the matter; he might have retorted that he (Sir F. Banbury) was in the same boat because he voted in a contrary way four years ago. He was prepared to admit having done that, but he desired at the same time to give the reason for his action. The Amendment on that occasion was moved by the right hon. Gentleman who now held office as President of the Board of Trade. It was not such a good Amendment as the one he was now submitting, for the reason that it curtailed and limited the expenditure over the whole Department, whereas his own Amendment only limited it in so far as the Director and Assistant Director were concerned, and it was a very important distinction. Then again, four years ago, the right hon. Gentleman mixed up two questions—not only that of expenditure, but also whether Resolutions such as these ought to appear on the Order Paper, and whether or not it was the duty of the Treasury to have made an estimate. That was one of the points on which the division took place, and it so happened that on that occasion it would have been impossible for the Treasury to have made an estimate—an accurate estimate—of the possible expenditure. Now he had avoided those difficulties on this occasion by making his Amendment applicable only to the salaries of the well-known and recognised officials, as to whom there could be no doubt what the cost would be. That consequently justified his change of front. The only point that remained was whether or not these Resolutions should have appeared on the Order Paper, and on that he would point out that that was a matter over which he, as a private Member, had no control, and seeing that he could not distinguish as between different parts of the Amendment four years ago, he submitted that he was justified in not voting against his own Party when the result might have been to turn his own friends out of office. 526 What would have been the outcome of such a proceeding?
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he would do so. That Amendment limited the expenditure to £4,000 when proposed a week ago, and the hon. and learned Gentleman in opposing it then said the reduction was too large. He had endeavoured to meet him in that matter. He did not wish to place him either in the disadvantageous position of having too much money voted, for he quite sympathised with, and was always ready to help him in any effort to economise, especially as at theme economy was very necessary. He had, therefore, altered his Amendment and reduced the figure to £3,000, for it was evident that if £4,000 was too much, £3,000 was more or less the exact figure that might be saved. Was there any reason why those figures should not be inserted in the Resolution? He quite admitted that when a new Department was set up it was impossible to say exactly what the expense of the Department as a whole would be. He understood that there were no precedents to guide the Treasury in this case, and in that view he was confirmed by a little remark made by the President of the Board of Trade in the year 1904—That the moment they employed lawyers—and he knew something of lawyers, being one himself—their bills did not come to a trifle.That was one of the reasons why he had not by his former Amendment limited the expenditure over the new Department as a whole, but confined it merely to the Director and Assistant Directors. He trusted that on this occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman would accept his Amendment, and that if a similar Resolution were moved in the future he would carry out the pledge given him a few days ago, that such Resolution should be placed on the Order Paper. As he could not speak again, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished any explanation from him he could put to him interrogatories, and he would be glad to reply. This was an extremely important matter and was not confined to 527 the present Resolution, but applied to all Resolutions for the spending of money. An hon. Member had said something about giving the hon. and learned Gentleman a blank cheque. He had no wish to give a blank cheque to the Government, in which he had not much confidence, or to anyone. Blank cheques were a great mistake. Now that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was present he hoped that his remarks would bear fruit, and that some distinct understanding would be come to as to the exact course to be pursued in the future. He begged to move.
At the end of the Resolution to add the words 'such salaries not to exceed £3,000 in all.'"—(Sir F. Banbury).
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,) South Shields
said that the hon. Baronet had been kind enough to invite him to address interrogatories to him in order to elucidate his meaning. He could assure the hon. Baronet that his meaning was perfectly obvious and that no interrogatories were necessary. The hon. Baronet had drawn attention to some previous occasion when he alleged that a like Amendment had been proposed to a like Motion. He was not quite sure that they were like. It was somewhat difficult to imagine a Resolution of an exactly similar character to the present one, which dealt with a new Department founded on the necessities of a new Act, which introduced quite an unknown quantity of labour in the administration of the law. They might have a great many new Bills, some of which necessitated a good deal of labour, while others necessitated little. It was, therefore, impossible to argue from the case of one Bill to the case of another. Consequently the previous instances mentioned by the hon. Baronet gave the House very little assistance. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that there was some small defect on the part of 528 the Government in regard to the notice that had been given of this Motion. He had a little difficulty in understanding the hon. Baronet's point in regard to procedure; but he could assure him that there had been nothing whatever unusual in the procedure on the present occasion.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he did not allege that it was unusual, but that it was a procedure which, in his opinion, was bad, and which had been condemned by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ SIR W. ROBSON
thought that the hon. Baronet had clarified his meaning. He understood the hon. Baronet to suggest that it had been an unusual procedure. He had never objected to a Resolution like the present, but to a Resolution relating to another Bill altogether, which was a very different matter. If the hon. Baronet would show him a similar Bill to the present he would be glad to consider the procedure then adopted; but in the present case the Government had followed precisely the procedure invariably adopted. It was quite true that the hon. Baronet had fallen upon some observations of his on another Bill, but they did not apply to the present measure. If there had been unusual procedure, taken inadvertently on his part, he would have endeavoured to have it corrected, but that was not the case. He now came to the hon. Baronet's Amendment. The hon. Baronet's memory was treacherous in his recollection of what took place on the last occasion on which this Resolution was discussed. What he then said was that £4,000, the figure they were then dealing with, might be and probably would be excessive in regard to the initial expenses of the new Department, but that it might or might not, and probably would not be adequate having regard to the ultimate expenditure which might be required for the new Department. They proposed to add simply to the staff of the Department a new Director and a few additional professional clerks. The number of the existing staff, he thought, was eleven, who would be transferred, and 529 there would be some addition of shorthand clerks and professional clerks. Then there was a new Director. At present they had not resolved on the appointment of any Assistant Directors. They would wait to see how the work developed; and he hoped that for some time they might go on with the additional assistance he had just indicated. In that case he anticipated that the expenditure of £3,000 or £4,000 would be sufficient. The hon. Baronet said that there had been some misconception as to the meaning of his Amendment on the last occasion. Certainly he took it to cover the salaries and expenses of the new Department, and it might have been open to that ambiguity of interpretation. However, he hoped that the £3,000 for salaries mentioned by the hon. Baronet would be adequate under the arrangements at present proposed, though £3,000 would not be adequate if it was found necessary to appoint an Assistant Director. The Treasury themselves were sanguine on the point. The new Director had great powers of work, and by concentrating his great abilities on his work he might be able to do with less assistance than was contemplated at the moment. It was impossible to say how many appeals might come up from the country under the new Criminal Appeal Act. When he was a Recorder in the North he represented a population of more than a quarter of a million and during ten years there had been no appeal. He remembered on one occasion inviting that an appeal should be taken on a point of law which had been raised and which he had overruled, but no appeal was actually taken. But under the facilities now given for appeals it was a mere speculation what the number might be. They must, therefore, have something of a free hand in dealing with what might be a great accession of new work to the Department and for that reason he was unable to ac-accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
said that surely some estimate of the proposed expenditure should have been provided by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues at the Treasury.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that £4,000 was asked for, but that he did not mean to spend £4,000. Beyond that the hon. and learned Gentleman had given no information to the House. All he said was that he could give no precise indication of what the number of appeals might be, but if the House was to vote the money they should have more information.
§ LORD BALCARRES
said that it was an extraordinary haphazard way in which the present Treasury conducted its business. He thought that before the financial purists spoke they ought to note that they had not received a more exact estimate than that which was announced by the Attorney-General. A rather surprising and curious incident had happened that morning, viz., that on the first day of the financial year Supplementary Estimates had been presented for the year 1908–1909. Although perhaps they could not expect any more precise figures from the Attorney-General he was surprised at the action of the Treasury in this matter.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)
said it seemed to some of them that the hon. and learned Gentleman was striving to hide as long as he possibly could the exact expenditure which this Bill was going to cost the country, and he thought he would be the last person to cast any blame upon them for striving to get from him something more reasonable than the explanation with which he had just favoured them. He thought it was extremely lame of the hon. and learned Gentleman to twit his hon. friend below him with not being able to produce a Bill on all fours with the present measure in which there had been a debate upon the Financial Resolution to be found in Hansard. He might have given a somewhat better explanation if he disagreed with the Amendment which the hon. 531 Baronet had moved, because, after all, although the Bill to which his hon. friend referred was not a Bill of exactly the same nature, still it was one which necessitated a Money Resolution practically word for word the same as that under discussion. The Amendment was also to all intents and purposes the same, and surely the legal mind of the hon. and learned Gentlemen would recognise that there was a very close likeness between the two cases. He wished to know what had occurred to change the mind of front bench occupants, since upon the Aliens Bill they voted in one direction, and now came down to the House without one single word of explanation to eat their own words by voting in another. He did not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of breaking the ordinary rules and regulations of the House in the ordinary sense of the word in not putting his Resolution on the Paper, but what he did say was that as the present members of the Government felt so strongly on the subject in the year 1904, it would not have been outside their capabilities to put on the Notice Paper some approximate statement of the cost in this instance. Although in doing so they might have departed slightly from the rules of the House in such matters, they would not have found a single Member on those benches to object to such a trivial divergence. They did not ask the hon. and learned Gentleman in any way to infringe the rules in carrying through such an ordinary Resolution, but they did ask him to throw a little light on the dark secret. The hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that neither he nor his friend representing the Treasury had the slightest idea of how much the amount wanted would be. If such a statement had been placed on the Notice Paper they would at least have the satisfaction of knowing what they had to deal with, and it would not have been necessary for his hon. friend to have moved the Amendment. There had, however, been one very good result already of the debate, because the other day, his hon. friend having moved an Amendment in regard to £4,000, the hon. and learned Gentleman, he presumed in order to disarm suspicion and criticism, said that 532 it was hoped that the gentleman who was to fill the office would take £3,000, and the debate that day had had the effect of inducing the hon. and learned Gentleman in reply to his hon. friend, although the Amendment standing on the Paper named £3,000, to say that he thought he would be able to get an eminent gentleman for a lesser sum than that. He dared say that if the Resolution had to go through another stage in the House they would get the hon. and learned Gentleman to reduce still further the salary to be paid to the Public Prosecutor. At all events he thought these financial matters should be presented to the House in a more businesslike way in future. They had, however, got valuable information from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he supposed that every time the question arose the gentleman who aspired to the post, or the gentleman who was in the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, would get cheaper and cheaper, because he went down from £4,000 to £3,000 on the last occasion, and that day he had gone down from £3,000 to £2,000. That at all events proved that these debates upon Financial Resolutions had the effect of impressing a little economy on this spendthrift Government. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said in answer to the noble Lord that they were in possession of just exactly the same information as the Treasury. That was a very serious admission, because no one in the House could say that they had the slightest information whatever on the subject. Therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the Treasury were backing him up in a matter of which they also knew absolutely nothing. The cursory statement which they had from the hon. and learned Gentleman when the matter was last before them was as unsatisfactory as his statement that day; it amounted to this, that the House of Commons and the officials of the Treasury, as far as the machinery and the backbone of the Bill, the paying out of the money, were concerned, were absolutely in the dark. Another important point was that the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that the Bill would indirectly provoke appeals.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
said that that admission made the matter all the more serious, because in that case the Public Prosecutor might not only have to appoint one assistant but two or three. If the Bill was going to instigate appeals throughout the country they ought certainly, on a Money Resolution, to have some figures before them. They ought to be told the number of criminal appeals during the last ten or fifteen years, and whether the hon. and learned Gentleman expected that that number would be increased by 5 or 10 per cent. or whatever the figure was. There would have been something logical and tangible then for them to deal with. The point was that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself had indicated that this measure would create a large amount of work for the officials he was appointing and paying by this Resolution, and yet he had no information to give them, nor had the Treasury. He should certainly vote with his hon. friend as a protest against the way in which business was being carired on.
§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)
thought his hon. friend the Member for the City of London had done a great service to the interests of economy in calling attention to the haphazard way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had produced his Financial Resolution on which this Bill was founded. They were told, as he understood, that the duties which would be imposed by the Bill would be very numerous and very onerous, and would take up so much time that it would be impossible that the work could be done in the office of the Solicitor to the Treasury. Under the Act of 1884 constituting the office of the Solicitor to the Treasury and giving him control of these prosecutions, that official had been able to appoint any number of Assistant Solicitors with the same power as himself to carry out the work. When he ventured to call attention to this point on a previous stage and pointed out that a Committee had reported in favour of combining the offices of Public Prosecutor and Solicitor to the Treasury, the answer he got was that the Report of 1884 534 was many years ago, and that the Act based upon it was also many years ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman insisted, however, as in the case of all Radical legislation, on going still further back, and instead of being satisfied with the Act of 1884 he re-enacted the Act of 1879 which was condemned by the Report of the Committee in 1884 on account of its extravagant expense. The two offices were combined in 1884 and now the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed again to separate them. He desired to call attention to the expense that would be incurred by his so doing. He gathered from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the expense would be very great because of the new labours which would be thrown on these gentlemen. But they were told there was to be only one Director of Public Prosecutions. He therefore suggested that the expense in setting up these various offices, and all the details necessary, of shorthand writers and clerks merely to assist one Director of Public Prosecutions, appeared to be very extravagant. With regard to the salary of the Director himself let them not err on the side of undue economy. If it was necessary to set up this officer they should at any rate pay him well. The Public Prosecutor would be a gentleman upon whom the greatest responsibility would rest, and it would be in the interests of neither economynor justice that a gentleman placed in that position should have an inadequate salary. He was sure his hon. friend the junior Member for the City of London would not criticise in a hostile manner an adequate salary for this gentleman. What they thought was that when a Financial Resolution of this character was brought in there ought to be some details of the expenditure it was expected would be incurred.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY
having, as he said, followed this matter from the first, expressed considerable sympathy with the Attorney-General, who by the speeches he had made upon the subject had placed himself in an impossible position. First of all, the hon. and learned Gentleman said he was unable to form any estimate. Had any communication passed since between the hon. and learned Gentleman and 535 the Treasury? Because if so, he must now have some further information beyond that which the House possessed. Having said that he was unable to form an estimate of the cost he now said he only intended to appoint one Director of Public Prosecutions. He could tell pretty well what that would cost.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG
called attention to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and forty Members being found present—
§ MR. CLAUDE HAY
said it would not be difficult for the Government to bring in a Supplementary Estimate if in the next six months it was found necessary owing to the increase of work to increase the staff. It was patent that this Government had no title to be called an economical Government, when on this, the first day of the financial year, they brought in a Resolution of such an indefinite character. What he was anxious to know, and he would ask the Solicitor-General to afford the House the information, was whether the Government had in their mind the gentleman they intended to appoint to this position. If they were only going to appoint one Director they obviously must know the amount of salary they proposed to offer, and, therefore, the ambiguity need not apply to the Resolution. When the question was before the House on a previous occasion the Attorney-General candidly confessed that he had not read the extremely powerful Report of the Committee on the question of the separation of these offices. But the time had arrived when the hon. and learned Gentleman should give serious attention to the opinions expressed in that Report, signed as it was by Sir William Harcourt
§ and other eminent Members of the party opposite and of other sides of the House, most of them being ex-Ministers. The matter had been regarded by the Government as a small one, yet four years had hardly elapsed since on a similar question in connection with the Aliens Bill four Members of the present Government, beginning with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke very strongly upon the subject and voted against the Resolution. The present Resolution was on all fours with that brought in by the late Government in connection with the Aliens Bill. The Attorney-General now told the House that he could not fix the figure because he could not tell how the work would develope and what would be the amount of staff required. That was exactly the case in the Aliens Bill. It was impossible to state how many officers would be required or of what the equipment at the various ports would consist The Government of the day advanced practically the same argument as that put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was most emphatic on the necessity of fixing the amount of the Estimate. If the principles applied by the Government in this financial Resolution were applied to private business undertakings, in a very short time the undertakings would be bankrupt. It was regarded by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as a small matter, but it was a matter of vital principle of the business management that should be applied to the whole of the work of the Government.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 272. (Division List No. 63.)539
|Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F||Bridgeman, W. Clive||Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Ashley, W. W.||Carlile, E. Hildred||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Forster, Henry William|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Courthope, G. Loyd||Gretton, John|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.||Guinness, Walter Edward|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Craik, Sir Henry||Hamilton, Marquess of|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Helmsley, Viscount||Moore, William||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hill, Sir Clement||Morpeth, Viscount||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Hunt, Rowland||Parkes, Ebenezer||Valentia, Viscount|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Winterton, Earl|
|Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R||Remnant, James Farquharson||Younger, George|
|Long. Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Salter, Arthur Clavell||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|M'Calmont, Colonel James||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.||Frederick Banbury and|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)||Captain Craig.|
|Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Starkey, John R.|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Crooks, William||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Crosfield, A. H.||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Agnew, George William||Curran, Peter Francis||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Alden, Percy||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Howard, Hon. Godfrey|
|Ambrose, Robert||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hudson, Walter|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Delany, William||Hutton, Alfred Eddison|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Devlin, Joseph||Idris, T. H. W.|
|Astbury, John Meir||Dobson, Thomas W.||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Donelan, Captain A.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Duckworth, James||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness||Johnson, John (Gateshead)|
|Barker, John||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Jowett, F. W.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Erskine, David C.||Joyce, Michael|
|Barnes, G. N.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N||Essex, R. W.||Kelley, George D.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Esslemont, George Birnie||Kilbride, Denis|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Evans, Sir Samuel T.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Everett, R. Lacey||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Bennett, E. N.||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lambert, George|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Fenwick, Charles||Lamont, Norman|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Ffrench, Peter||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Boland, John||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Fullerton, Hugh||Lough, Thomas|
|Brace, William||Furness, Sir Christopher||Lundon, W.|
|Branch, James||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Bright, J. A.||Gilhooly, James||Maclean, Donald|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Gill, A. H.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.||Macpherson, J. T.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Glover, Thomas||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.|
|Byles, William Pollard||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)|
|Cameron, Robert||Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||M'Callum, John M.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Gulland, John W.||M'Crae, George|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Chance, Frederick William||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||M'Killop, W.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Hall, Frederick||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Halpin, J.||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk||Maddison, Frederick|
|Cleland, J. W.||Hart-Davies, T.||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Clough, William||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Clynes, J. R.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Marnham, F. J.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hazleton, Richard||Masterman, C. F. G.|
|Cooper, G. J.||Healy, Timothy Michael||Meagher, Michael|
|Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd||Hedges, A. Paget||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Cowan, W. H.||Higham, John Sharp||Montagu, E. S.|
|Crean, Eugene||Hobart, Sir Robert||Montgomery, H. G.|
|Cremer, Sir William Randal||Hodge, John||Mooney, J. J.|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Reddy, M.||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Morse, L. L.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Rees, J. D.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Muldoon, John||Rendall, Athelstan||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Murnaghan, George||Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th||Toulmin, George|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Richardson, 0A.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Napier, T. B.||Ridsdale, E. A.||Verney, F. W.|
|Nicholls, George||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Villiers, Ernest Amherst|
|Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Nolan, Joseph||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Wardle, George J.|
|Nussey, Thomas Willans||Robinson, S.||Waring, Walter|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Rowlands, J.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Runciman, Walter||Watt, Henry A.|
|O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||Russell, T. W.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Whitbread, Howard|
|O'Dowd, John||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|O'Grady, J.||Sears, J. E.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N||Seddon, J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|O'Malley, William||Seely, Colonel||Whitehead, Rowland|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Shackleton, David James||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax|
|O'Shee, James John||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|Partington, Oswald||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)]||Wiles, Thomas|
|Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Sheehy, David||Williamson, A.|
|Perks, Robert William||Shipman. Dr. John G.||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, 'W.)|
|Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Stanger, H. Y.||Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)||Winfrey, R.|
|Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford, E.)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Pullar, Sir Robert||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.|
|Radford, G. H.||Summerbell, T.||Whiteley and Mr. Herbert|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Lewis.|
Resolution agreed to.