2. "That a sum, not exceeding £24 2s., be granted to His Majesty to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services and Revenue Departments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, namely:—
|Rates on Government Property||…||10||0||0|
|Hospitals and Charities, Ireland||2||0||0|
Resolutions read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
said he wished to take that opportunity of saying with how much satisfaction he had heard when this Vote was last before the House the statement of the hon. Member for Dundee as to the great amount to which these Estimates had been swollen this year. More especially was he glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman spoke in behalf of the Front Opposition Bench and of many Members who sat behind them. He thought it was quite time for formal expression of dissatisfaction to be given from the Front Opposition Bench about the very heavy Estimates which were becoming customary in this House, and which were apparently accepted without a word of protest. He had heard the First Lord of the Treasury state that there was no such word as economy in the vocabulary of the House now; but a very good speech had been made by the hon. Member for Dundee in behalf of more moderate Navy Estimates. The position they were in in regard to these large Estimates—the increases in the men and money asked for—was unprecedented in the history of the country. At the close of a long and arduous campaign, instead of the nation being allowed to have a time of rest and quiet and an escape from these heavy liabilities, the Estimates laid before the House had reached unparalleled figures. Only four years ago—in 1897—the Army and Navy Estimates amounted to £40,000,000; but this year, apart altogether from the war, they amounted to £64,000,000, or an increase of three-fifths. It seemed to him that the question put by his hon. friend—why these Estimates were so large?—was a very necessary one for them to consider.
The hon. Member appears to me to be entering on a general discussion. This is the Report of Supply on Vote A 1, and the hon. Gentleman's argument must be confined to that particular Vote.
I thought there was an understanding that on this Vote, which refers to the increase of the number of men for the Navy, it would be possible to make a general protest against the Estimates if it were thought well to do so.
I am not cognisant of any such arrangement. I only know what the rule of the House is.
said he would try and keep within the limits Mr. Speaker had laid down. He thought they had abundant evidence that this Vote, as well as the Estimates generally, had been brought forward in a spirit of panic for which he could see no reason whatever. He would point out that the standard which was adopted by the House and country, that our Navy as regards men and ships should be equal to the navies of any two European Powers, had been entirely departed from. Now we seemed to be nearly as strong as any three Powers. He knew that that was questioned by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, but very strong reasons could be given in support of it. It was quite clear, at any rate, that we were doing a great deal more this year than necessary if we were only to maintain the old standard. We were more responsible than any other Power in the world for the great increase in recent years of both naval and military expenditure. That responsibility used to rest with France and Germany, but now it rested upon England, and he questioned whether we were improving our relative position, for the more we spent the more would the other Powers be stimulated to spend. In 1893 the total amount which was spentwas£30,000,000; in this year the Government had spent £48,000,000.
Order, order! The hon. Member seems to be entering upon a general discussion, which is not in order upon the Report stage. The discussion on this Vote must be confined to the number of men.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he had considered the question put to him when this matter was before the House in the previous week, namely, the desirability of obtaining some comparative statement as to the strength of the active lists of the navies of the world. When occupying the position which the hon. Gentleman held, some six years ago, he had obtained such a statement, and a very important statement it was, as it enabled the House to compare the active strength of our Navy with that of other navies. He believed that the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty could arrive at a fairly accurate idea, and he felt that the country would be gratified if the hon. Gentleman would promise that such a statement would be prepared.
disclaimed any intention of occupying the time of the House upon this subject, but said he could not allow the Vote to go without a protest. A very substantial increase of men had been asked for on those voted in the previous year, an increase of 4,000, and it was worthy of the attention of the House to remember that there was no finality about this matter. The numbers asked for increased year by year, and he thought the Government ought to say what their policy was with regard to these naval Estimates. Was it intended to go on year after year for all time asking for increases of men and money, or was there a standard which the Government desired to reach and with which they would be satisfied when it was attained? The Irish Members had every reason to be dissatisfied with these Estimates, because Ireland derived very little benefit from the Navy. There were only three gunboats on the coast of Ireland protecting fisheries, manned by comparatively few men, and it was therefore hard that Ireland should be asked to agree to this large increase, the cost of which would in a great measure fall upon her. Before increasing the number of men in the Navy ho would like to hear whether the Government had put themselves into communication with the great self-governing colonies of the Empire, and asked them whether they were prepared to bear any share of the enormous cost which this great increase involved. The colonies paid little or nothing in support of the Navy, and if the Government had not done so it was not unreasonable to ask them to approach the colonies in this matter, and ask them whether they were prepared to bear the expense of, say, 500 of the men asked for in the Vote.
apologised for having omitted to answer the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, who had asked for a Return of the active lists—the personnel of the navies of the world. He did not agree with the suggestion that such a Return should be produced. In dealing with the French Navy it would be necessary to include the Inscription Maritime. The active list of the Russian Navy-did not include the men of the volunteer fleet, while that of the United States contained enlisted men and, landsmen. They would be comparing a number of things so absolutely dissimilar that they would greatly mislead the public by issuing a Return of the activepersonnel of the various navies. The Return of the materiel published in response to a request of the Member for Forest of Dean was, he thought, a much more satisfactory criterion of the comparative strength of the navies of the world. He was very much in sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for East Clare, and he most fervently desired that we should have contributions from all our great colonies to our Navy as well as to our Army. But he-would point out that this was not made easier when an hon. Member described, as the hon. Member for Limerick did describe, the contributions from the colonies to the Army as being composed of "gaol-birds" and "corner boys."
who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he associated himself with the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for West Islington that there ought to be greater control of this military and naval expenditure, which was piling up year after year to an enormous extent. Even those who thought it was all very well in times of good trade would find that in times of depression it would inflict a great burden upon the country. He maintained that it was an entirely unnecessary, extravagant, and wild expenditure, and he should protest against it by his vote.
asked how the Vote for the increased number of men stood with regard to firemen and stokers. He pointed out that these men had a strong and natural disinclination to work the Belleville or any water-tube boilers, having regard to the constant accidents which were happening and the danger attendant on working them, and he asked to know whether a refusal on the part of these men to work these boilers would entail any punishment upon them.
said he wished to address a question to the First Lord of the Treasury. When the Army Estimates were before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War stated that one of his proposals was an increase in the number of men in the Army; that this was to relieve them of the responsibility of manning the coaling stations, and that the Admiralty would naturally take over that responsibility. The Secretary to the Admiralty the other day gave them to understand that the Admiralty viewed that proposal with disfavour. There was no doubt that the Admiralty and the War Department were at conflict on this very important (matter. It was an open secret that the late Board of Admiralty were adverse to this proposal, and he could certainly say that the Board previous to the late Board of Admiralty were hostile to it. The position was this: If the War Department was not going to relieve the Navy of this responsibility, the new scheme would not increase the effective force by 5,000 men, as the Secretary for War foreshadowed the other day. If the Admiralty meant to stand firm and not be cajoled into taking over the responsibility, he thought this was the opportunity to ask the First Lord of the Treasury to give the House and the country some enlightenment as to what was likely to happen on this very important question.
When my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War referred to what he considered the desirability—and what from many points of view is the desirability—of handing over the garrisoning of coaling stations to the Admiralty, he did not state, and he would not have been justified in stating, that the matter is one which has been finally decided upon. It was still under discussion. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a great variety of opinion upon the subject, and probably neither the Admiralty nor the War Office is very desirous of having handed over to them the somewhat ungrateful task of garrisoning these naval fortresses. It would be impossible for me to make any definite statement as to a policy which is still undecided, but of course we cannot wait for our number of men for the Navy until that decision has been taken. I do not think this matter strictly relevant to the Vote before the House.
said the reasons which the Secretary to the Admiralty gave for not making a comparison between the British Navy and those of other Powers showed clearly how well the British Navy compared with others. That being the case, he would ask the hon. Gentleman whether, under the circumstances, there was really any justification for this enormous increase in the number of men the House was asked to sanction. He wished also to ask why the Government did not do a little more in the way of developing the fishery harbours. If this country were ever unfortunately engaged in a maritime war, it would have to depend to a great extent for its reserves of men upon the seafaring class, and more particularly the fishermen. Could not something of permanent utility be done in that direction, which would be an additional source of strength to the country in time of war, instead of making large additions from time to time in the numerical strength of the Navy?
I do not think the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury is quite as full as we might desire. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the number of men we are now voting for the Navy does or does not include the number of men that will be required if the Admiralty take over the garrisoning of the coaling stations? The Secretary to the Admiralty has said that the Secretary of State for War was expressing only a personal opinion on the expediency of the Navy taking charge of these stations. I should assume, unless I am told to the contrary, that this Vote is on the basis that they really do not contemplate taking charge of the coaling stations. That is a curious position, because the plan of the Secretary of State for War of reinforcing his Regular troops so as to have 120,000 men always ready to go abroad depends to a certain degree upon the Navy discharging this duty. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote says the Navy does not want this duty, but the House ought not to pass the Vote until we have a clear understanding as to who is going to garrison the coaling stations.
I think I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. In any case there will be no change in the course of the present year.
Then what becomes of your Army plan?
No one has suggested that the whole Army scheme should be carried out in the next twelve months.
What I understand is that the number of the Regular forces which may be required to go abroad at any moment depends on the Navy taking over the charge of the coaling stations. Therefore we are to assume that for the present the Navy will not take over the coaling stations. The next time we have an opportunity of examining the Secretary of State for War we must ask him what has become of that part of his plan, which was certainly assumed to be most essential to the efficiency of the force of 120,000 men which is to be ready for all eventualities. The scheme will at least be lame of one foot.
said it seemed to him extraordinary that the War Office and the Admiralty should not have made up their minds on this somewhat important matter. The difficulty of getting men was the crux of both positions, and the country and the world were taken into the confidence of the Government in a way that indicated there was a difference of opinion between the two Departments. He regretted that anything had been said about this until the Government were in a position to state that some final decision had been come to. It was hardly in accordance, with the past traditions of the Government when there was this difference of opinion that they should state-it in the House.
said charges had been made against the Government by the Member for West Monmouthshire and the Member for West Islington which were a little difficult to understand in their contradictoriness. They were told over and over again that the House should be taken into the confidence of the Government, that the Government should not come there with a cut-and-dried scheme, but that the House should have the opportunity of debating the scheme and advising the Government according to their collective wisdom. Then hon. Members availed themselves of the opportunity when it arose for attacking the Government because there was apparently a want of cohesion between the Departments. It seemed to him, having regard to the number of hon. Members in the House who had Service experience, that it was most desirable that the Government should take the sense of the House upon the question whether or not the coaling stations should be dealt with by men belonging to the Army or Navy. Therefore he ventured to think, now that the question was open for debate, it was one well worthy the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire appeared to suggest that if these men, numbering about 7,000 altogether, were not borne by the Navy, the whole of the Army scheme was destroyed.
I said it would be lame of one foot
said one foot was half the power of the Army. There was obvious exaggeration in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, which he was sure the House would appreciate almost the moment it was made. It seemed to him that the Admiralty Board would be ill advised if they were to deal with this question without the fullest consideration. That the Service Members were capable of assisting the Admiralty Board he felt perfectly certain, He wished to refer to a matter which the Secretary to the Admiralty left largely untouched in his reply the other night—the question of the engineers of the Fleet. There was an amount of quiet discontent among the engineers, but they would continue to do their duty, notwithstanding the apparent want of sympathy with them which was shown by the Admiralty Board. He urged that the Board should grant them the one privilege of rank which they asked. This matter was not new. He believed it was thoroughly understood by the Secretary to the Admiralty. He would remind the hon. Member that there had been inquiries extending over several years in regard to this question. Lord Lansdowne, in a recent speech apropos of Army doctors, used these pregnant words—
Admiral Sir J. O. Hopkins, who was formerly a Lord of the Admiralty, and lately served as Commander-in-Chief on the Mediterranean Station, had used these words—"It has sometimes been said, what does rank matter? Is not the title of doctor or surgeon by itself to be regarded as a title, which any one should be proud to bear without further adjuncts? I think the answer to this question is that in the Army rank is the outward and visible sign of consideration and authority, and it is necessary in the military profession that a man should have a military stamp to distinguish him and to secure him his proper place among his comrades."
The Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that there was no possibility of engineers, if given executive rank, ranking in the Navy in such a way that they would be able to assume, ultimately, executive command of a ship. There was no suggestion or desire on the part of engineers that they should be able to do so. All they had asked for was that they should have the same relation to the men under them as the marine officer had to the men under his command. That was the one thing which the engineers were pressing for. It was the universal feeling amongst engineers of the Fleet. This was not a matter of philanthropy or of grievance; it was rather a matter of making the Fleet absolutely efficient by getting the very best men for a position with so large a, responsibility, and keeping them contented. He did not wish to press this matter ad nauseam. The matter was thoroughly understood by the Secretary to the Admiralty, and he felt certain that if a reasonable amount of time was allowed to the Board of Admiralty, with the cooperation of the hon. Gentleman, some reform would be made. He regretted, however, from communications which had reached him that the statement made by the hon. Gentleman was so- little satisfactory and so little encouraging that he thought it would ho desirable to press the matter upon him once more."And now let me touch on the vexed question of the position of the engineers, and suggest that the time has arrived to accord them executive rank. Their duties are purely executive, and should be recognised as such, and the recognition cannot, in my opinion, clash in any single instance with the other executives."
I entirely sympathise with my hon. friend's contention, and I think the change must be made sooner or later—the sooner the better. I merely wish to point out, however, that there is no right on the part of the marine officer on board ship to exercise such functions. The captain can delegate to the marine officer the power to inflict punishments for minor offences, and that, I understand, is all my hon. friend claims on behalf of the engineers. The engineers are becoming so important a unit in the Navy that you ought to approach this question in a somewhat larger spirit. My opinion is that if they had this executive authority, you ought to organise the engineer branch as a unit in itself, the same as the Royal Engineers in the Army, and the marine force in the Navy. The question should be approached from the point of view rather of the Service than of the engineer. In the First Lord's statement there is a very remarkable passage with regard to the wastage in the marine force. He points out that that wastage is greater than it has been for a great many years, but he does not tell us what is the wastage of the executive and engineering branches of the Navy. Is the wastage in the marine branch on the increase, and is it greater now than it has ever been? If so, can the Secretary to the Admiralty give any reason for it? I am informed that it is because the marine force has not been kept up in the same proportion with the Navy proper as formerly, and that instead of, as in former times, the marine spending most of his time on shore, and the smaller part at sea, he now spends more of his time at sea relatively to his time on
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex.F.||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Faber, George Denison|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Causton, Richard Knight||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)||Cautley, Henry Strother||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.||Cavendish, R. P. (N. Lancs.)||Fenwick, Charles|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbysh.)||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Finch, George H.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Asher, Alexander||Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc.||FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Flannery, Sir Fortescue|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Chapman, Edward||Fletcher, Sir Henry|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Flower, Ernest|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.||Foster, Sir M. (Lond. Univ.)|
|Austin, Sir John||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Bain, Col. James Robert||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Fuller, J. M. P.|
|Baird, John George Alex.||Colomb, Sir John C. Ready||Furness, Sir Christopher|
|Balcarres, Lord||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Garfit, William|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Goddard, Daniel Ford|
|Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W(Leeds)||Cox, Irwin, Edward Bainbridge||Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. H'ml'ts)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cranborne, Viscount||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnEldon|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Crombie, John William||Goulding, Rdward Alfred|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton||Graham, Henry Robert|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol||Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Gram, Corrie|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants.||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Green, Walford D (Wednesbury|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Dalziel, James Henry||Greene, Sir E W. (B'y S. Edm'nds|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)|
|Bignold, Arthur||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)|
|Black, Alexander William||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill|
|Blundell, Col. Henry||Dewar, T R (T'r H'mlets, S.Geo.||Guthrie, Walter Murray|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Hain, Edward|
|Boulnois, Edmund||Dockson, Charles Scott||Haldane, Richard Burdon|
|Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Midd'x)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Halsey, Thomas Frederick|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G. (Mid'x|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Dixon-Hartland, Sir E. Dixon||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William|
|Brookfield, Col. Montagu||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)||Duncan, James H.||Harmsworth, R. Leicester|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Dunn, Sir William||Harris, F Leverton (Tynemouth|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Burt, Thomas||Edwards, Frank||Hayne, Rt.-Hon. CharlesSeale-|
|Buxton. Sydney Charles||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.|
|Caine, William||Elibank, Master of||Henderson, Alexander|
|Caldwell, James||Elliot, Hon. A Ralph Douglas||Hoare, Edw Brodie(Hampstead)|
|Cameron, Robert||Emmott, Alfred||Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.)|
shore. I am told, but it is a difficult thing to establish, that as a matter of fact, if you compare the gunnery and torpedo branch of the Navy with the marine artillery or marine branch, it will be found that you are now keeping the marine branch at sea longer than the bluejacket branch. That is not a right state of things. I therefore merely ask my hon. friend whether he can throw any light on the question of wastage, and give us any information as to its cause, and whether it is exceptionally great in that particular branch of the Navy in comparison with the executive and engineering branches.
The House divided:—Ayes, 303; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 96.)
|Hothouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Holland, William Henry||More, Rbt. Jas. (Shropshire)||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Hope, JF (Sheffield, Brightside)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Morrison, James Archibald||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)|
|Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Muntz, Philip A.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G.(Bute)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants|
|Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Myers, William Henry,||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Joicey, Sir James||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Stock, James Henry|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Strachey, Edward|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Stroyan, John|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Heading)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop)||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Kimber, Henry||Parker, Gilbert||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Kinloch, SirJonn (George Smyth||Partington, Oswald||Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.|
|Knowles, Lees||Peel Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)|
|Lambert, George||Pemberton, John S. G.||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)|
|Lambton, Hon. Fred. Wm.||Percy, Earl||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Lawrence, William F.||Philipps, John Wynford||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Lawson, John Grant||Pierpoint, Robert||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Lee, Capt. AH. (Hants, Fareh'm||Plummer, Walter R.||Ure, Alexander|
|Leigh, Sir Joseph||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Valentia, Viscount|
|Leighton, Stanley||Pretyman, Ernest George||Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield)|
|Leng, Sir John||Price, Robert John||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Leveson-Gower, FrederickN.S.||Priestley, Arthur||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Levy, Maurice||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Wallace, Robert|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Purvis, Robert||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne||Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.|
|Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S||Ratcliffe, R. F.||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Rea, Russell||Weir, James Galloway|
|Lough, Thomas||Reid, James (Greenock)||Welby, Lt.-Col ACE (Taunton)|
|Lowe, Francis William||Renshaw, Charles Bine||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Rentoul, James Alexander||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Rickett, J. Compton||Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.|
|Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Ridley S. Forde(BethnalGreen)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred||Rigg, Richard||Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell-(Birn)|
|Maconochie, A. W.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Malcolm, Ian||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye||Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.|
|Maple, Sir John Blundell||Ropner, Colonel Robert||Wodehouse, Hn. Armine(Essex)|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Round, James||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries.||Royds, Clement Molyneux||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Middlemore, John Throgmorth||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Young, Commander(Berks, E.)|
|Milward, Colonel Victor||Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
|Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants||Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col.Edw.J.|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Ffrench, Peter||Mooney, John J.|
|Ambrose, Robert||Field, William||Murphy, J.|
|Blake, Edward||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Boyle, James||Flynn, James Christopher||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Gilhooly, James||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)|
|Burns, John||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton||Joyce, Michael||O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Labouchere, Henry||O'Doherty, William|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leamy, Edmund||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Crean, Eugene||Lundon, W.||O'Dowd, John|
|Cullinan, J.||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)|
|Delany, William||M'Dermott, Patrick||O'Malley, William|
|Dillon, John||M'Fadden, Edward||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Reddy, M.||Sullivan, Donal|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
|Redmond, John E.(Waterford)||Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.||Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.|
|Redmond, William (Clare)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Besolution."
In connection with this Vote I want to put before the Secretary to the Admiralty what I deem to be a practical point with reference to recruiting. At the present moment the Navy is recruited in those districts where the Service is held to be a hereditary service. In the constituency I represent, fathers and sons have for generations gone into the Navy, and it is the same in other naval ports. The suggestion I make is that the Admiralty should consider the advisability of recruiting by recruiting officers in country districts. The country boy has many advantages. He is healthy, and so on, and for the stoker class especially I would suggest there are many advantages to be gained by sending recruiting officers into the country districts. If a boy in a country district wishes to join the Navy, he has nowhere to apply except possibly to a clergyman or at the police station, where you circulate recruiting notices. Neither of these is the proper medium to which a boy would be likely to apply, but if there was a petty officer recruiting in an agricultural district, say one officer to each county, I am perfectly certain you would get shoals of recruits. But it would be necessary to send a man down into the country in uniform. A country boy's idea of a sailor is a man in serge and so on. He would not understand a cloth coat. His only conception of a sailor is a man wearing blue serge and the ordinary get-up of a sailor. I make the suggestion because I think it is a practical one. There is no getting away from the fact that the Navy is the more popular Service. The Army may have some complaint because you are poaching on their preserves, but they are not so likely to get such a large number of men from the country districts into the Army, whereas if a man goes away from a country district into the Navy and puts in his full time, as the majority of them do, he conies back with a good pension and is a good advertisement for the Navy. You are wanting 4,000 or 5,000 recruits, and I should be glad to hear whether the hon. Gentleman thinks this suggestion a practical one.
said he desired to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the annoyance and vexation that many naval officers were put to by the in and out system of full pay and half pay. He would not ask for an immediate answer, but would give an illustration which would convey the point he wished to make. A ship-came home, and was paid off. An officer got leave, and was on full pay for a certain period. He was then put on half pay, although he was about to be appointed to a guardship on full pay. He would give an instance of an officer at Chatham who, although it was known he was about to be appointed to a ship at Devonport, was put on half pay for a day or two previous to his appointment in order that he, and not the country, should pay his travelling expenses to Devonport. It was a constant trick on the part of the Admiralty to put an officer on half pay for a few days, with the result that he had to pay his own travelling expenses to join a ship. That led to great annoyance, and was very unjust. He merely wished to publicly direct the attention of the Secretary of the Admiralty to the way in which things were manipulated at the Admiralty with a view to justice being given to officers in the circumstances he had mentioned.
said he desired to make a few observations of a general character, and also a few remarks of a local character. There was an increase of practically a quarter of a million in the amount of the appropriations in aid, and surely they were entitled to ask when finality in such an increasing expense would be reached. If the House voted nearly six millions of money, in another year or two the alarmists would start fresh sensational rumours about England being on the brink of invasion, there would be sensational pamphlets and paragraphs, and another increase of a million or two would be asked for, and Estimates already swollen would be still further swollen. There should be a protest against the continual increase of the Estimates, and it was time that the representatives of the taxpayers raised their voices against it. The Admiralty was stirred by every league and movement and plunged into greater and greater extravagance. Notwithstanding Ireland's enormous contribution to the Navy the Irish Members could not obtain from the Secretary to the Admiralty a guarantee that ships other than old tubs would be sent to protect the Irish fisheries; yet Australia was well provided with ships, although it contributed only £30,000 to the expenses of the Navy.
The contribution is £156,000.
said there was a contribution of £14,000 in another Vote, and the wealthy and populous Australian colonies only paid the interest on the amount spent of the construction of the ships they had. Here was a contribution of only £30,000 from Australia, while that from Ireland was two and a quarter millions, and yet they could not obtain from the Admiralty the necessary gunboats for the protection of Irish fisheries.
Order, order! The question of the Irish fisheries does not come within this Vote. I would further remind the hon. Member that it is not in order to raise the question of the financial relations of Ireland on Report of Supply on the number of men for the Navy.
said he was only drawing a lesson, and not discussing the financial relations of Ireland. Ho was calling attention under Sub-head K to the very small contributions given by Australia and India to the support of the Navy; and he thought that the Admiralty should direct the attention of the Australian colonies, now federated into a mighty Empire, with enormous resources, increasing wealth and population, to the fact that they ought to contribute a larger share than they did to the cost of the Navy. He failed to see why they should not.
on a point of order, said that the sum of money contributed by the colonies was on Vote 16, and could be discussed when that Vote was reached.
said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite wrong. It was quite possible that there was another appropriation dealing with maintenance, but he was looking at Vote K. The other Vote was for a sum of £14,000 odd, payable by way of interest on capital expenditure for the construction of the ships of the Australian squadron. His point was that the contribution of the Australian colonies to the maintenance of the Navy was altogether inadequate in view of the increasing taxation in this country.
In reply to the hon. Member for North Cork, I have already said all that there is at present to say in regard to the question of colonial contributions to the Navy. The hon. Member for Devonport spoke of increasing the facilities for recruiting for the Navy in the inland counties. I think it is proved that even in the western counties we, as a rule, get the boys for the Navy from the inland and agricultural districts rather than from the sea-side towns. The sea-side boys generally go into the fishing fleet. The boys who enter the Navy do so more from having read books than from seeing ships. As a matter of fact, I am happy to say that at present we have experienced no serious difficulty in obtaining a full supply of well-qualified boys for the service of the Fleet.
said that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated in answer to a question put to him that there were five coastguard gunboats to watch the Irish fisheries. He thought from his knowledge of the subject that that was a mistake—
The hon. Member will find an opportunity of dealing with that question on a later Vote.
I defer to your judgment on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I would not defer to anybody else's judgment in this House. But I find on this Vote of five millions a portion of the money is for the payment of the coastguard vessels.
These are not coastguard vessels.
said he would raise his point at the proper time if he was not in order now. But he found one portion of this five millions was for the victualling of the Navy—
That is a separate Vote. The question before the House is merely that of the pay of the men, and if the hon. Member wants to say anything on that he will be relevant.
wished to call attention to a most deserving class in the Navy—the boatswains. Four years ago the Admiralty had given the gunners an extra pay of eighteen-pence a day, and he saw no reason why the equally deserving class of boatswains should not have had the same money. Ho confessed that in his own time in the Service, when all the ships were masted, the boatswains were of more use than now, but what with the increase in education the boatswains were in these days as well up in gunnery and torpedo work as the warrant officers, and he pressed on the Secretary to the Admiralty to give them the same rate of pay as the warrant officers. He also wished the Admiralty would send to the West Coast of Ireland a training ship to induce the boys there to join the Navy. In his own county he had done the best ho could to induce boys to join the Navy, which he thought one of the finest services in the world; and he believed a training ship in Loch Swilly would do a great deal of good.
said that Irish Members looked at the question of the Navy from a different point of view from other hon. Members who regarded it from the purely British or colonial standpoint. Irish Members had unfortunately different interests to protect. It had been said that the cost of the Navy was merely an insurance for the safe carrying on of British trade, but Ireland had no foreign trade to protect, and he thought the colonies, with their expanding trade, ought to contribute more than they did to these gigantic Votes.
wished to re-echo what had been said by his hon. and gallant friend in regard to the pay of the warrant officers in the Navy; and he felt certain that the Secretary to the Admiralty would give those interested in this subject an opportunity of laying their views fully before him on this matter. He hoped the filling up of the ranks of the chief warrant officers would not be so long-delayed in the future as in the past. For instance, the chief boatswain or the chief carpenter standing on the list first for promotion ought to be promoted almost immediately; for, if not, he might die in the meantime and his widow would lose all the advantages of pension of the rank to which he ought long before to have been promoted. The hon. Member for Devonport had spoken of the advantages of recruiting for the Navy in the rural districts, and expressed the hope that it would be extended. He should suggest that when the Admiralty sent an officer to recruit they should send one likely "to go down." A man came to his district who could not spin a yarn, sing a song, nor dance a hornpipe, and objected to sit up late at night. From what he heard, the people in the neighbourhood said that if the Admiralty could not send a better man they had better send none at all.
desired to support the hon. Member who had been urging the importance of going to new recruiting districts for the Navy. There were no better districts than the coasts of the United Kingdom, and no better material could be found than on the north and north-west coast of Scotland. The Admiralty had been good enough to promise that the "Northampton" training ship should visit Stornoway in the autumn, but that was not enough—a training ship should be permanently stationed in the district. A large sum was down on the Vote for the coastguard. He would ask that the coastguard should be instructed to report eases of illegal trawling, and he thought the Naval Reserve at Stornoway should be provided with something better than model guns.
said he was only anxious that the Naval Reserve men should be allowed the opportunity of becoming expert gunners.
joined in the protest of the hon. Member for North Cork that the self-governing colonies did not contribute to the Navy the same amount in proportion to their resources and population as Ireland did. Ireland was an agricultural country which fed herself, and consequenrly she had no commerce to protect; and therefore the supremacy of the British Navy was quite immaterial to them in Ireland. The hon. Member for North Fermanagh had said that they in Ireland were interested in this Vote as the Government had stationed a training ship in Lough Swilly. The, constituency he represented extended all round Lough Swilly, and he had been there quite recently, but he saw no training ship, unless it was one of the new invisible submarine boats. Ireland gained nothing from the expenditure on the Navy. Not many months ago the Corporation and people of Derry sent a petition to the Admiralty asking that the Channel Fleet should visit Lough Foyle—a request which had also been made the previous year—but nothing had come of it except a formal acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Ross-shire that the coastguard should take some share in the looking after illegal trawling had much to commend it, and he hoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would take note of it. His constituency was altogether maritime, and he had to complain of the large number of English steam trawlers which were investing their waters.
Order, order! The hon. Member is not in order in debating the Irish Fisheries on this Vote.
said that with due respect to the Speaker the cost of the coastguards was on this Vote, and he thought the coastguards should be asked to report on any illegal trawling that took place in local waters. The coastguards, moreover, had a great deal of leisure time, and they could carry out the recommendations of the Commission on Salmon Fisheries without much fatigue to themselves.
Order, order! That does not arise on this Vote.
said that as the Government had refused to send any portion of the Fleet to protect the Irish fishing industry, they were perfectly justified in asking whether the coastguard, which was on this Vote, could not be employed in that duty.
The hon. Member cannot go into the question of employing the coastguard in protecting Irish fisheries. That is a matter which comes under some other Vote.
bowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling, but he would ask what were the duties of the coastguard? Were Irish Members not justified in saying that if their constituents were compelled to contribute a portion of the annual payment to the coastguard, they were entitled to claim an explanation of what their duties were, and whether these duties could not be extended to the protection of the Irish fisheries when they were refused protection from any other sources. Knowing the condition of the Irish fisheries they, had made application year after year for protection—
I have told the hon. Gentleman that he cannot go into the question of illegal trawlers.
said that with all due respect he was not going into that question. He was only pointing out that if it was necessary to prevent a long discussion on this Vote, more than ordinary attention should be paid to asking the coastguard to afford some protection to the Irish fisheries. If he was in order he would like to ask what justification there was for increasing the number of men or ships in the Navy. What were they going to receive in return for this vast amount of money? None of His Majesty's ships were either built or re- paired in Ireland. Perhaps a certain number of men were recruited there, but that was an unwise thing, in his opinion, from an Irish point of view.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of order, and I really must ask him to conform to my ruling.
I most respectfully bow to your ruling, but, as the £5,000,000 is part and parcel of the naval expenditure of this country, I thought I was entitled to discuss it.
The question is whether £5,000,000 should be voted for the pay of officers and men. The hon. Member is now going into the comparative sizes of the navies of Britain and other countries, and other matters which do not arise on this Vote.
said he was not going into an elaborate discussion of the whole question, but he thought he might be justified in saying that the expenditure was not warranted, considering the revenue of the country as compared with the naval expenditure. The Nationalist Members considered that they were justified in protesting against all such expenditure. The people whom they represented received nothing in
|Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex.F.||Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Chapman, Edward|
|Aird, Sir John||Bignold, Arthur||Churchill, Winston Spencer|
|Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)||Black, Alexander William||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.|
|Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden||Blundell, Colonel Henry||Coghill, Douglas Harry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bond, Edward||Cohen, Benjamin Louis|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Boulnois, Edmund||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)||Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole|
|Asher, Alexander||Broadhurst, Henry||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.||Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry||Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Bullard, Sir Harry||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Austin, Sir John||Burt, Thomas||Cust, Henry John C.|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Caine, William Sproston||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen n)|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Caldwell, James||Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardiga|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cameron, Robert||Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts,S Geo.)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)||Causton, Richard Knight||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Cautley, Henry Strother||Dickson, Charles Scott|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cavendish, Rt. F. (N. Lancs.)||Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Beach, Rt. Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Bell, Richard||Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)||Duncan, James H.|
return for the money. They had asked for the protection of their fisheries, and that had been refused, and the only thing the Nationalist Members could do was to get up and protest night after night, and session after session against the expenditure of money. As long as the House continued to refuse to do justice to the fair claims of Ireland there was no other course open to them but to harp away until that country was allowed to manage her own affairs.
said that until the Irish Members got a more sympathetic answer from the Secretary to the Admiralty in regard to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in the Navy it would be a very unwise thing to take any lad of that faith from his home and put him in the Navy, where he would not get the consolation of his religion. This Vote was asked for the purpose of providing an increased number of men, and he thought they had a perfect right to ask how many of the men would be apportioned to Ireland to assist in protecting the Irish fisheries.
The House divided: Ayes, 318; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 97.)
|Dunn, Sir William||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Price, Robert John|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Edwards, Frank||Knowles, Lees||Purvis, Robert|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lambert, George||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne|
|Faber, George Denison||Lawrence, William F.||Ratchffe, R. F.|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lawson, John Grant||Rea, Russell|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham||Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Legge, Col Hon. Heneage||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Finch, George H.||Leigh, Sir Joseph||Rentoul, James Alexander|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Leighton, Stanley||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Firbank, Joseph Thomas||Leng, Sir John||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Ridley, S. F. (Bethal Green)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Levy, Maurice||Rigg, Richard|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Lockwood, Lt. -Col A. R.||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.|
|Fletcher, Sir Henry||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Flower, Ernest||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Lowe, Francis William||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Ropner, Col. Robert|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.|
|Garfit, William||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Round, James|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Godson, Sir August us Frederick||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHml'ts||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Maconochie, A. W.||Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall||Simeon, Sir Harrington|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Majendie, James A. H.||Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire|
|Green, Walford D. (Wednsbury||Malcolm, Ian||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)|
|Greene, Sir E. W (B'ryEdm'nds||Maple, Sir John Blundell||Smith, H.C.(Northmb. Tyneside|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Gretton, John||Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriesshire||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants|
|Guthrie Walter Murray||Middlemore, J. Throgmorton||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Hain, Edward||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Haldane, Richard Bunion||Milton, Viscount||Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Stock, James Henry|
|Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Middx||Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)||Strachey, Edward|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Stroyan, John|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||More, Robert J. (Shropshire)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Morrison, John Archibald||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.|
|Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.||Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)||Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Henderson, Alexander||Moulton, John Fletcher||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr|
|Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Thornborn, Sir Walter|
|Hobhouse, C.E.H (Bristol, E.)||Muntz, Philip A.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Holland, William Henry||Murray, Col. W. (Bath)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside||Myers, William Henry||Ure, Alexander|
|Hornby, Sir William Henry||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Valentia, Viscount|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Howard, Capt J. (Kent, Faversh||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Walton, John Lawson(Leeds,S.|
|Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham||Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil||Palmer, George W. (Reading||Wanklyn, James Leslie|
|Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R)||Parker, Gilbert||Weir, James Galloway|
|Jacoby, James Alfred||Partington Oswald||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E. (Taunton|
|Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Peel, Hon. William Robert W.||Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.|
|Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Pemberton, John S. G.||Wharton, Rt.Hon. John Lloyd|
|Johnston, William (Belfast)||Penn, John||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex||Philipps, John Wynford||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Joicey, Sir James||Pierpoint, Robert||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)|
|Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a||Pirie, Duncan V.||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Jones, William (Carnavonsh.||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Plummer, Walter R.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
|Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Wrightson, Sir Thomas||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Flynn, James Christopher||O'Doherty, William|
|Blake, Edward||Gilhooly, James||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Boyle, James||Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Dowd, John|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Burns, John||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||O'Malley, William|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Joyce, Michael||O'Shaughnessy, J. P.|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Leamy, Edmund||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Lundon, W.||Reddy, M.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Crean, Eugene||M'Dermott, Patrick||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Cremer, William Randal||M'Fadden, Edward||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Delany, William||Mooney, John J.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Dillon, John||Murphy, J.||Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Duffy, William J.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid)||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Field, William||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)|
Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 21st day of this instant March, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read.
"That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 450,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Brodrick, Mr. Arnold-Forster, and Lord Stanley do prepare and bring it in.
Third Resolution agreed to.