§ Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the salary and remuneration of any officers, inspectors, or persons appointed under any Act of the present session to amend the Law with regard to Aliens, and of any expenses incurred in carrying such Act into effect."
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)
begged to move to add at the end of the Motion the words "not exceeding in all in any one year, £10,000." He had put in the words "in all," because he saw, after re-reading the Resolution laid on the Table, that it might otherwise be held to refer only to the expenses and not to the salaries of those whom it was proposed to appoint. On several occasions they had endeavoured to raise the question of the expense arising in connection with the Bill, and he was afraid that this was the only opportunity, in view of the fact that the guillotine had come into force, that they would have of saying anything on the financial aspect of the question. He had put in a limit of £10,000 a year for the expenditure, and that would allow for an average of £1,200 for each of the 274 eight ports at which it was proposed to set up machinery under the Bill. The element of expenditure was a substantial element in the consideration of the measure. They were now well aware that the number of aliens that they were going to keep out of this country was likely to be extremely small. Some of his hon. friends put it at thirty or forty, while others suggested it might be about 100, and adopting the latter figure he thought it would be admitted that the allocation of £10,000 a year in order to exclude 100 undesirable aliens was a very liberal—even a lavish—provision to make. He wished to enter his protest against granting the Home Secretary unlimited credit in this matter. He thought that they ought to have some definite limit placed on the expenditure to be authorised under the Bill, and in the vague form in which Clause 4 was now drafted it was clear that there was absolutely no limit whatever on the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman. There was nothing to say how many officers he might appoint or at what salary, and, in fact, he might spend anything from £10,000 to £100,000 a year. Of course, he would tell them that the Treasury would look after that, but in late years their trust in the Treasury had substantially diminished, for they had seen over and over again that, after entering a half-hearted protest against I expenditure, it had given way, and schemes of lavish and unnecessary outlay had been sanctioned. Under these circumstances he begged to move his Amendment.
§ MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)
seconded the Amendment. He said he believed that at an earlier stage of the discussion the Home Secretary gave them a rough estimate of the expenditure under the Bill, and he put it at £24,000 a year. They had no knowledge, however, upon what that was based, for the right hon. Gentleman did not go into detail. He would like, however, to call the attention of the House to the fact that on the preceding day two things occurred which made it pretty clear that the expenditure under the Bill should not be very large if only the Government exercised economy. They had 275 two discussions on the previous day of a very important character. One was on the question of contract labour. There was an Amendment to exclude contract labour, which was brought forward by the Labour Members of the House. It was the only one, he believed, they had introduced, and it was promptly rejected by the Government. That Amendment would have excluded contract labour, and its rejection had brought about a very material difference between the law which was to be put into operation in England and the law which was already in operation in America. It was the case, he understood, that the number of aliens excluded from America in the course of the year was 8,000, and of these no fewer than 1,500 were excluded under the clause which permitted contract labourers to be kept out of the country, and, therefore, in England, when they were calculating how many people were likely to be excluded under this Act, they would have to take into consideration that it would be infinitely less than the American standard, because there would be no power to exclude contract labour. But the other decision arrived at on the previous night was of an even more formidable character. The House was asked to permit victims of religious persecution to come freely into this country. One thing was perfectly certain, and that was that enormous numbers of those who came over here from Russia and Poland were victims of religious persecution, and the result of the decision of the Government on this matter was that the greater part of the poverty stricken people who now came to this country would necessarily be excluded, because, as was well known, they were the victims of religious persecution. So far as numbers were concerned, the bottom had been knocked out of the Bill. The result was that the great changes which the Bill was to work would become extremely small. There would, indeed, be very few people excluded, and if £24,000 was to be the cost of the administration of the measure as it was originally framed, he ventured to think that the sum of £10,000 would now become an extravagant estimate, if only the Government would work it in an economical spirit, and he would urge upon them to try to make the Bill a little less un- 276 popular by not putting too severe a strain upon the Treasury.
At end, to add the words "not exceeding in all in any one year ten thousand pounds."—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)
said he could not agree with the mover and seconder of the Amendment as to the desirability of narrowing the effect of the money clause. He thought the last speaker must have overlooked the fact that the sole purpose of the Bill was not to exclude, but that it was also proposed to examine immigrants, and that such examination must necessarily involve considerable expense, not only in regard to the salaries of the officers engaged, but also in regard to the accommodation which it might be necessary to put up for the temporary detention of aliens. This Amendment was practically a vote of want of confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and he was not prepared to vote for it, because the right hon. Gentleman had been extremely conciliators towards shipowners. He had smiled upon them in the most amiable manner, and had accompanied that smile by substantial concessions. He took this opportunity, however, to bring before the right hon. Gentleman one point which was raised by an Amendment of an hon. friend which, with many other Amendments, would fail to be discussed, an Amendment which protested in the strongest terms against placing on the shipowners the burden of providing the accommodation necessary for the detention of immigrants. In the Bill of last year there were words which enabled the Secretary of State, with the sanction of the Treasury, to provide each accommodation as might be required at any port, and he hoped that it would be found possible to introduce similar words into this measure. It was quite impossible to forecast the cost of working this Bill, and if it were found necessary to erect substantial buildings a very considerable proportion of the sum estimated would be required 277 for that purpose. He objected to the cost of the buildings, which was small, being placed upon the shipowners, inasmuch as the Bill was intended to exclude aliens for the benefit and safety of the country at large. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would be rejected, that a free hand would be given to the Home Secretary, and that the right hon. Gentleman would do the right thing by the shipowners, which he was sure he was desirous of doing.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said the hon. Member, in expressing a willingness to sanction unbridled, unlimited, and extravagant expenditure, provided that the shipowner was "squared," was hardly treating the Committee with sufficient courtesy. The Resolution as it stood was as wide as the wide world, and that no limit was imposed in the clause was, in his opinion, a grave defect. The better, and not unusual, practice of the House was to have a limit put in the Resolution itself. He understood that his right he friend the Home Secretary had suggested that he could do the job of keeping out 100 aliens or so for £24,000 per annum, or about £240 per alien. He suggested that the limit should be, not £10,000, but £24,000, and he put that forward as a happy suggestion that would reconcile the objection of both sides.
§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said the question of cost was a very serious one. There were not only officials to be appointed, but buildings and offices which had to be provided. He noticed, too, that provision was to be made for returns. But they already had very complete returns, and why should they give the Home Secretary a blank cheque in order to do work at present well done by the Board of Trade. He would like to ask whether the Home Secretary would undertake that before any expenses were incurred under the Bill the estimates should be laid before the House.
§ MR. WHITLEY
Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Government 278 cannot, for instance appoint the immigration officers until we vote the money?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine's
said he could give no such promise as that which the hon. Member for Islington asked for. A more unreasonable proposal had never been made to a Minister. He had already stated that the Home Office had made a careful estimate of the expenses that would be incurred under the Bill, and the figure arrived at was £24,000 a year. That estimate was made up by allowing £3,000 for the Port of London, £2,000 for each of the other tan ports at which it was proposed to set up the machinery required by the Bill, and £1,000 for central staff. The hon. Member for the Elland Division had contended that the estimate was excessive as the bottom had been knocked out of the Bill yesterday by the agreement to admit the victims of religious persecution. On the contrary, it would increase the expenditure by entailing a closer examination of the aliens to ascertain whether they came within that exemption. He did not accept the estimate formed on the Opposition Benches as to the small number of aliens which the Bill would exclude. He believed the Bill would keep out the large number of undesirable immigrants who came here because they were rejected in America; and as the knowledge of the operation of the Bill spread abroad the number of aliens coming here would be reduced and with, it the cost of the machinery of the Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
Will the buildings required for the accommodation and examination of aliens be provided for by Estimate or will there be an Aliens Loans Bill.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
I have no intention of anything in the form of art Aliens Loans Bill. We believe that the buildings which will be required for carrying out the Bill are already provided at the harbours and docks, bat if any shipping companies desire other buildings they certainly will be called upon to provide them.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said it was impossible for the House to arrive at the probable number of aliens who would be stopped under the Bill until they knew the number of aliens who at present came intending to stay here.
§ MR. BRYCE
said the House had no statistics on the point of the slightest value, although they had repeatedly asked for them. The evidence of the man who knew most about it—Mr. Llewellyn Smith—went to show that it was impossible for the Board of Trade to give any estimate. The Home Secretary had entirely failed to give an estimate of the probable number of aliens, and, therefore, they were discussing this most important matter absolutely in the dark. On the question of expense the Home Secretary had stimulated rather than satisfied curiosity. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward an estimate of £24,000 for eleven ports, but the only particulars he had given were £3,000 for London, £2,000 for other ports, and £1,000 for the Home Office. How were the other £11,000 to be spent?
§ MR. BRYCE
asked how the money at the different ports was to be expended. There would have to be inspectors, but what salaries were to be paid, and were the officers to do any work other than that in connection with aliens? In many ports there would be so little work that it would be absurd to appoint an inspector exclusively for the duty, and in such cases would existing officials of the Board of Trade undertake the work as an extra duty? If special officers were appointed would care be taken 280 to see that they posesssed the necessary qualifications? These were all Questions that should be asked now, since, owing to the conditions under which the Bill was being discussed, there would be no opportunity on the appropriate portions of the measure. Personally, he could not see how the £24,000 were to be spent. At moat of the ports so few aliens came in that it would be neither reasonable nor proper to employ men at considerable salaries to do a trifling piece of work which would become important only once or twice a week, if then. He thought his hon. friend's estimate would be much nearer the mark than, that of the Home Secretary, and certainly £24,000 was a large sum to spend in demonstrating the utter inutility and absurdity of the measure.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)
asked whether the estimate of expenditure under the Bill would be submitted in the form of a Supplementary Estimate before the close of the present session, seeing that the Bill would come into force on January 1st next.
§ MR. BRIGHT (Shropshire, Oswestry)
said that as the Home Secretary had referred to an Answer given to him it was as well that the House should know the exact wording of that Answer, since it hardly bore the construction now placed upon it. The Answer was—It is obvious that any estimate which can be made at the present moment must be to a great extent conjectural. I have, however, prepared an estimate of the probable cost of administration, confining it to the provisions for preventing the immigration of undesirables, since it is impossible to forecast the expense of expelling alien criminals, etc.";therefore there would be expenditure over and above the £24,000, and the House had a right to know what exactly was included in this sum. The only effect of the measure would be to damage us as a freedom-loving nation in the eyes of the world, and to throw a considerable burden on the taxpayer.
§ MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)
asked upon whom the cost of providing additional buildings would fall in the event of such additional buildings being found necessary. It would be extremely unfair that it should fall on the shipowners 281 Last year the Government proposed that the cost of providing accommodation for the temporary detention of aliens should be borne by the nation, and he failed to see why a different course should be followed this year. The cost to employers under our system of inspection and so forth was continually increasing, and, while he did not say that such inspection was wrong, he thought it would soon become necessary for the trade it was to bring aliens to this country Government to do something to assist should be responsible for any additional employers to bear this constantly increasing burden.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (Yorkshire, Cleveland)
said that probably many hon. Members thought that this £24,000 was a mere trifle compared with the saving to the rates that would be effected by the exclusion of aliens. That, however, was not the case. According to the Board of Trade Report alien pauperism represented 0.22 per cent, of the total pauperism of the country. The total cost of pauperism in England and Wales was about £13,000,000, 0.22 per cent, of which represented roughly £28,000. Therefore the country was asked to spend £24,000 upon a system of inspection the maximum result of which, if it kept out all alien paupers, would be to save £28,000.
§ MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
was understood to say that the Home Secretary was suffering from going too far in his endeavours to conciliate opponents of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to commit himself to any definite amount, as it was impossible to say what the precise expense would be. As far as Liverpool was concerned, the machinery was already in existence, and it would cost little, if anything, to put the Bill into operation, especially having regard to the probable saving to the rates. In London the ease was different. Out of 51,000 aliens who arrived in the Metropolis last year 49,000 arrived in foreign steamers. In different ports different conditions and requirements obtained. He desired to dissociate himself from the remarks of some of his hon. friends, as he thought it was doing an ill service to the cause of shipowners to put forward unreasonable claims.
§ MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR
asked why that was unreasonable this year which, in the opinion of the Government, was perfectly reasonable last year.
§ MR. DAVID MACIVER
said that being a shipowner he would naturally be unwilling that any unreasonable charge should be imposed upon shipowners, but he thought it only right that those whose cost that might be involved.
§ MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)
said he desired to press the point as to the problematical cost to the shipowners of providing the accommodation which would be necessary under this Bill. This question could not be dismissed in the light and airy fashion which had been adopted by the Home Secretary. Heavy charges would have to be met at the seaports, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Member for Liverpool. He would like to know where was there accommodation in Liverpool that could be used for the influx of immigrants who would have to be examined and supervised, either medically or otherwise. So far as Liverpool was concerned, every small building was used, and they were of very great value. To suggest that shipowners were to provide the necessary accommodation and purchase land in order to provide something which was to be used for a national purpose was putting a very heavy expense upon them. There seemed to be no limit to the expense that might have to be borne in the carrying out of this Bill. The Home Secretary was asking for a blank cheque to pay whatever salaries and expenses he liked, and that was certainly not a business-like arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell them the amount he proposed to spend and give the House some details that would enable them to form a judgment.
§ MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent)
said he thought this Bill was very popular with the working classes, but it was not advisable that they should get it into their heads that it was going to be a costly Bill. He thought the Home 283 Secretary would be well advised if he put a limit into the Bill which must not be exceeded. He could not see why the American method had not been adopted and so much, charged for each immigrant. Either the people who brought these immigrants or the immigrants themselves should be called upon to pay these charges.
§ MAJOR EVANS GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)
said he trusted that the Home Secretary would remain quite firm upon the point of expenditure connected with the accommodation of these immigrants. He could not understand why there should be any suggestion that the taxpayers should pay these charges. Here they had a number of shipping companies, mostly foreigners, dragging into their net anybody they could and bringing them over here in order to make a profit. Why on earth should not these shipping companies pay the expense of these examinations? He did not see why the reasonable restrictions imposed upon other parts of shipping should not also be applied in regard to this particular part of their business. In London, foreign shipowners had the option of having these people examined on board ship, and in that case they would not be put to any expense. If shipowners only took proper precautions in selecting their passengers they would be subjected to hardly any inconvenience at all. If shipowners chose to bring undesirable people and chance them being rejected the blame would rest upon themselves. In the debate last evening hon. Members opposite offered no objection to the financial burden which the granting of asylum to foreigners would place upon this country. At any rate, he hoped the burden of these immigrants would be removed from the people of the East End of London and other localities who were being so seriously injured under the present system. In Hamburg there was an enormous business of this kind, and they had set up depots there costing £50,000 without any question of the State bearing any of the cost. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his original proposal.
§ *MR. RUNCIMAN (Dewsbury)
complained of the statements made, more particularly by the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney, that shipping companies engaged in bringing immigrants were employed in casting their net over Europe, raking in any person good, bad, or indifferent, to swell their passenger lists.
§ MR. RUNCIMAN
Could that be said of the port of Hull, where the only passenger vessels coming in with these aliens belonged to the well-known Wilson Line? Would the hon. Member make that distinct accusation against the Wilson Line that they cast their net all over Europe, raking in good, bad, and indifferent Had the hon. Member made a similar accusation against the Great Central Railway Company at Grimsby and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company at Goole, and did he say that most of this business on the Tyne which was carried on by English companies was not honourably performed? They were reckless accusations made by an amateur investigator who had been gulled in nearly every country of Europe, and they did nothing to strengthen the cause he was advocating. He was, howler, not so much concerned with the hon. Member, because, after all, it was the Government with whom they had to deal. The Home Secretary had given them £24,000 as a probable estimate of the cost. Would the right hon. Gentleman accept £24,000 as the limit, and place words to that effect in the Resolution. It had been suggested that £2,000 might be spent upon the Tyne, but that sum was absolutely unreasonable. On the Tyne only a small number of the vessels carried immigrants, and £2,000 would be sufficient to pay £200 a year to each member of the immigration board and seven officers. With seven officers on the Tyne there would be six of them on six days of the week who would have nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs. The sum of £2,000 for Leith and Grimsby 285 was totally unreasonable. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be very safe in limiting the expenditure to £24,000.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS,
speaking again with the permission of the House, said that the Government had taken a safe figure in estimating the cost of the working of the Act. He would much rather do that than understate the figure and then be told that he had put forward a plan and got the House to agree to it on an estimate which had afterwards to be made very much larger. He admitted that the sum proposed was large for certain ports, but they must be on the safe side. It was not usual to go into detailed figures on a Resolution of this sort. He could assure the House that the figures were based on estimates which had been made of the possible cost of the machinery of the Act. He had been rather rash sometimes in endeavouring to meet the wishes of the House by giving information as to details and he had found that this led to lengthened debates afterwards. He did not propose to place a large amount on the Estimates for permanent staff, but he believed that the figure he had quoted was the limit. It was likely that a smaller figure would be sufficient. It was impossible to estimate the amount that might be required for the deportation of aliens. The estimate he had given had been closely made, having regard to
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Causton, Richard Knight||Emmott, Alfred|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Cawley, Frederick||Fenwick, Charles|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Channing, Francis Allston||Field, William|
|Allen, Charles P.||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Findlay, Alexander(Lanark, N.E)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Austin, Sir John||Cremer, William Randal||Flynn, James Christopher|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Cullinan, J.||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)||Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.|
|Benn, John, William.||Delany, William||Fuller, J. M. F.|
|Black, Alexander William||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)||Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John|
|Boland, John||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Grey, Rt.Hn.Sir E.(Berwick)|
|Brigg, John||Dobbie, Joseph||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Donelan, Captain A.||Hammond, John|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Doogan, P. C.||Harcourt, Lewis|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Rybura||Duncan, J. Hastings||Harwood, George|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Dunn, Sir William||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Burt, Thomas||Edwards, Frank||Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir ArthurD.|
|Caldwell, James||Elibank, Master of||Helme, Norval watson|
|Cameron, Robert||Ellice,Capt.E.C.S'Andrw'sBghs||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)||Higham, John Sharp|
§ the number of officials who would be required and the actual salaries to be paid. He had only been anxious to deal with an outside figure.
§ MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)
said that in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend was very reasonable.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS
said he had; already stated that they could not say how many aliens would have to be deported.
§ MR. CHURCHILL
said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was impossible to give a definite figure. He had, therefore, selected a figure which erred on the side of generosity. However vague their information might be on this subject, he understood that £24,000 was the utmost limit of expense to which the country would be put. If that was so why not insert that limit? He was perfectly sure that the mover of the Amendment would agree to that limit.
said if the Home Secretary would agree to that he would be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 157;—Noes, 224. (Division List No. 263.)289
|Hutchinson, Dr. CharlesFredk.||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||O' Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, W.)||Spencer.Rt.Hn.C.R.(Northants|
|Jones, Leif, (Appleby)||O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Jones, William(Carnarvonshire||O'Dowd, John||Sullivan, Donald|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W.||O'Malley, William||Tennant, Harold John|
|Kitson, Sir James||O'Mara, James||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Lamont, Norman||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Law, Hugh Alex, (Donegal, W.||Parrott, William||Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Paulton, James Mellor||Tomkinson, James|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Toulmin, George|
|Leese, SirJoseph F.(Accrington)||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wallace, Robert|
|Long, Sir John||Price, Robert John||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Rea, Russell||Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan|
|Lloyd-George, David||Reddy,M.||Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney|
|Lough, Thomas||Redmond John E. (Waterford||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lundon, W.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)||White, Luke (York, W. R.)|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Roe, Sir Thomas||Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Runciman, Walter||Wilson, Chas. Hour—(Hull,W|
|M'Crae, George||Russell, T. W.||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk,Mid|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Schwann, Charles E.||Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.|
|Mooney, John J.||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)||Woodhouse, SirJT. (Huddersf'd.|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Morley, Rt.Hn.John (Montrose||Sheehy, David.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Murphy, John||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Mr. J. H. Whitley and Mr.|
|Nolan, Col.,JohnP. (Galway,N.||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Trevelyan.|
|Nolan, Joseph Louth, South)||Slack, John Bamford|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Chapman, Edward||Galloway, William Johnson|
|Agnew, S r Andrew Noel||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Gardner, Ernest|
|Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Garfit, William|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Coddington, Sir William||Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Godson, SirAugustusFrederick|
|Arrol, Sir William||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nairn)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn.SirH.||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Gorst, B t. Hon. Sir John Eldon|
|Bagot, Capt. JoscelinFitzRoy||Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Cripps, Chas. Alf||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Graham, Henry Robert|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury|
|Balcarres, Lord||Dalkeith, Earl of||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Davenport, William Bromley.||Grenfell, William Henry.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'ter||Davies, SirHoratioD.(Chatham||Grevill, Hon. Ronald|
|Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)||Denny, Colonel||Hain, Edward|
|Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds||Dickson, Charles Scott||Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Dimsdale,Rt.Hn.Sir Joseph C.||Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford|
|Barry, SirFrancisT.(Windsor||Dixon-Hartland,SirFredDixon||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Hartley, Sir George C. T.||Dorington, Rt. Hon.SirJohnE.||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.|
|Bathurst, Hon. AllenBenjamin||Doughty, Sir George||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Heath, Sir James(StaffordsNW|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Heaton, John Henniker|
|Bingham, Lord||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.||Hickman, Sir Alfred|
|Bond, Edward||Faber, George Denison, York)||Hill, Henry Staveley|
|Bowles,Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex||Fardell, Sir T. George||Hoare, Sir Samuel|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Fellowes, RtHn.AilwynEdw.||Hogg, Lindsay|
|Campbell, Rt.Hn. J. A.(Glasgow||Fergusson,Rt.Hn.Sir J.(Man'cr||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brighstide|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Hoult, Joseph|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Winlay, SirRB.(Inv'rn'ssBghs'||Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles Willson||Fisher, William Hayes||Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Flower, Sir Ernest||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.JA(Worc.||Forster, Henry William||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.|
|Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Foster,Philip S.(Warwick,S. W.||Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton|
|Kenyon, Hon.Geo,T.(Denbigh-||Mount, William Arthur||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Kerr, John||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Spear, John Ward|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Murray, Col Wyndham (Bath)||Stanley,Edward Jas.(Somerset|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Myers, Wiliam Henry||Stanley,Rt.Hon. Lord (Lancs.|
|Laurie, Lieut.-General||Nicholson, William Graham||Stewart, SirMarkJ.M'Taggart|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Stock, James Henry|
|Lawson, Hn.H.L.W.(Mile End||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Lee, ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareham||Peel, Hn. Wm. RobertWellesley||Stroyan, John|
|Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)||Percy, Earl||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Pierpoint, Robert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.||Pilkington, Colonel Richard||Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUniv|
|Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (BristolS||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Lowe, Francis William||Pretyraan, Ernest George||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Lloyd, Archie Kirkman||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Tuff, Charles|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft||Purvis, Robert||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth||Rankin, Sir James||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne||Turnour, Viscount|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Reid, James (Greenock)||Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Ridley, S. Forde||Walrond, Rt.Hn.SirWilliam.H.|
|M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Ritchie,Rt.Hon.Chas. Thomson||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|M'Iver,Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield||Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunton|
|M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Welby,SirCharles G.E.(Notts.)|
|Malcolm, Ian||Round, Rt. Hon. James||Wharton, Rt, Hon. John Lloyd|
|Manners, Lord Cecil||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne|
|Marks, Harry Hananel||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Melville, Beresford Valentine||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Meysey Thompson, Sir H. M.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Wilson Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.|
|Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Samuel, SirHarry S.(Limehouse||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Milner, Rt.Hon. Sir Fredk. G.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Melvain, Thomas||Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Mitchell, William (Burnley)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon, George|
|Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.||Seton-Karr, Sir Henry||Wyndham-Quin, Col.W. H.|
|Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Sharpe, William Edward T.||Younger, William.|
|Morgan, David J. Walthamstow||Shaw-Stewart, SirH. (Renfrew|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Simeon, Sir Barrington||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Morrison, James Archibald||Smith,HC. (North'mb. Tyneside||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer||Smith, Rt.Hn.J.Parker(Lan'ks||and Viscount Valentia.|