HC Deb 07 March 1905 vol 142 cc600-29

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [6th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (for Committee oil Navy Estimates)."—(Mr. Pretyman.)

Question again proposed.


continuing his speech of the preceding night, said he desired to bring under the notice of the House a matter which, in his opinion, was one of the most serious that could possibly be raised, and, so far as he was aware, one which had never yet been brought before that Assembly. It had only to be stated in order to evoke from every true-hearted and true-minded person in England a storm of reprobation. They had believed during the last twenty-five years that flogging had been abolished both in the Army and the Navy, and it would be news to many people that to-day it was in active exercise in the Navy, and he would prove before he sat down that the Admiralty had done their very best to conceal that fact. In the early part of that day he put a Question to the Secretary to the Admiralty in regard to important omissions in the invitations to our youth to join the Navy. Those invitations sketched out in bright language prospects of pay and treatment and the joys of a sailor's life, but they failed to make it clear that sailors were subject to the cat-o'-nine-tails, and that the youths and boys of the Royal Navy were liable to have inflicted upon them twenty-four strokes of the birch for trifling offences without being first tried by Court-martial. Clearly the Admiralty did not intend that a man should know what was before him when he was entering the service. He intended to avail himself of that opportunity—the first one he had had—to give to the public through the House of Commons particulars of what was going on every day in the King's ships, and he could tell them that he had in his possession hundreds of documents on which he based his allegations. Did the rules of the House permit, he would have moved a Resolution to the effect that the House regretted that, while the punishment of flogging had been abolished with the best results in His Majesty's Army for twenty-five years, men in the Navy were liable, under the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act, to receive a flogging consisting of twenty-five strokes of the cat-o'-nine-tails, which was a necessary equipment of every one of His Majesty's ships, while the boys and youths in the Navy under eighteen years of age were also by the naval regulations not merely tried by Court-martial for trivial offences, but were summarily liable to floggings over the bare breech of twenty-four lashes with birches nine ounces in weight and steeped in brine, or to twelve strokes with a cane, such birchings and canings to be inflicted by the ship's police in accordance with naval regulations and in the presence of all the boys on board the ship. He asserted that that sort of thing was going on in the Navy every day and that this flogging was even worse than the flogging which went on in the Chinese compounds of the Colonial Secretary. That might be considered to be a strong observation, but he put a question to the Colonial Secretary on the previous day, and he had the advantage of a clear answer in writing describing what went on in regard to the flogging of refractory Chinese indentured labourers in the Transvaal mines. That answer was to the following effect— There are no cat-o'-nine-tails. The maximum of strokes inflicted with a cane, which is the instrument of whipping, would be twenty-four. The whipping would be given in the presence of the governor or deputy-governor of the prison, and the gaoler, and the visiting medical officer, who certifies to the fitness of the prisoner to undergo the punishment. The sentence being by a magistrate cannot be carried oat till the record has been sent to and confirmed by a Judge of the High Court.'' How different to what was going on in the King's Navy!

He would like to point out the folly and absurdity of the present state of affairs. The two Gentlemen who now represented the Admiralty in that House were both formerly officers of the King's Army—both distinguished officers, and could it be believed that they were bound to sanction the use of the lash in the Navy when it had been abolished in the Army for over twenty-five years? He must put it still more strongly. On March 11th, 1893, the present Secretary for India, who was then Secretary for War, said on the floor of the House of Commons that a colonel of the Grenadiers, an excellent officer, had been placed on half-pay because there had been the caning of a drummer boy in his regiment, for although he knew nothing about the occurrence at the time, it was considered there must have been an absence of discipline on his part. Yet at sea canings and floggings on board His Majesty's ships could be inflicted for the most trivial causes. With reference to Irish boys in the Navy his attention was directed to their case by a circular issued by the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland asking parents and guardians of Irish boys not to allow the boys to go into the Navy because they were denied the ministrations of their faith. He thought there was an additional reason which might be advanced for not allowing them to enter the Navy, and that was that, while they were denied the spiritual ministrations of their faith, their bodies were subjected to atrocious and abominable outrages. Was that language exaggerated? He thought it would not be suggested that it was. On July 4th last in answer to a question the Secretary to the Admiralty distinctly denied that flogging existed in the Navy, but he minimised the effect of his answer by explaining that it had been suspended, but not abolished. He saw a letter some time ago addressed to Lord Selborne in which the writer asked leave to be permitted to take photographs of boys being flogged, and immediately afterwards placards were placed all round the dockyard threatening with instant dismissal anyone who gave information to strangers. That showed that the Admiralty were of opinion that it would be indecent to expose what was going on, although they did not think it indecent or atrocious to allow it to be done.

He recently received an answer from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (the "Terror of Germany") to the effect that there was no flogging at all in the Navy. The present Prime Minister also made a statement to the same effect, but then there was nothing but inaccuracy to be expected from the right hon. Gentleman. When the question was pressed the Civil Lord stated that boys under eighteen years of age were not subjected to the punishment of flogging, but that they might be punished by birching or caning under regulations which prescribed in whose presence such punishment was to be inflicted, together with the maximum number of stripes and the character of the instrument to be used. He had looked up the regulations dealing with this matter, and he had found that the birching was to be confined solely to boys rated as such, and to be inflicted with the birch supplied by the dockyards, that the punishment was to be inflicted over the bare breech, that it was never to exceed twenty-four strokes, and that it was to be inflicted by the ship's police in the presence of the medical officer and others. He had looked up the regulations to see for what kind of offences that punishment could be inflicted and he found them most trivial. He had asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to make some alteration of the horrible regulation compelling boys to witness these floggings, but the hon. Gentleman declined to do so. What had since happened? Only last December there was a Court-martial on board the "Victory." He visited the vessel in that month, and was prevented from going into Nelson's cabin by the mere fact that a Court-martial was being held. But he was present at the close, and saw the prisoner emerge, and he never witnessed such a look of agony and despair on a boy's face as on that occasion. What were the circumstances under which that boy was tried? He had been compelled with a crowd of other boys to be present, on one of the cruisers at the flogging of one of his companions, and he had been so overwhelmed by what he saw that he attacked the officer inflicting the punishment and almost knocked him down. Of course his offence was a very shocking one, but it was possible to sympathise with the feelings of the lad under such circumstances. He, of course, was also put upon his trial and was sentenced to a long term of hard labour, and to receive in addition twenty-four lashes. It was actions such as that which tended to produce rebellion in the Navy. It simply drove men to madness. There was another Court-martial at Devonport to which he would like to draw attention. In that case the boy had committed the very atrocious offence of stealing a few pence and had deserted his ship. For that he was very properly dismissed the Navy, but more was done. The full maximum flogging of twenty-four strokes with the birch was ordered to be inflicted, and he ventured to assert that that was both unconstitutional and illegal, for the lad having been dismissed the service there could have been no right to flog him in addition.

There was one special fact which struck him in connection with this matter, and that was that it was the children of the poor who were subjected to these indignities. The naval cadets and midshipmen in the service were not flogged, the flogging was reserved for the sons of the poor who had to pay the piper. He hoped that these facts would become known wherever the English working men had a vote. He had been furnished with a vast amount of information upon the subject, but he was not going to take up the time of the House by communicating it. Amongst his informants was an Anglican clergyman whose tender heart revolted at what he had heard, and who told him that the greatest apprehension prevailed among the parents of the children on board the training ships. Even for not being able to swim birching and caning was inflicted. He pat a question to the Secretary to the Admiralty on that point, and his reply was that it was better to teach a boy to swim by flogging than to allow him to drown without flogging. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that an answer of that kind—a nice, pithy, little, after-dinner society joke—did more to accentuate the feeling against this horrible system than the finest speeches one could make, either before or after dinner. A short time ago an article was published by Mr. Tighe Hopkins, who declared that flogging and anything which tended to degrade the person was shocking, and that there should be complete statistics furnished in regard to it, but he was sorry to say that there were no statistics as to the canings in the Navy. He had asked for them several times, bat he had never been able to get them. He had been told that to obtain them for the last three years would be too expensive. Yes, it would be too expensive in the votes which the Secretary to the Admiralty and his Party would lose if the system were made public. He had, however, obtained a Return—a very poor, meagre, stingy Return—which would meet his purpose to some extent. It was a Return for the year 1901–2, and it stated that in that period there were 238 birchings by summary conviction—by the nod of the captain's head—and only three by Court-martial, while there were something like 12,000 minor offences among the boys, and for those minor offences at least 8,000 canings were inflicted. The Return for last year showed a slight decrease in the figures, there having been 250 birchings and about 8,000 canings. He felt it incumbent upon him to do what he could to put a stop to this. The weight of the birch used upon these poor boys was twice as heavy as that used in civil life, by order of the magistrate and the Judge, for the punishment of boys guilty of the most atrocious crimes and offences. The cane used weighed 2 oz., was 3 feet long, and was laced round with waxed twine like the handle of a cricket bat. When the Fleet under the command of Lord Charles Beresford came into Dublin Bay he pretty well knew what was going on, and he wrote to the people of Ireland through the Freeman's Journal, and pointed out the dark and sinister designs of these ships upon the youths of Ireland, and warned the parents not to let their sons join the Navy.

These were the things produced by this system, and not efficiency, and the Government ought to know, having tried it everywhere else and failed, that force was no remedy, and that it had not survived in the Army and could not survive in the Navy. After the various things that had been said upon this subject, which led to parents and guardians being chary of allowing their boys to enlist in the Navy, a most outrageous placard was published by the Admiralty, under the King's Cypher, and sent to every post office in Ireland, to the effect that youths between seventeen and eighteen could now join the Navy without their parents' consent.


explained that that notice was issued without authority, but that when it came to the knowledge of the Admiralty it was at once withdrawn.


said no doubt that might be so, but how many boys were allowed to enlist before this notice came to the knowledge of the Admiralty. The Civil Lord had stated that there was no flogging in the Navy at all. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt to encourage young ambition, went down to the Royal Naval School at Greenwich and told the lads there that, just as it was said of the soldiers of Napoleon that every soldier carried a marshal's baton in his knapsack, so it was true of the Navy to say that everybody who joined it had a chance of a baton. Yes, the birch and the cane. He did not desire to bring this matter to a vote, but he would bring it up again and again, and would appeal to the Press of England to have this matter properly ventilated. The hon. Member also read a letter from a clergyman who had spent many years in the service, describing the manner in which the flogging was conducted, and giving a particular instance when the deck was more like a slaughter-house than anything else, and the victim died a few days afterwards. He said he had other cases of a revolting character with which he would not trouble the House, as he thought he had said enough to stimulate a spirit of inquiry and investigation in every honourable, and true-hearted man. He appealed to hon. Members to put themselves in the place of these defenceless boys, and to allow the strong arm of England to protect them. Flogging had been abolished in every Navy except our own, but the worst feature was that it was a punishment inflicted by the rich upon the poor. He had stated the facts as fairly and as temperately as possible, and he thought he had made out a strong case for a thorough investigation into the system. There could be no higher honour for the new First Lord than that he should initiate his régime by instituting a searching investigation into this matter. He had confined himself largely to letters and questions, because the Secretary to the Admiralty, having exhausted his right to speak, would be precluded from making any reply. But why was there not present some other member of the Government who was or had been connected with the Admiralty. This atrocious system demanded some defence or explanation, as it was not right that such charges, made in good faith, should go broadcast to the country. If they were true, what was the House of Commons thinking about that it did not abolish the system when it abolished flogging in the Army? He had brought the question forward not merely in the interests of Irish boys, but in the interests of humanity, feeling strongly that such cruelties ought not to be inflicted on the young of the poor and defenceless.


said that while there was no flogging properly so-called in the Navy, there was a caning and birching restricted to boys, but it was not the fact that that punishment was reserved for the children of the poor. In the gun-room, the home of the midshipmen, flogging of a much more severe character was practised, not with a birch or cane, but with a dirk-scabbard. This flogging was practised by the so-called rich themselves on themselves and never yet had a boy been heard to complain, but on the contrary many had declared that to the discipline of the gun-room they owed a great deal of their success in the service. ["Oh."] He had two sons in the Navy who had passed through the gun-room, and if they were not scabbarded themselves, they had doubtless scabbarded others. But he did regret that this punishment still existed, even for boys, in the Navy, as he thought it could be dispensed with. It could not be denied, however, that boys required a lot of keeping in order, and he would like to have known the offences for which some of the birchings were given, as possibly they would have revolted the House as much as the birchings themselves. At the same time he deeply regretted that there should be retained in an honourable and noble service even the semblance of personal violence, and, as he had said on former occasions, he earnestly hoped that some means would be found of putting an end to it for ever.

Turning to the Main question, he submitted that the discussion with Mr. Speaker in the Chair ought properly to be concerned with matters of high policy, such as strategy, the principles of naval construction, lesser matters being reserved for the particular Votes under which they naturally arose. More especially ought that to be the case in a year marked by a change of policy such as the oldest Member of the House could not remember in the history of the Navy. Any eulogy of the Board of Admiralty on his part had been rendered unnecessary by the Secretary to the Admiralty, who, although a member of that Board, had with unwonted readiness. generosity, and modesty bestowed that eulogy himself, and nothing he could add would increase its force or aptitude. His absence from the House during the speech of the Secretary to the Admiralty was due not to any want of respect to the hon. Gentleman, but partly to other occupations, and partly because the supreme authority over the Navy had been short-circuited. That authority now belonged neither to the Secretary to the Admiralty nor even to the First Lord, but to the First Sea Lord. It was the First Sea Lord who appeared in the new policy and throughout the Memoranda in which that policy was described, and, therefore, less importance attached to the highly interesting speeches of the Secretary to the Admiralty. At the present moment the Board of Admiralty was in a strange situation, there being, in fact, an interregnum. There was no First Lord really responsible for the Memoranda which had been put forward, It was true that Lord Cawdor had been brought from the Great Western Railway to take command of the Navy, but he was not responsible for any of the Memoranda, nor was it known even whether he approved of them. The noble Earl should make a good First Lord, as he had the reputation of a man of business, which reputation it was to be hoped he would justify in his new sphere. But, at any rate, Lord Cawdor was not responsible for these Memoranda. The First Lord who was responsible had gone to South Africa to take up a higher position. He was fortunate in many respects, but in none so fortunate as in the acquisition of Sir John Fisher at the Admiralty. For Sir John Fisher had overruled the whole of his policy, and substituted for it a completely contrary policy. He wished to know the conditions under which Sir John Fisher had been brought to the Admiralty. Was he a colleague I Was he a superior? Was this another MacDonnell case? He strongly suspected that, more astute, or more fortunate, than the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, Lord Selborne had flown to South Africa to escape the beneficent tyranny of Sir John Fisher, instead of resigning, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had thought it honourable to do, to escape being overruled by his subordinate. He had not a word to say against Sir John Fisher; on the contrary, he approved of his policy, although there were some matters in regard to which he should like some explanation. He believed that what was being done upon his advice was of the soundest and the most profitable description and would have the best possible results.

The changes set forth in the two Memoranda before them were not only new, but they formed a different policy contrary to the old. They included new principles in strategy, naval bases, and ships, gunnery, and even a new organisation of the Board of Admiralty itself; in fact, the whole system, from the First Lord to the Admiral's barge, had been completely up-ended. He was about to ask for an explanation which he should have been glad if some member of the Council of Defence had been present to afford—for these matters belonged at last to them—but not one of them was present. There had been tremendous alterations in the organisation of the Admiralty. The Senior Naval Lord was now to be called the First Sea Lord, and everything concerned with "important naval policy" was to be left to him. That meant a supersession of the First Lord of the Admiralty by the First Sea Lord—as to which he would only say that if it produced such beneficial results as the supersession of Lord Selborne by Sir John Fisher, long might it continue. With regard to gunnery he noticed that there was to be an inspector of target practice who would "not be an Admiralty officer," but who would work under the superintendence of First Sea Lord. Was this officer under no subordination? Did he owe obedience or respect to nobody? Why was such an officer not to be placed under the Board? Was this yet another MacDonnell? He was aware that the personality of Admiral Percy Scott would justify his appointment under special conditions, for he had made the gunnery of the Navy, and had done it in opposition to and in spite of the present Board of Admiralty. He knew that Admiral Percy Scott had experienced the very greatest difficulty in getting the smallest advances made towards his system of quick-hitting gunnery. After constant refusals there had at last been a tardy recognition of the true principle that, not the gunnery lieutenant alone, but the captain and the admiral were responsible for the gunnery of the squadron. That was an enormous step in advance. It was almost impossible for any Member of the House not acquainted with gunnery to appreciate the enormous advantage to the future of gunnery achieved by this change. Nevertheless there remained much to be done, for a great many ships still had defective sights and sighting machinery, and nobody knew that better than the Secretary to the Admiralty. He hoped and believed that Admiral Percy Scott's system would make their gunners the best quick-hitters of any navy in the world. But what position did Admiral Percy Scott hold? Were the Admiralty bound to listen to him? If there was any uncertainty about this it might lead to another resignation of a Minister.

There was a further change in the rank and file of the Navy itself which he should like to suggest. There was a disposition and a determination on the part, of the Board of Admiralty to neglect and put aside the ordinary Naval Reserve, which consisted for the most part of fishermen and Marines who formed the best material in the world for the Navy. This Reserve appeared to be set aside for the Naval Volunteers who were a perfectly useless set of people who liked to wear uniform, the money spent upon whom was absolutely thrown away. What he complained of was that while they were developing this popinjay naval stuff they were neglecting the proper material in the Naval Reserve. They were extending the Naval Volunteer system which cost so much instead of the Naval Reserve which cost less, and they were stopping recruiting for those Reserves. That was unfortunate considering the great value of this body of men. We had 121,000 Naval seamen, costing each, in wages, victualling, clothing and doctoring, some £82 per man yearly, whereas the 34,000 Naval Reserve men only cost £7 or £8 per man. In modern ships the trained Preserve man was as good as the Naval seaman, in boats he was usually far better, and the true system was to increase the numbers of the £8 man and by so much to diminish the numbers of the £82 man. By reducing 10,000 Naval seaman at the higher rate and adding 40,000 Reserve men at the lower, you would get 30,000 more men at £500,000 less cost. Yet the Admiralty had stopped recruiting for the Reserves! He now came to the change of policy as to ships. He did not know whether the House realised the extent of the changes made. The First Lord of the Admiralty confessed in his first Memorandum of December last that for the last fifteen years the Board of Admiralty had never had men enough to keep the Fleet Reserve in proper condition. Yet, in the same breath he acknowledged that Parliament had always freely granted him all the men he asked for. What a discreditable confession! This Memorandum went on to say that the increased number of ships in commission had more than swallowed up the increase in the personnel, and consequently adequate provision for the ships in the Fleet Reserve had not yet been made. It practically avowed that in consequence of their want of personnel the ships in the Fleet Reserve could not be trusted to fight nor to inspire confidence in any admiral.

He now came to the other ships—what he might call the general run of the Fleet. What were they told about them? They were told that there were a number of obsolete ships. 130 or 160, which were to be removed from the Navy List in order that the country might have ships that were really ready for war. But why did the Admiralty not adopt that policy years ago? Why had this new and perfectly proper principle of having the Fleet composed only of vessels competent for naval purposes occurred now for the first time to the Board of Admiralty? When he was in Malta in 1890, or thereabout, the Admiralty were engaged in fishing up from the bottom of the sea, the Sultan, a ship which ought to have been thrown on the scrap heap years ago. That ship, in fact, ought never to have been fished up from the bottom of the sea in the expensive manner employed. She was, however, now tardily to be removed from our deceptive list and other obsolete ships with her. This was what he would call the scrap-heap policy. It was quite right. His complaint was that the House had been asked for, and year after year had given, money for these useless ships. The Admiralty had adopted the idea that because they had a number of bows and arrows in the Admiralty office they were justified in keeping them as possibly useful somehow, someday, instead of devoting themselves to the torpedo tube. There had been one delightful ingenuous avowal put as a defence. The Prime Minister, speaking recently at Glasgow, said— What has this Government been doing?' They have abolished 130 vessels—my figures are not exact, I speak from memory—130 vessels which figured upon the list of the British Navy. [A VOICE: "Good riddance of bad rubbish."] That brief interruption puts even more concisely and pithily than I can do, one of the aspects, but only one of the aspects, of the great reform. It is not merely that the Board of Admiralty have laid down the rnle that a ship, however useful in time of peace—and we have to do, it must be admitted, a great deal of small police work in a time of peace for diplomatic or other purposes—is not only useless, but worse than useless in time of war it possesses neither fighting power nor speed; it is merely a ship which exists to embarrass British admirals and to discredit the British flag. The Board of Admiralty after having ignored and by its conduct denied it for years, suddenly discovered this important principle, but it required Sir John Fisher to help them to discover it. In the some speech the Prime Minister said— Well, with one courageous stroke of the pen, as it were, these ships have been removed. One courageous stroke of the pen! He liked to hear that this Government was sometimes courageous. He thought that when they found courage to force one of their colleagues to break his pledge they derived it not so much from them-selves as from the power behind the Cabinet, and that it was in spite of them-selves that the heel of Birmingham was crushed upon them. But we were assured they found the courage to abolish a number of obsolete ships in the Navy. No. It was not the Government that abolished the ships, it was Sir John Fisher who abolished them. During all the ten years that these great Lords of the Admiralty had flourished at the head of the Navy the ships were allowed to go on. Ships had been fished up from the deep, and old ships incapable of fighting had been kept on the list. Now it had been discovered that the true policy was only to keep in the Navy ships which were fit for service. The new policy was a full confession of the badness of the old policy so long pursued, so costly, so dangerous.

He came now to the question of naval bases. A great change and reversal of policy had taken place there. He need not remind the House that a naval base was important as indicating what our strategy was. The naval bases suggested or disclosed to every strategic, mind the events which were expected to occur in war, the places where they expected great actions, and the refuges where they expected the ships to go for repair. Therefore the retention or abandonment of a naval base was in itself a disclosure of strategy. What was the disclosure here. He need not remind the House that this Government had always been tinkering at naval bases. They took Wei-hai-Wei as a base for meeting Russia and it had been kept as a sort of Chinese Margate. They were retaining it now to see which way the cat jumps. Then there was Gibraltar, where £5,000,000 had been spent in order to make it loss secure and more tempting to an enemy. Finally there was the great base of Rosyth, bought at a cost of £122,000. If his memory did not play him false the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty told us that we should have to incur considerable expenditure in order to make it the important, naval base contemplated. The Peer who received a great deal more than the value of that land had been dismissed with the purchase price. What was to have been a great naval base at Rosyth was now, it seemed, to be a place to keep a few stores. It was difficult to imagine the confusion of mind that seemed to exist in the Board of Admiralty with regard to naval bases, taken up lightly and expensively, then as lightly abandoned, even before they were completed. But there was something even more startling. Halifax, Esquimalt, Jamaica, and Trin-comalee were, as it seemed, practically to be abandoned. The last-named place was a most important station, and if ever we had another fight about India it would be as important that we should have it as it was found to be in the last century. It was a very serious matter to abandon it. It might be said that we had Colombo instead, but that would never be the same thing. All these were great questions in regard to which the House had no proper explanation and as to which they were entitled to an explanation. Jamaica, always a most commanding strategic base, was becoming more important as a naval strategic point than ever before on account of the impending Panama canal. The abandonment of it would, it appeared to him, be an acknowledgment that we meant no longer to defend our West Indian Islands with our naval force. If that were so, a serious question would arise as to whether the Government were justified in signing the Sugar Convention. How was it that all these abandonments had now been discovered to be possible, and never before? Was it all due to Sir John Fisher? Was there nobody at the Admiralty who could invent or imagine anything before? It looked like it. The Secretary to the Admiralty had rightly said that the great thing in regard to the Navy was "continuity of policy." But this was discontinuity of policy. All those things he had mentioned, and others he was about to mention, represented not a continuance of the same policy, but an entire change. He did not say that it could not be justified, but it had not been justified yet. The reasons for it had not yet been suggested. It was absurd to talk of continuity of policy in the face of revolutions like these.

He observed with considerable apprehension that part of the new policy was to leave the Atlantic, Fleet consisting of eight iron-clads and a corresponding number of cruisers—which was the most important Fleet we had, to entirely rely for its repairs on Gibraltar. He did not think that was very safe. Gibraltar, let it be remembered, produced nothing. Every pound of steel and every pound of coal or biscuit that Gibraltar used or supplied to the ships of war had to be sent across from this country, and in time of war, if we forced our most important Fleet to rely on Gibraltar for supplies and repairs, that meant that it would be necessary to set up a new line of communications between these islands and Gibraltar to carry the stores and the repairing materials, and it would be a very difficult and dangerous line of communication to guard. He presumed that was present to the mind of those who had agreed to adopt the new policy. Here again he should like some explanation. Take the alterations all these matters involved in the conception of naval strategy. It was something almost incredible that this country should give up the naval base in the West Indies. That meant a kind of thing that would have appeared to the men of Nelson's day or of Lord St. Vincent's as impossible to conceive of, and still more impossible to be adopted by a naval country like this. It meant an enormous alteration in the conception of what this country would have to do in a great war. They were going entirely to abolish the South Pacific Squadron. Were there no British interests in the South Pacific? The abandonment of Esquimalt almost seemed to him to be an abandonment of the small squadron in the North Pacific. Was that intended? Were they going practically to abolish the North Atlantic Squadron, as a squadron? If so, they were going to abolish their naval watch and ward on both sides of the great continent of North America. He did not say it was wrong, but what justification had they for it? Had they an understanding with the United States? Was Canada going to build a navy? What was the new element that enabled the Government to detach this country from those parts of the world which formerly we held so strongly navally? What induced them to give up those naval bases in this manner? This was the stage at which the House should be told. He had endeavoured in a summary manner to follow some of the points that were suggested by this Naval Memorandum. It raised some vital questions of high policy and strategy. He trusted the Government had good answers to the very serious questions he had raised. On many of them he was perfectly convinced the new policy was right; on others he had very serious doubts. He trusted that before the debate ended he might receive satisfaction of these doubts from the Government, which would enable him to feel greater confidence in the plan than he did at present.

*MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)

said that the House must feel indebted to the hon. Member for Donegal for having brought forward the question of punishment in the Navy. In view of the prominent part which hon. Members for Ireland took in securing the abolition of flogging in the Army twenty-six years ago, it was only fitting that attention should be drawn to the existence of corporal punishment in the Navy from the same quarter of the House. He thought that the general question which must arise in the mind of hon. Members was "Can these things be true?" And the conclusion must be that, if they were true, as the hon. and learned Member undoubtedly believed them to be, or even only half true, they constituted a great scandal which ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment. They knew only too well what an invincible prejudice surrounded the question of the abolition of corporal punishment in the minds of some people, and how hard it was to kill that prejudice. For over a century, whenever even a mitigation of that revolting punishment was suggested, its advocates, one after the other, held that discipline could not be maintained without it, and that to do away with it would be to undermine the whole basis on which the military and naval service rested. He had in his possession the, order book of a regiment in the Waterloo Campaign in which it was recorded that a Court-martial had been held on an unfortunate soldier for a not very serious offence, and the result of which was that the soldier was condemned to the punishment of a thousand lashes. That punishment in the Army died very hard, and was only eliminated late in the nineteenth century. The statements made by the hon. and learned Member for Donegal must, he thought, have come to hon. Members and to the general public with a shock of surprise. The general impression was that flogging had been abolished, at all events in the services, though it lingered unfortunately in the military and civil prisons—a practice which many hon. Members were most anxious to see abolished. It was almost universally believed that any one taking service in the Army or Navy would not be liable to the brutal and degrading punishment of flogging. It was perfectly true that its existence must discourage enlisting. They were told that the Army would suffer greatly by its abolition, but exactly the contrary had been the result. There had been an infinitely better class of recruits, and the status of the soldier had been much improved. To his mind the inability to keep discipline or order either on shipboard, in a regiment, or in a prison was simply a confession of incompetence of those in command. He hoped that in the course if the debate in Committee they should have some satisfactory assurance from the Under-Secretary that in a very short time corporal punishment in the Navy would be entirely abolished.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)

congratulated his hon. and learned friend, the Member for Donegal on raising this question of flogging in the Navy. His hon. and learned friend by doing so had performed a public service. When the people of this country heard of the brutality that existed in the Navy they would take the matter into their own hands and do something to abolish it. The naval authorities might say that it was necessary to keep that degrading flogging in order to maintain discipline, but his hon. and learned friend had shown that in the French, German, and other navies the system had been abolished; and he wanted to know what there was in the British youth which was worse than in those of other countries which made this system necessary. He ventured to say that future generations would wonder why this brutal punishment had been continued so long. His hon. friend the Member for Crewe was right in saying that it was fit that the subject should have been pressed from those benches. He was glad to say that the Party with which he was identified had brought about the great reform in the Army of the abolition of a punishment which was degrading to those who suffered it, to those who inflicted it, and to those who witnessed it. The soldiery of England had to thank, in great measure, a body of Members from Ireland who had always stood up for the rights of the people, for the abolition of flogging in the Army. He remembered that when the late Mr. Parnell was making a tour through Ireland soldiers approached him and asked to be allowed to shake hands with the man who hid "killed the Cat."

As to the reductions in the Navy Estimates he wanted to know what benefit that would be to his country. He remembered the time when the cost of the Navy was only £15,000,000, and the Navy seemed just as efficient then as now. Ireland had no commerce to protect. England took very good care of that, because she had crushed their native industries. To his mind the people who should largely contribute to the naval Votes of this country were the Colonies for whom we kept the sea open and who had a large trade to protect. Canada refused, and though other colonies gave a small contribution, it was far more their duty to contribute to naval expenditure than that of Ireland, who, nevertheless, had to contribute an eleventh of the whole. Then look at the matter in another way. The naval expenditure percolated through the whole community in this country; because the Votes were mostly spent on the Thames, the Tyne, the Clyde, and at Pembroke. The only expenditure in Ireland was at Haulbowline, but that was a small, tinkering amount. They had asked the Admiralty for £100 to assist in making a pier which would be of the greatest advantage to the Admiralty themselves; but they could not see their way to incur that small outlay. Ireland derived some small advantage under the Army Votes; but derived literally no value under the Navy Votes; yet Ireland was called upon to pay more than her proper proportion. This, he assumed, was one of the benefits resulting from the Union. When the details of the Votes were before the House, his colleagues and himself might be compelled to take what the late Mr. Biggar would call an intelligent interest in them; and would be able to show that while Ireland contributed an enormous sum to the Navy she derived no benefit from it. He hoped the speech of his hon. friend would draw the attention of the public to the gross cruelty which still existed in the public service. In that case his hon. friend would deserve the thanks of the country and of humanity.

MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire)

said that several of the old vessels referred to by the Secretary to the Admiralty had been anchored in the Clyde; and he wished to impress on the House the large amount of inconvenience and annoyance they caused. Many hon. Members knew that the Kyles of Bute were not only fishing grounds, but were also used by yachtsmen. The result was that not only was the fishing industry injured, but much inconvenience was caused to yachtsmen. The hon. Gentleman had received a very strongly worded memorial from all the yacht clubs in the Clyde on the subject. The House was aware that those waters were the most favourite yachting waters in the United Kingdom; and the memorial mentioned several other parts where the ships could be equally well anchored. He quite understood that the Admiralty wanted to have those vessels within easy reach of suitable yards; but he wished to direct attention to alternative anchorages, such as Gareloch portion of Loch Fyne and Loch Long. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he were prepared to send a proper official from the Admiralty to report on those alternative anchorages, so that, if possible, the ships might be moved from places where they caused so much inconvenience to navigation and trade to anchorages equally convenient to the Admiralty. He would also ask that a copy of the Report should be laid on the Table of the House.

MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS (Merionethshire)

said that one sentence fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn which interested him somewhat. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was a fact that the Government had abandoned altogether their ambitious plan at Rosyth. If so, the Government would appear to be repeating the blunder they committed at Wei-hai-Wei. That was supposed to be a great naval base which would checkmate Russia at Port Arthur; but, after considerable sums of money had been spent on it, it was suddenly announced it was no good except as a sanatorium. With regard to Rosyth, two years ago the scheme was triumphantly brandished in the eye of Germany as a kind of threat when the German frenzy was at its height. As far as could be gathered from Lord Selborne's reply to the Member for East Aberdeenshire, he did not altogether deny that the scheme was abandoned, but, at the same time, he did not admit it, and took refuge in the assertion that the whole business had been very cheaply done. It was not a question as to whether it was cheaply done or not, but why it was done at all. It seemed to be a gross blunder; and it was no argument to say that it was only a small one. It was small blunders like Wei-hai-Wei, Somaliland, and Rosyth, together with administrative incompetence, which had, during the last nine years, increased the taxation of this country.


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."


I think the House should have an opportunity of saying whether it desires to continue, this debate

with me in the Chair or in Committee. I will, therefore, put the Motion.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 198. (Division List, No.26)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dalrymple, Sir Charles Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Davenport, William Bromley- Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets Kenyon. Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dickson, Charles Scott Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dimsdale. Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Kerr, John
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Kimber, Sir Henry
Arrol, Sir William Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Knowles, Sir Lees
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Doxford, Sir William Theodore Laurie, Lieut.-General
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Lawson. Hn. H.L.W. (Mile End
Baird, John George Alexander Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R
Balcarres, Lord Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs Lee, Arthur H. (Hants Fareham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds Fisher, William Hayes Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Fison, Frederick William Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Banner, John S. Harmood- Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Bartley, Sir George C T. Flannery, Sir Fortescue Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin Flower, Sir Ernest Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Forster, Henry William Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.
Beckett, Ernest William Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Lowe, Francis William
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Galloway, William Johnson Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gardner, Ernest Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Bigwood, James Garfit, William Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Bill, Charles Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Macdona, John Gumming
Bingham, Lord Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Maconochie, A. W.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn M'Calmont, Colonel James
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S. ) Mujendie, James A. H.
Boulnois, Edmund Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Manners, Lord Cecil
Bowles, Lt. -Col. H F (Middlesex) Goschen. Hn. (George Joachim Marks, Harry Hananel
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Goulding, Edward Alfred Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bull, William James Graham, Henry Robert Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M
Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A (Glasgow Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Milner. Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Grenfell, William Henry Milvain, Thomas
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Cavendish. R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants. )
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hamilton, Marq. of (Lond'nd'ry Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford Moore, William
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th Morgan, David J (Walthamstow
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Morpeth, Viscount
Chamberlain. Rt Hn. J A (Worc. ) Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Morrell, George Herbert
Chapman, Edward Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N. W Morrison, James Archibald
Clive, Captain Percy A. Heaton, John Henniker Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Coates, Edward Feetham Helder, Augustus Mount, William Arthur
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hoare, Sir Samuel Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hobhouse, RtHnH. (Somers't, E Myers, William Henry
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hogg, Lindsay Nicholson, William Graham
Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hornby, Sir William Henry Parker, Sir Gilbert
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Horner, Frederick William Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Hoult, Joseph Peel. Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Cripps, Charles Alfred Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham Pemberton, John S. G.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham Percy, Earl
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Pierpoint, Robert
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hunt, Rowland Pilkington, Colonel Richard
Cust, Henry John C. Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R. ) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Plummer, Sir Walter R. Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Valentia, Viscount
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sharpe, William Edward T. Vincent, Col Sir CEH. (Sheffield
Pretyman, Ernest George Simeon, Sir Harrington Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Purvis, Robert Sloan, Thomas Henry Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton
Pym, C. Guy Smith, H. C (North'mbTyneside Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Smith. Rt. Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Randles, John S. Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) Whiteley. H. (Ashton und Lyne
Ratcliff, R. F. Spear, John Ward Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Reid, James (Greenock) Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Remnant, James Farquharson Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs. ) Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Stock, James Henry Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks
Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Stone, Sir Benjamin Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath
Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Stroyan, John Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Round, Rt. Hon. James Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ. Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Royds, Clement Molyneux Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Wylie, Alexander
Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Thornton, Percy M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Tollemache, Henry James Alexander Acland-Hood
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes
Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse Tritton, Charles Ernest
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. Tuff, Charles
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E, Doogan, P. C. Joicey, Sir James
Ainsworth, John Stirling Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea
Allen, Charles P. Duffy, William. J. Jones, Leif (Appleby
Ambrose, Robert Duncan, J. Hastings Jones, William (Carnarvonshr.
Asher, Alexander Dunn, Sir William Joyce, Michael
Atherley-Jones, L. Edwards, Frank Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.
Barlow, John Emmott Ellice, Cap. EC (S. Andrw's Bgbs Kilbride, Denis
Barran, Rowland Hirst Ellis, John Edward (Notts. ) Kitson, Sir James
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Emmott, Alfred Labouchere, Henry
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lambert, George
Black, Alexander William Evans, Sir-Francis H. (Maidstone Langley, Batty
Blake, Edward Farrell, James Patrick Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.
Boland, John Fenwick, Charles Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Layland-Barratt, Francis
Brigg, John Ffrench, Peter Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Bright, Allan Heywood Field, William Levy, Maurice
Broadhurst, Henry Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE Lewis, John Herbert
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lloyd-George, David
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James Flynn, James Christopher Lough, Thomas
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. ) Lundon, W.
Burke, E. Haviland Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry Lyell, Charles Henry
Burns, John Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Fuller, J. M. F. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Caldwell, James Furness, Sir Christopher MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Cameron, Robert Gilhooly, James M'Crae, George
Campbell, John (Armagh, S. ) Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Fadden, Edward
Causton, Richard Knight Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Cawley, Frederick Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M'Kean, John
Channing, Francis Allston Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Kenna, Reginald
Cheetham, John Frederick Hammond, John M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harwood, George Markham, Arthur Basil
Crean, Eugene Hayden, John Patrick Mooney, John J.
Cremer, William Randal Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Crombie, John William Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose
Cullinan, J. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murphy, John
Dalziel, James Henry Higham, John Sharpe Nannetti, Joseph P.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Newnes, Sir George
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Holland, Sir William Henry Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Delany, William Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Norman Henry
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Horniman, Frederick John Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk Nussey, Thomas Willans
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jacoby, James Alfred O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Dobbie, Joseph Johnson, John O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland Walton, Joseph (Barnsley
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N. ) Schwann, Charles E. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isle of Wight Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Shackleton, David James Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
O'Dowd, John Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B. Weir, James Galloway
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Sheehan Daniel Daniel White, Luke (York, E. R. )
O'Malley, William Sheehy, David White, Patrick (Meath, North
O'Mara, James Shipman, Dr. John G. Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Smith, Samuel (Flint) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax
Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham Soames, Arthur Wellesley Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Parrott, William Soares, Ernest J. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Paulton, James Mellor Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Stevenson, Francis S. Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.
Pirie, Duncan V. Strachey, Sir Edward Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Power, Patrick Joseph Sullivan, Donal Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Rea, Russell Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Reddy, M. Tennant, Harold John Young, Samuel
Redmond, John E. (Waterford Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E. Yoxall, James Henry
Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Rickett, J. Compton Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Tomkinson, James Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Roche, John Toulmin, George Mr. Spencer.
Runciman, Walter Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Russell, T. W. Wallace, Robert

Question put accordingly, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 199. (Division List No. 27.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Galloway, William Johnson
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. Gardner, Ernest
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Chapman, Edward Garfit, William
Anson, Sir William Reynell Clive, Captain Percy A. Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Coates, Edward Feetham Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E. Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn
Arrol, Sir William Coghill, Douglas Harry Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S. )
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R. Goschen, Hn. George Joachim
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole Graham, Henry Robert
Bailey, James (Walworth) Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Baird, John George Alexander Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Grenfell, William Henry
Balcarres, Lord Cripps, Charles Alfred Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Midd'x
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cust, Henry John C. Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)
Banner, John S. Harmood- Dalrymple, Sir Charles Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Davenport, William Bromley Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin Dewar, Sir T R (Tower Hamlets Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Dickson, Charles Scott Heaton, John Henniker
Beckett, Ernest William Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Helder, Augustus
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Hoare, Sir Samuel
Bigwood, James Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't, E
Bill, Charles Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hogg, Lindsay
Bingham, Lord Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Blundell, Colonel Henry Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hornby, Sir William Henry
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Horner, Frederick William
Boulnois, Edmund Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Hoult, Joseph
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middle'x Finlay, Sir R. B. (In'v'rn'ss B'ghs Howard, J. Kent, Faversham)
Bull, William James Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham
Burdett-Coutts, W. Fisher, William Hayes Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A (Glasgow) Fison, Frederick William Hunt, Rowland
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs). Flannery, Sir Fortescue Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshr. Flower, Sir Ernest Kenyon Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Forster, Henry William Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W Kerr, John
Kimber, Sir Henry Myers, William Henry Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Knowles, Sir Lees Nicholson, William Graham Spear, John Ward
Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm. Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich
Laurie, Lieut.-General Parker, Sir Gilbert Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington) Stan1ey, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs. )
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Peel, Hn. Win. Robert Wellesley Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End) Pemberton, John, S. G. Stock, James Henry
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks NR Percy, Earl Stone, Sir Benjamin
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Pierpoint, Robert Stroyan, John
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Pilkington, Colonel Richard Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Platt-Higgins, Frederick Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Leveson-Gower, Fredrk. N. S. Plummer, Sir Walter R. Talbot. Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Pretyman, Ernest George Thorburn, Sir Walter
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Thornton, Percy M.
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Purvis, Robert Tollemache, Henry James
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S Pym, C. Guy Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lowe, Francis William Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Tritton, Charles Ernest
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Randles, John S. Tuff, Charles
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Ratcliff, R. F. Valentia, Viscount
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Reid, James (Greenock) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffi'd
Macdona, John Cumming Remnant, James Farquharson Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Maconochie, A. W. Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Warde, Colonel C. E.
M'Calmont, Colonel James Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Welby, Lt., Col. ACE. (Taunton)
Majendie, James A. H. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Manners, Lord Cecil Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Marks, Harry Hananel Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Martin, Richard Biddulph Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshr. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Round, Rt. Hon. James Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Royds, Clement Molyneux Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R
Milvain, Thomas Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Molesworth, Sir Lewis Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.
Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Moore, William Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W. ) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart
Morpeth, Viscount Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Wylie, Alexander
Morrell, George Herbert Sharpe, William Edward T. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Morrison, James Archibald Simeon, Sir Barrington
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Sinclair, Louis (Romford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Mount, William Arthur Sloan, Thomas Henry Alexander Acland-Hood
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Smith, Rt. Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Campbell, John (Armagh, S) Emmott, Alfred
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cawley, Frederick Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Allen, Charles P. Channing, Francis Allston Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone
Ambrose, Robert Cheetham, John Frederick Eve, Harry Trelawney
Asher, Alexander Churchill, Winston Spencer Farrell, James Patrick
Atherley-Jones, L. Condon, Thomas Joseph Fenwick, Charles
Barlow, John Emmott Crean, Eugene Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cremer, William Randal Ffrench, Peter
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Crombie, John William Field, William
Beaumont, Wentworth C B. Cullinan, J. Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE
Black, Alexander William Dalziel, James Henry Flynn, James Christopher
Blake, Edward Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Boland, John Delany, William Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.
Brigg, John Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Fuller, J. M. F.
Bright, Allan Heywood Dobbie, Joseph Furness, Sir Christopher
Broadhurst, Henry Doogan, P. C. Gilhooly, James
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Goddard, Daniel Ford
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Duffy, William J. Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Duncan, J. Hastings Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Burke, E. Haviland Dunn, Sir William Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.
Burns, John Edwards, Frank Hammond, John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Elibank, Master of Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil
Caldwell James Ellice, Cap. EC (S Andrw's Bghs Harmsworth, R. Leicester
Cameron, Robert Ellis, John Edward (Notts. ) Harwood, George
Hayden, John Patrick M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. Markham, Arthur Basil Sheehy, David
Hemphill, Rt Hn. Charles H. Mooney, John J. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Higham, John Sharpe Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. Murphy, John Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Holland, Sir William Henry Nannetti, Joseph P. Scares, Ernest J.
Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) Newnes, Sir George Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants
Horniman, Frederick John Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. Norman, Henry Stevenson, Francis S.
Jacoby, James Alfred Norton, Capt. Cecil William Sullivan, Donal
Johnson, John Nussey, Thomas Willans Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Joicey, Sir James O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Tennant, Harold John
Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E
Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N. ) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Joyce, Michael O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W Tomkinson, James
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S. ) Toulmin, George
Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W. O'Dowd, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Kilbride, Denis O'Kellv, James (Roscommon. N. Wallace, Robert
Kitson, Sir James O'Malley, William Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Labouchere, Henry O'Mara, James Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lambert, George O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Langley, Batty Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) Wason, John Catheart (Orkney
Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Parrott, William Weir, James Galloway
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Paulton, James Mellor White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Lavland-Barratt, Francis Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) White, Patrick (Meath, North
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Pirie, Duncan V. Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Levy, Maurice Power, Patrick Joseph Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Lewis, John Herbert Rea, Russell Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lloyd-George, David Reddy, M. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Lough, Thomas Redmond, John E. (Waterford Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset
Lundon, W. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.
Lvell, Charles Henry Rickett, J. Compton Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs) Wilson. J. W. (Worcestersh. N
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roche, John Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf'd
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Runciman, Walter Young, Samuel
M'Crae, George Russell, T. W. Yoxall, James Henry
M'Fadden, Edward Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Sehwann, Charles E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
M'Kean, John Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.
M'Kenna, Reginald Shackleton, David James
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Forward to