§ 6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £54, 000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, in Aid of the Expenses of the British Protectorate in Somaliland. "
§ Resolutions read a second time.
§ First Resolution.
§ MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)
said he desired to call attention to the action of the Treasury with regard to the refunding of the costs incurred in the prosecution of the late Mr. Whitaker Wright. When this Vote came up a few days ago the matter was allowed to slide, because Members desired to discuss the case of Adolf Beck. The House would, however, do well to listen to a short account of the action of the Treasury in departing from their promise that the costs of those engaged in getting 1022 up this prosecution should be paid. He had the privilege of first bringing this matter before the House on the Address. The Attorney-General on that occasion worked himself up into a state of forensic fury, banged the Table, and made it appear that all sorts of insinuations were made against his honour. No such insinuations were made, but it had to be admitted that the Attorney-General was guilty of an error of judgment. Had it been left to the Attorney-General this criminal would have escaped. It was solely due to Mr. John Flower—a gentleman of the highest honour and well known in the City, who had suffered severely—that justice and the law were vindicated. He thought the Treasury had behaved with great meanness towards Mr. Flower, whose task was made doubly difficult by the debate which took place in the House, in the course of which the Solicitor-General stated that a man could not be prosecuted for issuing a fraudulent balance-sheet, an opinion silently acquiesced in by the Attorney-General.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON (Dublin University)
The hon. Member misrepresents me. I said you cannot prosecute a man unless the fraudulent balance-sheet is issued with intent to defraud.
§ MR. LAMBERT
The right hon. Gentleman said—Will anyone say you can prosecute a man for issuing a false balance-sheet?The Law Officers gave that as their opinion, and that had the effect of deterring the public outside, and it made the task of Mr. Flower and his coadjutors doubly difficult. Mr. Flower, at great cost, performed a great public service in bringing a criminal to justice. Mr. Flower had been the means of vindicating the British law. He did not ask that Mr. Flower should be recouped for any public service he had rendered—although he had rendered a great public service to the commercial community—but that he should be recouped his actual out-of-pocket expenses in the matter. A vouched account had been sent to the Treasury for £518, and he thought the House would be surprised to learn that the Treasury proposed to pay only £18. 1023 Of course Mr. Flower, being an honourable man, flung the Treasury cheque into their face. To send him a cheque for £18 was like accusing him of being a rascal as fraudulent as Whitaker Wright. That was quite contrary to the promise which was given to the House by the Home Secretary in 1904, when he said that the Government would repay the costs of the prosecution of Whitaker Wright. The Law Officers refused to prosecute, and, of course, costs were incurred by Mr. Flower in getting up the public subscription which amounted to £2, 000. It was only because that public subscription was got up that the prosecution committee were able to pay into Court the amount ordered by Mr. Justice Buckley. He thought the Secretary of the Treasury would see that but for the incurring of expense for verifying documents and getting transcripts of the company's reports, it would have been impossible for a man so to move the public as to subscribe £2, 000. It was impossible for any man to get up a public subscription for such a purpose without first bringing the public to understand the enormity of the frauds perpetrated and the guilt of the person who had committed them. It was due absolutely and entirely to Mr. Flower's previous expenditure of £518 that the £2, 000 was got together, and if that sum had not been got together Mr. Whitaker Wright would have been loose to-day enjoying his ill-gotten gains. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had behaved with incredible meanness to a man who had performed a very great public service. A rather interesting correspondence took place between Mr. Arnold White and the Attorney-General. Mr. White, believing that the Attorney-General had committed a slight error of judgment, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman's services were well remunerated by the State, thought he might like to subscribe to the fund to recoup Mr. Flower. In a letter dated May 7th, 1904. which Mr. White wrote to the Attorney-General, he pointed out that the Solicitor-General had indicated the opinion in a debate in the House of Commons that a man could not be prosecuted for publishing a false balance-sheet.
§ MR. LAMBERT
said Whitaker Wright was prosecuted and convicted. After all was said and done there must be a mistake somewhere. He was not a lawyer, and he had no legal knowledge at all, but here was a case where the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General said there was no case, and through the action of Mr. Flower Mr. Whitaker Wright was brought before a Judge and jury and convicted, and they knew the tragic dénouement. He was sorry that the Attorney-General had not yet become a subscriber to the fund, but after the debate he might become a slight contributor to it. In this matter the Treasury might say that Mr. Flower's expenses were not exactly legal expenses. No doubt they were not, but they were genuinely incurred by him in getting up the subscription. The prosecution committee had to fight enormous influences. Great wealth was most unscrupulously used, and if it had not been that the prosecution committee, even after the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckley, engaged counsel to appear at the trial there might have been a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution committee had only been able to return to the subscribers 16s. 8d. in the £1. That was through the Treasury refusing to allow more.
§ MR. LAMBERT
said the hon. Baronet knew about this better than he did him self, but the statement he had made was according to his information. It appeared that the hon. Baronet had not got his share of the swag. The Treasury ought to recoup the prosecution committee and Mr. Flower the whole of their out-of-pocket expenses which were incurred honestly and in a bona fide manner. They had not put a single shilling in their own pockets. It had been suggested that Mr. Flower should be recouped out of the prosecution fund, but he was an honourable man and would not listen to that suggestion. The hon. Member moved a reduction of 1025 the Vote by £100, as a protest against the niggardly action of the Treasury in this matter.
To leave out '£12, 000, ' and insert '£11, 900. '"—(Mr. Lambert.)
§ Question proposed, "That '£12, 000' stand part of the said Resolution. "
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)
said he regretted that this question had been raised because it involved a certain amount of detail which he had hoped it might not have been necessary to discuss. He did not complain of the way in which the matter had been presented to the House by the hon. Member opposite. The total amount of expenses claimed by Mr. Flower was £582, and, without going through all the details, he might give two or three examples of the charges to show how the Treasury was justified in the course taken. The biggest item was for rent of premises £200. He understood that Mr. Flower occupied premises in Angel Court from June, 1901, to June, 1903, and carried on his stock-broking business there—was in fact doing so at the present time. He was credibly informed that no use whatever was made of those premises, and that on no single occasion did the prosecution committee meet there. He did not think that item could in any way be said to form part of the expense of prosecuting Mr. Whitaker Wright, and he thought that the Treasury were justified in striking that out. There were other smaller items, such as shorthand notes, advertisements, circularising shareholders, etc., nearly all of which were not only prior to the Attorney-General's decision, but also prior to the winding up order of 31st October, 1901. Those were matters, again, which could not, in any shape or form, be considered to be connected with the prosecution. There was a charge for newspaper articles, in July, 1901, and February, 1902. These had been carefully examined by competent advisers, who decided, after investigation, that they had nothing whatever to do with the case. The same was to be said about certain charges for 1026 circularising shareholders, and for solicitor's fees which, in the view of his legal advisers, had nothing to do with the prosecution of Whitaker Wright. He hoped that no charge of meanness would be directed against the Treasury, who had acted fairly according to the decision the Government had arrived at, and had handed over the taxed costs and the still further sum which, after most careful consideration, they had decided might properly be attributed to the cost of the prosecution. He regretted to have been compelled to go into these details of a case which every one wished to be closed. The Treasury had taken the broadest and most liberal view they could, and he believed that an impartial observer would say that they had erred rather on the side of liberality than of meanness.
§ SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)
said that he knew that his hon. friend had investigated and dealt with this case with a single-minded desire to see justice done if he thought that there might have been a miscarriage of justice. He did not understand that his hon. friend disputed the statements made by the Secretary to the Treasury. He hoped the hon. Member would not much differ from him when he expressed the opinion that some of the items mentioned by the Secretary to the Treasury ought not to have been paid to Mr. Flower, and he hoped would not be paid. Take, for example, apart from the taxed costs, the claims made for private expenses by Mr. Flower in trying to get up the prosecution. For two years he charged the whole rent of his own office where he carried on his own business.
§ MR. LAMBERT
said that Mr. Flower's statement was that he found it would be useless to get up an agitation among themselves, and accordingly he took an office specially for the purpose of attending to this matter; and for two years he had used this office almost exclusively for the purpose of the London and Globe affairs. The rent came to £200. Mr. Flower was then a bankrupt, through the collapse of the London and Globe 1027 Company, and therefore he could not engage in stockbroking business.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
said he had never heard that any gentleman who asked for the costs of a prosecution should include in these the rent of an office for two years. It seemed to him absurd and incredible that a man should take an office at a rent of £200 a year in order to circularise shareholders. He might be allowed to say a word or two about this case although he did not want to re-open the whole matter. In former times there used to be constant complaints made against the Attorney-General of the day for pressing prosecutions against private persons; but for a hundred years no such case of harshness or cruelty in the matter of prosecutions against private parties had been levelled against the Attorney-General or the Law Officers of the Crown. The institution of criminal proceedings was a most serious and grave matter, and if it had to be done, it ought to be done without pressure from persons who knew nothing of the affair. He did not think the House of Commons, except in very extreme cases, ought ever to be appealed to to put pressure on the Attorney-General to institute such proceedings. He thought that it was a most dangerous thing that hon. Gentlemen who had not taken the smallest trouble to ascertain the facts should endeavour to bring pressure on the Law Officers in such a matter. He said that because it was the first occasion on which such pressure had been exercised, and he would certainly oppose it.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY
said, as one who supported the hon. Gentleman opposite when he brought forward his Motion for the prosecution of Mr. Whitaker Wright, he might be allowed to add a new remarks. He disagreed with the decision of the Attorney-General in the matter, but so arfrom that decision having acted badly he thought, on the contrary, that it had induced many people to subscribe. For his own part, it had induced him to subscribe because, rightly or wrongly, he thought there had been a miscarriage of justice. He quite agreed that no pressure should be put on the Law Officers of the Crown in such cases; 1028 but this was a very exceptional case. Nine people out of ten in the City knew all about it and understood it. It was one of the largest and most prominent cases that there had been for years; and was the exception which proved the rule. He did not think, however, that Mr. Flower was injured by the action which was adopted by the Law Officers, and did not consider that Mr. Flower could expect that the Treasury should pay more than the actual cost of the action and a sufficient sum for what was known as costs between solicitor and client. That was all that could be expected. He himself subscribed under the impression that he would not receive anything back in any event. The right hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Flower was a bankrupt. He was no longer a member of the Stock Exchange; but he was carrying on the business of an outside broker, which he still continued. He agreed that Mr. Flower had succeeded in performing a great public service; it was true that he had lost a great deal of money; but it was not a very wise proceeding to enter into large transactions with Mr. Whitaker Wright with the knowledge that he was incurring a very considerable risk. On the whole he thought that the Government had done the right thing.
§ *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
said, as one who supported the hon. Gentleman opposite when he originally brought his Motion before the House, he felt bound to express the same views now, but he concurred with the Ex-Attorney-General that no undue pressure ought to be put on the House to institute prosecutions. He also agreed with the late Attorney-General, who stated that the case was an extremely difficult one. But it was the extreme and exceptional case, and one involving the gravest doubt as to whether a prosecution would succeed or not. Judges differed, and the Law Officers were doubtful. There was, of course, no question regarding the bona fides of the Law Officers. Others, however, adopted a different view from theirs, and felt on public grounds that in order to prevent similar gigantic frauds in the future here should at least be a magisterial investigation, and if there were a committal 1029 that the trial should proceed. What happened? A man with comparatively little means took all the risk of vindicating the public interest, and deterring as far as possible the recurrence of frauds which had victimised a large number of ignorant and simple people. The risk was great; but the prosecution was justified by the result. The case being extremely exceptional it was right that the treatment of it now should be fairly liberal, especially in connection with the persons who had taken such a large responsibility in the interests of public and commercial morality. It was essentially a case for reasonable consideration and liberal treatment. When he had heard it stated that Mr. Flower had used his own office for the purposes of the prosecution, he thought that his claim in that connection was quite baseless. But it was entirely different when it was shown that a separate office had been necessarily engaged for the purposes of the prosecution. In a prosecution of this kind the documents were voluminous, and conferences were almost innumerable, and a £100 a year for two years for an office in the City was not unreasonable. If Mr. Flower used his own office it would be inconvenient to him, and would also produce an impression of personal interest and advertisement. But when a man took the necessary steps and accepted responsibility, and had succeeded in rendering a great public service, and had shown that people, and especially the poor, could not be plundered with impunity by men who had not the courage of the highwayman, he was entitled to reasonable and proper treatment. He would ask the Treasury not to deal meanly with this matter and not simply to repay the merely taxed costs. He hoped the Government would reconsider the question from a higher and wider and more public stand-point.
§ MR. J. F. HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)
expressed the opinion that this discussion should not come to an end without some further explanation from the Law Officers of the Crown of their action in the matter. Those who brought this case forward recently had expressed a desire to bury and get rid of a deplorable transaction which they had no wish to 1030 revive. They had chosen, he thought, a strange way of attaining their desire, but the case having been raised the whole matter ought to be thoroughly cleared up and some explanation given to the public of the action of the Law Officers of the Crown. He said this in no spirit of hostility to the hon. and learned Gentlemen, nor did he complain of the extent to which they were remunerated, as in his opinion it was not excessive. Two years previously, when this question was first raised, there was considerable feeling on the part of the public that the Law Officers of the Crown had been neglectful of their duty in this respect. Feeling ran so high that the Government was at one time in some jeopardy when the debate on the Address took place. At that time the Solicitor-General said that in the present state of the law it was impossible to institute a prosecution, and that it must be made the subject of future legislation. It afterwards transpired that a prosecution could and did lie—and that prosecution was carried to a successful issue without any need for extra legislation. The point insisted upon by the hon. Member for Islington on the last occasion should be borne in mind, namely, that the object of the Government was not to obtain convictions but to obtain the truth. It seemed to him that there was a fear among the officials of the Treasury lest a prosecution when undertaken should be unsuccessful and bring discredit to the Department, but he thought wherever there appeared to be a prima facie case it should be probed to the bottom in a Criminal Court, and if the prosecution failed blame should attach to no one. The officials of the Treasury seemed to be falling into the spirit of French law in this respect. The spirit of French law as understood in this country was a spirit of competition in the endeavour to secure the greatest number of convictions. He hoped any such spirit as that would be entirely purged from the office of the Public Prosecutor. A good deal had been said as to the object of the private individuals who instituted this prosecution which in his opinion was very wide of the mark, and he ventured to think that those expenses which had been incurred by them which they could not recover by any other means ought to be repaid them. 1031 At the same time it was a curious way to vindicate their rights to move a reduction, which Motion, if it were successful, would deprive these people of some modicum of the amount they ought to obtain. He should vote against the reduction.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
said he was loth to occupy the time of the House in again discussing this matter. He did not very much mind the attacks made upon himself because, so far as he was concerned, he was perfectly conscious that the words he had uttered in a previous debate were words well considered and honestly stated in the House and words to which he still adhered. One matter which he had stated had been, over and over again, under a misapprehension, quoted against him as if he had acted erroneously in the advice he gave to the House. He had asked what evidence was sufficient for the purpose of instituting a prosecution. Suppose it was admitted that a balance-sheet was fraudulent, was that sufficient evidence on which to institute a prosecution. In so doing he was quoting almost the very words of Chief Justice Cockburn in a very important case, and the whole meaning of what he said was that they must be able to show that particular intentions of defrauding and deceiving, which were mentioned in the Act of Parliament, existed before they could bring the person against whom the charges were alleged within the statute. That was exactly what Lord Chief Justice Cockburn pointed out in the famous case already referred to by the Attorney-General, and he did not believe that any lawyer would dispute what he had put forward as necessary ingredients of a prosecution. When the matter was before them—and it was under discussion not for a few minutes or hours, but for days, between the Attorney-General, himself, and other counsel engaged in the case—they were of opinion that the materials submitted to them did not show the particular intent which it was necessary to prove before it could come within the statute. They might have been right or wrong in regard to that. The particular matter in reference to which he had been over and over again attacked, was not a question of 1032 fact, but that he gave wrong advice on the point of law. Whether the Law Officers were right or wrong in their judgment, it was certainly not from inadvertence, because it was a case in which from day to day they were bound to give the utmost consideration to the materials from time to time placed before them. But nothing rendered more difficult the discharge of the duty the Law Officers had to perform than that, at the time they were discussing a matter of vital importance to an individual fellow-subject against whom there was an outcry at the moment, there should be raised another outcry for the purpose of urging the Law Officers to take a particular course.
He had risen not so much in consequence of the attack upon himself, as he had already explained his position, but to protest against the observation of an hon. Member who had just spoken that the duty of the Law Officers was to set investigations on foot. Were they, because there was an outcry or a case suggested by a layman against an individual, to set an investigation on foot unless they believed there was a prima facie case against the person accused? Certainly not. That was no part of their duty. If they accepted the principle that the country ought to be satisfied by an investigation, they might, in the case of an innocent man against whom a false or erroneous case had been set up in the minds of the public, by a criminal process put him in the dock, while all the time there was really no case whatever in the legal sense against him. That was exactly what the legal officers ought to guard against. Whatever might be the outcry or whatever outsiders might think of the guilt or innocence of the individual, the Law Officers were bound, whether it was popular or unpopular, whether their decision was satisfactory or unsatisfactory, to exercise their judgment and discretion as to whether a prima facie case had been laid before them. If exercising their judgment with the best of their ability, standing between the subject and his accusers, they came to a wrong conclusion, all he could say as a Law Officer was that he would rather act on his opinion, even if that opinion were wrong, whore the results might be such as they were in the case of Whitaker Wright, and know that he had 1033 acted upon his own judgment, than give way for a moment to popular demand or any other exigency, and have it upon his conscience that he had not acted upon a judgment which he himself had formed. That was the sole duty of the Law Officers, and certainly so long as he had the honour to hold his position, even if he were accused afterwards of coming to an erroneous decision, and held up to ridicule within the House of Commons for legal propositions for which at all events he had the high sanction of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, he would adopt the course he had followed in the past. Nobody could avoid being accused of making mistakes, but who was to judge whether mistakes were really made in these difficult questions he did not know. At all events he was certain of this—that he would best discharge the duties cast upon him by acting upon his own judgment after mature consideration of the facts that were laid before him.
§ *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
said that he had never suggested or thought of suggesting that in the absence of a prima facie case there ought to be even a magisterial investigation.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)
reminded the House that on a former occasion the Solicitor-General declared that he never apologised, even for a mistake.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
I did not say that I never apologised. If I were rude to the hon. Member I would apologise. What I said was that I had nothing to apologise for in this case.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
said there was a mistake at any rate for which he might apologise, because on a former occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman used these words—It is said that Whitaker Wright published a false balance-sheet. I believe he did. I think it is admitted that this was done. But will any one get up and Bay that a man can 1034 be prosecuted because he published a false balance-sheet?Every Member of the House would get up and say it now, and they were justified in saying so by Mr. Justice Buckley and the result of the Whitaker Wright trial. On that occasion, to escape defeat, the Prime Minister promised that the law should be immediately amended, but the pledge had never been carried out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman owed an apology to those Members who pointed out the section in the Criminal Law Amendment Act under which Whitaker Wright was prosecuted to conviction, and under the authority of which Mr. Justice Buckley allowed the prosecution to issue. At Question-time to-day the Attorney-General declared there was full opportunity of discussing this case in the debate on the Address in 1904. This was a matter to which the House should give its attention. In 1903 an Amendment to the Address with reference to the non-prosecution of Whitaker Wright was actually proposed and discussed, and the Government escaped defeat by giving a pledge to amend the law which had never been fulfilled. Such pledges seemed to be an easy way with the present Government of escaping out of difficulties.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSON
A measure was introduced on the lines indicated, and it was blocked from the hon. Member's side of the House.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILL
said the Government could have passed it in the same way as the Licensing Bill, but they did not want to pass it. He was really rejoiced at the sweet reasonableness of the constitutional doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman that he would not prosecute if there was any legal fault in the matter, and the prosecution must be a matter of certainty. The righ hon. Gentleman was, of course, never in the Coercion Courts in Ireland in his life. Why there had never been such a conversion since the time of St. Paul. A mistake was made by the Law Officers of the Crown which ought not to have been made by officials who received between them £75, 000 a year. There was, in his opinion, a suspicious element 1035 in this Whitaker Wright case, and he would do his best to prevent in England the methods of prosecution which prevailed in Ireland.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 247;Noes, 158. (Division List No. 82.)1039
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Duke, Henry Edward||Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton||Leveson-Gower, Frederic k N. S.|
|Allsopp, Hon. George||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Llewellyn, Evan Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Faber, George Denison (York)||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bistol, S.),|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir …||Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.||Lowe, Francis William|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Finlay, Sir R. B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)||Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale),|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fisher, William Hayes||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Fison, Frederick William||Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred|
|Balcarres, Lord||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Fitzroy, Hn. E. Algernon||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)||Flower, Sir Ernest||M'Calmont, Colonel James|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Forster, Henry William||M'Iver. Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Galloway, William Johnson||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Gardner, Ernest||Malcolm, Ian|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Garfit, William||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Mawell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n>|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.|
|Bill, Charles||Gordon. Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Bingham, Lord||Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon||Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Fredk. G.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Goschen, Hn. George Joachim||Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.)|
|Bond, Edward||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Graham, Henry Robert||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Gretton, John||Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose),|
|Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middl'sx)||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Brassey, Albert||Hain, Edward||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)||Hambro, Charles Eric||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nde'ry||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bull, William James||Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry))|
|Butcher, John George||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow)||Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W.)||Myers, William Henry|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Heaton, John Henniker||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Helder, Augustus||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Cayzer, Sir Chas. William||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Parker, Sir Gilbert|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hogg, Lindsay||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)|
|Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)||Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley|
|Chapman, Edward||Hoult, Joseph||Percy, Earl|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hunt, Rowland||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)||Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward|
|Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Purvis, Robert|
|Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred||Randles, John S.|
|Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.||Rasch. Sir Frederic Carne|
|Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Cubitt, Hn. Henry||Kerr, John||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Keswick, William||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Kimber, Sir Henry||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Davenport, William Bromley||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Denny, Colonel||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-||Lawson, John G. (Yorks. N. R.)||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants Fareham||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Rutherford, John (Lancashire)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Saekville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse)||Thornton, Percy M.||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Tollemache, Henry James||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Ed. M.||Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H (Yorks.)|
|Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Seton-Karr, Sir Henry||Tuff, Charles||Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd|
|Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)||Turnour, Viscount||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Sloan, Thomas Henry||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Smith, Rt Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks||Walker, Col. William Hall||Wylie, Alexander|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Spear, John Ward||Wanklyn, James Leslie||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)||Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E (Taunton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir|
|Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)||Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Stock, James Henry||Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne)||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N(|
|Allen, Charles P.||Grant, Corrie||O'Dowd, John|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Hammond, John||O'Malley, William|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydv'I||O'Mara, James|
|Bell, Richard||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Benn, John Williams||Harrington, Timothy||Partington, Oswald|
|Blake, Edward||Harwood, George||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Boland, John||Hayden, John Patrick||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Helme, Norval Watson||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Brigg, John||Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Higham, John Sharpe||Priestley, Arthur|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Rea, Russell|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Horniman, Frederick John||Reddy, M.|
|Burke, E. Haviland.||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford|
|Burns, John||Jacoby, James Alfred||Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th|
|Burt, Thomas||Johnson, John||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Caldwell, James||Joicey, Sir James||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Roche, John|
|Cawley, Frederick||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Charming, Francis Allston||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Runciman, Walter|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Jordan, Jeremiah||Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Kearley, Hudson E.||Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.)||Shackleton, David James|
|Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)||Kilbride, Denis||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Cremer, William Randal||Kitson, Sir James||Sheehy, David|
|Crombie, John William||Lament, Norman||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Crooks, William||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Slack, John Bamford|
|Delany, William||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)||Levy, Maurice||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles||Lewis, John Herbert||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants|
|Dobbie, Joseph||Lundon, W.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Sullivan, Donal|
|Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)||Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Duffy, William J.||Mac Veagh, Jeremiah||Tennant, Harold John|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||M'Kean, John||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Dunn, Sir William||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)|
|Ellice, Capt E. C. (SAndrw'sBghs||Mooney, John J.||Tomkinson, James|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||Murphy, John||Toulmin, George|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Fenwick, Charles||Newnes, Sir George||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, Jas. F. X. (Cork)||Weir, James Galloway|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North.|
|Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)||Wilson, John (Falkirk)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.|
|Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)||Wood, James||Lambert and Mr. Soares.|
|Whittaker, Thomas Palmer||Young, Samuel|
|Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
§ And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, Further Consideration of the Resolution stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.
§ Further Consideration of Second Resolution deferred till this Evening's Sitting.