§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, the sum of £35,443,233 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some explanation as to what had necessitated the introduction of this resolution. Did the resolution cover a large amount of the Supplies voted for the continuance of the war in South Africa? If so, he would be entitled to raise the whole question of the conduct of the war. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might not like it, and indeed it was neither his desire nor his intention to do so; but he wished to raise a comparatively narrow point, but one of which had become a question of definite matter, of infinite public importance, seeing that it had attracted unfavourable comment, not only in what was called the pro-Boer press, but in newspapers which supported the Government. He referred to the plan of keeping the people of this country in the blankest ignorance of what was going on in South Africa. All the country was treated to was a series of telegrams from Lord Kitchener, some three or four lines long, which might be described as the weekly butcher's bill.
How does the hon. Member connect that question with the Vote out of the Consolidated Fund?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)
A Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ MR. DILLON
It is the same thing. This is a resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, which is to be followed by a Consolidated Fund Bill. I assume that the resolution is concerned with some of the large Votes granted for the use of the Army. If that is so, I am entitled to raise the question of the conduct of the war.
I do not think that that follows as a matter of course. It depends upon the services for which the money is required.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
, on a point of order, suggested that this was a resolution on which it was intended to found a Consolidated Fund Bill. That Bill did not appropriate sums to specific purposes, but it authorised the Treasury to issue the sum named out of the Consolidated Fund for the expenses of the year. Was not that issue authorised by the Bill an act of Supply? If so, did it not come under the rule that grievance must precede Supply?
I do not think that the rule as to grievance preceding Supply is applicable. Under this Bill about £21,000,000 will be issued for the Army services. These Army services, which have been already voted, are military education, miscellaneous services, pensions, superannuation, ordnance factories, remounts and so forth. I was asking the hon. Member for East Mayo how he could connect the conduct of Lord Kitchener in not sending fuller telegrams with any of the Votes to which this Bill applies.
§ MR. DILLON
The larger part of the sum is for miscellaneous effective services—in other words, for the conduct of the war, including the pay of Lord Kitchener.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will come on on Thursday, and then the hon. Member will have before him exactly the Votes with which the Bill deals. There will be a full and much more convenient opportunity for debate then.
§ MR. DILLON
said the First Lord of the Treasury had correctly defined the position. No doubt it would be a more convenient opportunity for a long discussion on the Second Reading. This, however, was a question of order, and it was not his intention to do what he was entitled to do—namely, to raise a general discussion on the conduct of the war. He wanted to call attention to the un-satisfactory character of the news placed before the public in regard to the conduct of the war generally, and the widespread dissatisfaction which existed in this country as to the insufficiency of the news sent from South Africa.
That is why I asked the hon. Member how he connected that subject with this resolution, and I still think that he has not answered the question. I have been endeavouring to find out how he can connect his observations with any of the Votes contained in the resolution, and they do not seem to me to be connected with them in any way. There is nothing about the salary of Lord Kitchener, and the pay of the Army is not borne on any of these Votes.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
Is it not a fact that this sum is issued for the services of the Army, and that any portion of it may be by the direction of the Treasury diverted to any portion of Army service? If that be so, does not the issue of any sum for Army services cover any portion of the grievances connected with any portion of it?
§ MR. DILLON
asked the Secretary of State for War, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say whether any portion of the 1426 £35,000,000 was to be used for the support of the Army in South Africa.
§ *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)
I think it is more than probable that that will be so, but this does not settle the point upon which the hon. Gentleman asked the ruling of the Chair. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has suggested that the debate might extend to services not included in the resolution, because the War Office in certain circumstances can allocate money voted for one service to another service. But it would not be possible in Committee of Supply to raise a debate on a Vote which was not before the Committee because of the power of the War Office to allocate the money in that way, but the discussion would have to be confined to the Vote actually before the Committee.
§ MR. DILLON
said the Committee had not yet heard a definite statement as to whether any of the £35,000,000 was to be used for the purposes of the war in South Africa. He believed that a large portion of the Vote was for the expenses of the war in South Africa, and therefore he was surely entitled to ask a few questions on the subject.
There is a Vote for transport and remounts, and that of course is applicable to the war in South Africa; but I do not think that on this question it would be possible to discuss the conduct of Lord Kitchener in not sending fuller telegrams. The same rule must apply now upon this resolution as would apply in Committee of Supply. On any particular Vote you must discuss a question connected with that Vote.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)
asked whether for the convenience of the Committee the Chairman would read the Votes which were covered by this resolution.
"War Office Estimates—military education, miscellaneous effective services, pensions and other non-effective charges, superannuation, compensation allowances and gratuities, works, buildings, and repairs, transport and remounts, and ordnance factories."
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said that this was a very important point. Was he not right in saying that any one of the items of money allocated to these purposes might be by the direction of the Treasury diverted to the salary of Lord Kitchener, the salary of the censor, or to any other purpose connected with the war? That being so, was it not open to an hon. Member on a general issue like this Consolidated Fund, and considering the power of diverting such sums, to raise grievances before this kind of Supply?
It is true that with the assent of the Treasury money voted for one purpose may be used for another, but I do not think that opens the discussion upon all the other purposes to which the Treasury assent that the money might be applied, because, if so, all limitation would be futile. On any particular Estimate it would be open to any hon. Member while discussing the Estimate to say—"It is true that this money is to be devoted to a particular Estimate, but the Treasury may permit it to be devoted to another Estimate; therefore I do not propose to discuss the Estimate before the Committee, but some other subject not before the Committee." The same rule of relevancy must apply to a resolution which empowers the money to be devoted to its objects as to a resolution in Committee of Supply.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
asked whether the Government had any information as to 500 horses having been captured by the Boers from a remount station near Colesberg, at the latter end of May last.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford)
I have already answered the hon. Member's question. I have no information.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said if one could be perfectly certain of all the news which came from South Africa one could accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with perfect equanimity, but in one or two cases certain items of news came from various sources, and the Government knew nothing about 1428 them. He would like to ask what was being done with regard to the remounts in Cape Colony, whether the horses there had been commandeered, or whether the horses were being left for agricultural purposes on the farms.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)
I think that the bewilderment in the mind of hon. Members arises from the common practice of Parliament, founded upon a necessity of which I am not aware, of attaching a certain air of mystery to these proceedings in Ways and Means. The Committee is only told of the resolution; it comes upon us like a thunderbolt, and it seems to be a much more formidable and terrible proceeding than it really is, because of the mystery attaching to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moves a resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, but we never see the resolution; it is not put on the Paper for the information of the House until the House is called upon to "stand and deliver," and to pass the resolution. You, Sir, have been reading from a document which enumerates the Votes dealt with. Why should it not be given to the House? This is a matter for which I do not blame the Government in the least, but it seems to be a somewhat futile and anomalous proceeding that the House should be put in the position in which it now finds itself. The Leader of the House is right in saying that in the main this stage is purely formal, and that the proper time to raise any serious questions involved in the money voted is on the Second Reading of the Bill. But it is certainly anomalous that undescribed resolutions should come as it were from the blue sky, and should not be explained, except in the most general terms, by the Minister. The Committee generally is placed at a disadvantage. You, Sir, have ruled that any discussion must be confined to the subject actually involved, and I think you are undoubtedly right, but the Committee cannot exercise any intelligent confidence in your decision unless we know what are the subjects in the resolution. The Government are acting according to rule, but I think that the rule and practice are bad, and I hope that there may be some arrangement made to avoid this difficulty 1429 in future. We quite understand that there is necessity for some kind of secrecy before the Budget is introduced, in order that there may be no premature disclosure of the terms of the Government's proposals. But there is no necessity in this case, and I think it would be a good thing if in the future a simpler method were adopted.
§ MR. DILLON
said that he was in agreement with the views of the right hon. Gentleman. Except in the case of the Budget resolutions, there was no reason for not giving notice of all resolutions to be moved in Committee of Ways and Means. He hoped that in future reasonable information would be given to the House.
§ MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)
asked the Secretary of State for War how long the Government could carry on the war without coming to Parliament for further funds. He also asked whether the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would be the first Order of the day.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The hon. Member's first question does not come within the terms of any of the Votes included in the resolution. As regards his second question, the Second Reading of the Bill will be put down as first Order.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
remarked that, even after the interchange of views that had taken place, they were still in the dark as to the Votes covered by the resolution.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
All the Votes that have been taken in Committee of Supply and agreed to on Report will be included.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
observed that if that information had been given at first it would have saved this discussion. He hoped a division would be taken in order to indicate the view held on the question of remounts. It had been abundantly proved that in regard to that subject there had been more incompetency and more blundering by the War Office than in regard to any other matter in the whole of the South African campaign. 1430 It had been shown that on the question of buying remounts, and getting horses suitable for the campaign in South Africa, the officials had been guilty of the greatest blunders. It was notorious that horses had been sent out which, when they arrived in South Africa, were found to be wholly unsuitable. Having regard to the fact that the war was being carried on in such a fashion, he hoped the discussion upon its general conduct would be taken at an early date. With regard to transport arrangements, he too might say he had received a number of letters from private soldiers which said that on some of the ships the men had been treated most disgracefully, and the accommodation provided for them was grossly insufficient.
§ *SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
There has been a good deal of misapprehension in regard to the procedure that has been adopted. The Secretary to the Treasury was quite right when he said this is not an Appropriation Bill. It is a Consolidated Fund Bill. Money for the public service is voted in Supply, and the Vote is sanctioned by the House on Report. But that is not sufficient to get the money out of the Treasury. Sir Erskine May said with reference to that procedure—Until a grant in Supply has been appropriated by statute to the service and object for which the grant is destined, the Treasury, unless otherwise ordered, is not capable of making the issue of the sum so granted from the Consolidated Fund. The introduction of the Appropriation Bill cannot, however, take place until all the grants have been voted for the service of the current year, a process usually ranging over a period of six months. A more prompt issue must therefore be made of the money granted from time to time for the current service of the Crown, and accordingly from time to time Bills are passed during each session known as Consolidated Fund Bills, which empower the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the Departments for whose use the grants are voted such sums as they may require in anticipation of the statutory sanction granted by the Appropriation Act.There is no statutory sanction until the Appropriation Act is passed for the expenditure of the year. By the Bill now to be brought in, the Treasury is authorised to issue the money, but it will not be an Appropriation Act. Sir Erskine May goes on to explain that the first Consolidated Fund Bill of the session 1431 must be passed during the month of March. That Bill finally appropriates the amount of the Supplementary Estimates and of the expenditure which has taken place between the close of the last session and the end of the financial year. Then—the remaining Consolidated Fund Bills are passed, during the progress of the session, at such times as may be requisite for the maintenance of the public service.The Committee will see from that that this is a simple form of procedure to authorise the Treasury to sign cheques and the Paymaster General to pay them, which until this Bill is passed they cannot do. But the final appropriation of the money voted this year will be made at the proper time by the Appropriation Act which will be passed during the last week of the session.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
asked for information as to the sufficiency of the supply of remounts in South Africa. Very little news had been published as to what was being done by the War Office in this direction. A month or two ago an assurance was given that Lord Kitchener had sufficient horses for his requirements. Since then comparatively few horses had been imported into South Africa, while, according to private information he had received, the colonial stock—the horses in South Africa—was now running short, and there would be some difficulty in finding remounts unless a large number were imported. The only notice he had seen of fresh remounts going to South Africa was that of a shipload of about 1,000 horses from South America the other day, and those, he believed, were not considered to be of the best description for the purpose. Statements had repeatedly been made that the great difficulty in South Africa was not the scarcity of rifles or of ammunition, but the question of horses. The war would be decided by our being able to outlast our enemies in the matter of horseflesh, and that could only be done by keeping up a good supply of remounts. He therefore hoped an assurance would be given that the supply of horses was not running short, and that the Government were fully alive to their responsibilities in this matter.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
May I respectfully repeat that this has invariably been regarded as a purely formal stage of the procedure, and, because I understood that it would be again so regarded, I promised to put the Bill down as first Order on Thursday. Of course it is impossible that we should have a discussion to-night and another on Thursday. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the Committee will treat it on this occasion as it always has been treated before, as a formal stage, and I will then put the Bill down as first Order on Thursday.
§ MR. LAMBERT
desired to know of whom he should ask a question with regard to the period for which the war could go on without pressing the Treasury.
§ MR. LAMBERT
pointed out that the subject of remounts could be discussed on the present occasion, and his question would naturally arise on that. But he did not want to discuss it; he merely wished to know to whom he should apply for the information.
§ *MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)
regretted the First Lord of the Treasury had not made some response to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition. A great deal of time had been lost owing to the Committee not knowing exactly the business that was coming on. All would acknowledge that in one sense the present was a formal stage, but in another sense it was not. The House of Commons had now to watch very jealously every opportunity of discussing matters, and naturally, when Members saw that a resolution was to be moved in Committee of Ways and Means, they snatched at the idea that certain discussion might take place. They all understood that nothing could be brought up other than the matters contained in the Votes covered by the resolution put from 1433 the Chair, but everything contained an those Votes could be discussed, and, although the Secretary to the Treasury had attempted to draw a distinction between a Consolidated Fund Bill and an Appropriation Bill, there was no distinction in respect of the discussion which might ensue. Everything arising under the Votes which made up the sum of £35,443,233 in the resolution could be discussed; that was the point he desired to make good. He also wished to press on the Leader of the House the desirability of most seriously considering whether he could not respond to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition, so that Members might know in every case, except that of the Budget, the business that was coming on. Such an arrangement would save a great deal of time, and he hoped the matter would be seriously considered.
MR. PHILIPPS (Pembrokeshire)
said that in a recent debate the Secretary of State for War quoted a portion of a telegram from Lord Kitchener to the effect that he had plenty of mounted men and ample remounts. That telegram
§ had not been laid on the Table, and as only a portion of it had been quoted he thought the Committee were entitled to press for it on the present occasion. He therefore asked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give Members the full telegram, so that they could judge of Lord Kitchener's statement for themselves. If he would not do that, could he repeat the assurance that Lord Kitchener was still amply satisfied with the number of horses and mounted men generally that he had in South Africa.
§ MR. BRODRICK
I do not think it is very convenient to lay isolated telegrams in the way the hon. Member proposes. I quoted the exact words of Lord Kitchener, and there is no change whatever in his attitude as regards either mounted men or remounts. I am in constant communication with him, and he is absolutely satisfied at the present moment with the supplies he is receiving from England.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 330; Noes, 66. (Division List No. 275.)1435
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Craig, Robert Hunter|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Boyle, James||Cripps, Charles Alfred|
|Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)||Brigg, John||Crombie, John William|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Bullard, Sir Harry||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Burt, Thomas||Denny, Col.|
|Austin, Sir John||Butcher, John George||Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Caldwell, James||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph C.|
|Bain, Col. James Robert||Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Balcarres, Lord||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Cautley, Henry Strother||Doxford, Sir William T.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Dunn, Sir William|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Edwards, Frank|
|Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christch'ch)||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)||Elibank, Master of|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)||Emmott, Alfred|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Chapman, Edward||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cochrane, Hon, T. H. A. E.||Farquharson, Dr. Robert|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol||Coddington, Sir William||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.|
|Bell, Richard||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Fenwick, Charles|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Manc'r|
|Bignold, Arthur||Colville, John||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Bigwood, James||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Finch, George H.|
|Bill, Charles||Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)||Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne|
|Blundell, Col. Henry||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Firbank, Joseph Thomas|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Langley, Batty||Rankin, Sir James|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robt, Penrose-||Law, Andrew Bonar||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool]||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lawson, John Grant||Renwick, George|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green|
|Flower, Ernest||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Rigg, Richard|
|Forster, Henry Wm.||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Leng, Sir John||Robson, William Snowdon.|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Galloway, Wm. Johnson||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Garfit, William||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Gibhs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.||Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol S.)||Russell, T. W.|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lowe, Francis William||Sackville, Col. Sir G. Stopford-|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Gore, Hn G. R. C Ormsby- (Salop||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Grant, Corrie||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Macdona, John Cumming||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Shipmen, Dr. John G.|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Maconochie, A. W.||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Gretton, John||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Sinclair, Capt. John Forfarshire|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||M'Laren, Charles Benjamin||Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)|
|Groves, James Grimble||Majehdie, James A. H.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Malcolm, Ian||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Manners, Lord Cecil||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Hain, Edward||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Spear, John Ward|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G (Midd'x.||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich|
|Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry||Mather, William||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford||Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.||Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Mitchell, William||Stroyan, John|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Morgan, David J (Walth'mst'w||Tennant, Harold John|
|Helder, Augustus||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose||Thomas, Dv. Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Morrell, George Herbert||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Henderson, Alexander||Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter||Morrison, James Archibald||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead||Morton, Arthur HA. (Deptford)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)||Mount, William Arthur||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield|
|Holland, William Henry||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute||Wallace, Robert|
|Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Newnes, Sir George||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Hoult, Joseph||Nicholson, William Graham||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Hudson, George Bickersteth||Norman, Henry||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney|
|Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies||Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.||Webb, Col. Wm. George|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Weir, James Galloway|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Welby, Lt-Col AC. E. (Taunton|
|Joicey, Sir James||Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)||Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Parker, Gilbert||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Jones, William (Carnarvons.)||Partington, Oswald||White, Luke, York, E. R.)|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Paulton, James Mellor||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Pease, J. A (Saffron Walden)||Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Kenyon, James (Lancs. Bury)||Percy, Earl||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Perks, Robert William||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Kimber, Henry||Philipps, John Wynford||Williams, O. (Merioneth)|
|Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Pierpoint, Robert||Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Bir.)|
|Kitson, Sir James||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard||Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.),|
|Knowles, Lees||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Lambert, George||Priestley, Arthur||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Purvis, Robert||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-||Younger, William||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Ffrench, Peter||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Field, William||O'Doherty, William|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Flynn, James Christopher||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)|
|Blake, Edward||Gilhooly, James||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Boland, John||Hammond, John||O'Dowd, John|
|Boyle, James||Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Malley, William|
|Caine, William Sproston||Joyce, Michael||O'Mara, James|
|Cameron, Robert||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Lewis, John Herbert||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Carew, James Laurence||Lundon, W.||Reddy, M.|
|Cogan, Denis J.||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||M'Fadden, Edward||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Govern, T.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Cullinan, J.||Mooney, John J.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Daly, James||Murphy, John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Delany, William||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whte, George (Norfolk)|
|Dillon, John||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Duffy, William J.||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Farrell, James Patrick||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.