COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 12 May 1870 vol 201 cc607-22

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Jacob Bright.)

MR. BOUVERIE

, in rising to move that "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," said: Sir, I do not think it was a proper mode of treating a Bill of this kind and of this importance by moving the Previous Question. I hold that if we disapprove of it, the more straightforward course is to meet it with a direct negative. I think that, in two or three respects, a false notion has been entertained by the House in regard to this Bill. In the minds of many hon. Members who have not paid much attention to the arguments bearing on the measure, nor to the circumstances in which it has been produced, nor to the views and aims of those who advocate it—especially out-of-doors—I believe much less importance has been attached to it than it really possesses. I look upon it as a Bill of the utmost importance; indeed, in its remoter operations and probable consequences if it forms part of the legislation of this country—and I hope it will not—I think it might be said to be even more important than the Irish Land Bill which occupies us so much this Session. It is fraught with serious consequences to all our social and domestic relations, and threatens danger to all that renders those relations happy and enjoyable. But even in reference to its immediate effect it is not unimportant. It proposes to make an enormous addition to the constituency of the country. The hon. Member (Mr. Jacob Bright) has told us that in some of our large towns—in Bath, for instance—more than one-fourth would be added by it to the present constituency, and in Manchester one-sixth. It has been stated in one publication connected with the movement, that the number of new voters which the Bill would enfranchise in Manchester is 10,000; but my hon. Friend now says it is 7,000. In Salford the number would be about 2,000; in the city of York it would add one-sixth to the existing electoral body, and in Newcastle one-seventh. That is a large increase to the present constituency of the country, and, therefore, the immediate effects of the measure are not without some importance to Gentlemen sitting in this House; because I apprehend if it becomes law it will be absolutely imperative on the Government to wind up the business of the Session, to dissolve Parliament, and proceed to a new election. That, I think, is a consequence which may not have occurred to the minds of many hon. Members who voted for the Bill. Another false notion on this sub- ject which it is desirable to correct is, that this measure is one on behalf and for the advantage of women. Now I beg leave distinctly to take issue on that point, and to assert that it is not for their advantage or behoof, but that it will inflict a calamity and a curse upon them; and, what is more, the great bulk of the women of this country have the good sense to know it. For myself, I can say that it has not been my lot to fall in with one sensible woman who is in favour of it, and I have heard several hon. Members, who are themselves disposed to vote for it, say that their wives have entreated them not to support it on this occasion. Another thoroughly erroneous notion was started in the previous debate on this question. I refer to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this is a matter on which the Government need have no opinion at all. Now, I think this is essentially one of those things on which they are bound to form an opinion, and to state it distinctly to this House. Of course, their opinion must be a well-considered and a conscientious one; and, whatever it may be, I should extend to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench the credit of being influenced by perfect justice and fairness in coming to their conclusion. But I must protest, as an independent Member of this House, against a Government which is supposed to guide our legislation, to direct the course of business in this House, and which influences for weal or woe the councils of the nation—I must protest, I say, against their forming and expressing no opinion on a subject of this nature. I trust, therefore, we shall not again hear broached any such erroneous notion. Well, what does my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester propose to do? He says—"You have given the municipal franchise to women by the operation of the Bill you enacted last year, and I now beg you will be good enough to go a step further, and give the electoral franchise to single women and to widows, but not to married women." Now, I think the precedent set by the Act of last year was a very bad one. The clause was slipped in very adroitly, by my hon. Friend on behalf of his fair clients, in the course of the passage through Committee of a Bill that had no direct connec- tion with the subject, excepting that it related to municipal elections. There was no real debate upon his clause. No one particularly noticed it at the time it was proposed; it was adopted almost without any discussion; and, in common with others, I own I very much regret that it was passed. But the fact that the House went to that extent is no reason why we should go further. If we do so, it will be made an argument hereafter in favour of our going still further. My objection to the direct proposal of my hon. Friend that women should have a vote at Parliamentary elections is, that it would plunge them into all the trouble, turmoil, heat, and annoyance incidental to contested elections. The roughest work that any of us have, is that which we perform at those elections, and no one who has experienced it can say it is agreeable work. Supposing this Bill becomes law, how are candidates to bring themselves and their political opinions under the notice of the fairer portion of the constituency? There are three modes by which a candidate can seek the votes of his constituents. Firstly, there is that of the nomination day, but I need not say anything of that, because I suppose it is at an end. Another mode is by speechifying at public meetings; and the third is by canvassing carried on by either the candidate himself or his committee. Is it intended that the unmarried women of England, with that delicacy of nurture which distinguishes the greater number of them, shall enter into the rough struggle of public meetings and be shouldered and shuffled about at those gatherings? I have done a great deal of this work, and I am always glad to meet my constituents; but will any man who is interested in the comfort, the happiness, and the sense of propriety of our countrywomen say that he would like them to take part in those struggles, and listen to the questioning and noise that prevails on such occasions? Then, is the candidate to address a ladies' meeting; is he to explain his views at a meeting of the female part of the constituency specially called to hoar him? I apprehend that would be ridiculous. If so, is there to be a canvassing of all the unmarried women and widows? I think, Sir, we ought not to subject women to anything of the kind. It would be odious to the women of England, and we ought not to expose them to it. My hon. Friend will say—"Give them the vote, and let them not vote if they do not like to do so." But it would be the duty of the proper officer to put them on the register; and in many parts of the country the female portion of the constituency would hold the balance of the contest in their hands. Do you suppose that under such circumstances they would not be annoyed, worried, and persecuted in such a way as to make their lives intolerable to them during a contested election? But then my hon. Friend says—"They have property, and that property ought to be represented." If that came from the opposite side of the House I should have thought it only consistent with some of the views held on that side; but my hon. Friend, and those who act with him, have always upheld the personal right of voting, and therefore from them that argument cannot be allowed for a moment. After all, Sir, property is a mere test of fitness; the voter should be independent, and if from any circumstances he is not so, he is unfit to enter into theelectoral struggle. I say women are unfit to engage in that struggle, and that, consequently, the argument based on the rights of property falls to the ground in this case. But, further, the moment the Bill giving married women a separate right to their property passes the House, married women will possess property over which their husbands will have no control. Therefore, if the Bill now under discussion should pass, there will hereafter be an unanswerable argument for conferring the franchise on married women. The consequence of this will be a dual vote and a dual government in every house. I must protest against such a system of domestic anarchy. Either the wife will vote with the husband, in which case he will virtually take two votes to the poll, or she will vote in a contrary way, and then there will be domestic discord. I think the House ought not to sanction either alternative. These are objections to the simple proposal of my hon. Friend as it appears on the face of this Bill; but the principle goes much deeper, and is one to which I think there is still stronger objection. If the Bill should become law, how will it be possible for any very long time to refuse women the right to enter the House? The real meaning of this Bill is that we are to unsex women altogether. They are the weaker portion of the human creation. Nature has ordained that they should be so. Are we to take them down from their pedestal, and make them enter into rough competition with men? Are they to come into this House and to sit on these Benches? If so, why should they not sit on the Treasury Bench? And even this is not all. It is avowed that we are to become a nation of Amazons; that we are to have women barristers, attorneys, doctors, and for aught I know, Bishops. I have here a clever little book, written with great eloquence, power, earnestness, and honesty of purpose. It is entitled Woman's Rights; and is written by a lady named Caroline H. Dall. It was published in America, but I believe the writer is either a Canadian or an Englishwoman. In it I find these passages— When society strikes out from the statute book all distinctions of sex, and admits, she is a person capable of thinking and acting for herself, she will lay the foundation of a new civilization. (P. 27.) The result of a great deal of reading of a great many law books is only this—that we are I more firmly convinced than ever that the most necessary reform is a simple erasure from the statute book of whatever recognizes distinctions of sex. (P. 64.) In the laws which regard single women, we object, then—1. To the withholding of the elective franchise. 2. To the law's preference of males and the issue of males in the division of estates. 3. We object to the estimate of women which the law sustains, which shuts her out from all public employment, for many branches of which she is better fitted than man. (P. 66.) After women have gone on some 20 years electing Members of Parliament nobody will be surprised to find some women sitting in that body. But, objects somebody—If that ever happens we shall have women on juries, women pleading at the Bar, women as attorneys, and so on.' She then adds—"And this is exactly what we want." I venture to think that the objects thus avowed are such as should not receive the sanction of this House, because if they were realized they would upset all the domestic relations of life. My hon. Friend and the other advocates of this Bill say their object is to raise women. After all the arguments I have heard on the subject and the best reflection I have been able to give it, my opinion is that the result of the Bill would be to degrade women. The House of Commons has recognized the fact that women are not as well fitted as men for the rough labours of life by prohibiting them from engaging in some of the coarser handiworks which men are obliged to perform. We do not allow women to go down into the "sunless mine," and yet the demand is now made that all women should be treated exactly like men. An old authority once said that an Act of Parliament could do everything but make men into women and women into men, but that is exactly what we are asked to do by this Bill. Were the hon. Members who support this measure to succeed in their attempt they would do an irremediable injury to our social and domestic relations. I have said that it is for men to do the rougher work of life, and I maintain that election work as well as Parliamentary work, is a very rough part of the work of life indeed, and that women are not fitted for either the one or the other. Women should be satisfied with the great power they now possess indirectly, which is far greater than anything they can hope to attain directly. By the exercise of their gentler influence they obtain more political power than they would ever obtain were they to hustle with men in the polling-booths. I well recollect a gentleman, formerly an hon. Member of this House, who went down to a pleasant borough in the West of England, where he was utterly unknown, and which he was anxious to represent in Parliament. Immediately on his arrival he announced that he was unmarried, that he possessed a good fortune, and that he proposed, if elected, to marry a lady of the borough. The consequence was he was returned triumphantly. Well, the hon. Member sat upon these Benches for some years; but unfortunately he did not keep his promise, and the result was that when he again went down to his borough on the occasion of the next General Election they would not even look at him; he had not the slightest chance, and he never sat again in this House. That is a proof of the great indirect influence which the ladies exert in political affairs, and that influence I, for one, am most anxious to preserve to them. Without further detaining the House, I must entreat hon. Members to pause before they pass this Bill, and not at the bidding of the hon. Member, to rush in where angels would fear to tread. I beg to move that this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee.

LORD ELCHO

, in rising to second the Motion, said, that he had not taken part in the Division the other day in consequence of his having been engaged in private matters. It had never entered into his head that the vote of one hon. Member could signify much on such a matter, neither had he conceived it possible that the Motion for the second reading would have been carried. He should be the last person in the world to seek to deprive a lady, whether married, widow, or single, of her just rights; but he did not think that a vote for Members of Parliament or a seat in that House was one of her just rights. The worst service, in his opinion, that they could do to the women of this country was to give them votes. The result of such a concession, which was demanded by a few ladies only—strong-minded ladies—would be to lower the position of women in this country to a great extent. He trusted the House would not pass the measure.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Bouverie,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

supported the Motion for going into Committee. He thought when he saw the Notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) upon the Paper, that at least they should have heard some new argument against the principle of the Bill on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, only brought forward the old stock arguments against it that had been fully dwelt upon the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole). He looked upon this measure as involving a very important question, and he entirety demurred to the right hon. Gentleman laying down the law as to what the women of England ought and what they ought not to do. In his opinion the women of England were quite as capable of judging of what they are fitted for as the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had argued as though this Bill, if passed, would compel all women to go to the poll, while, at the same time, he carefully avoided touching upon the justice of the question, because he was perfectly aware that not a shadow of argument could be brought forward against the Bill upon that point. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) in arguing the question, had said that as long as representation was based upon property that House had no right to grant the franchise to one class of persons and to refuse it to another. Now, would any hon. Member be kind enough, to answer that argument? In his opinion, women were quite as competent as men to pass judgment upon questions of the day, and, indeed, on social questions they were even better qualified to decide than men, because their hearts would stand them in better stead than the hard-headed reasoning of the latter. As to the horrors attending canvassing that had been so graphically painted by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not know what the ladies of Kilmarnock thought of the right hon. Gentleman; but he should not have supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would greatly terrify them were he to call upon them and ask them for their votes. It was not at all necessary in these days of newspaper reports that ladies, or in fact that any electors, should attend public meetings in order to know which way they were to vote, and he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that under the measure recently introduced by the noble Lord the Postmaster General, the most disagreeable part of election business would be avoided, and thus the most timid ladies—nay, even the most timid men—need not be deterred from recording their votes. It was evident that the women of this country were anxious to exercise greater political power than they had at the present moment. He had himself presented a Petition from several ladies, which stated that they desired to exercise that power for the good of the country. With regard to the medical profession, he thought that women were peculiarly well qualified for it, and that it would be advantageous to the State if there were many female medical practitioners. He directed the attention of the House to the observations of a Judge in one of the American States, who admitted that, though he had been opposed to females acting as jurors, yet in the case which he had been trying they had conducted themselves in an admirable manner. His right hon. Friend feared that the influence of women in elections would very materially strengthen the Conservative Benches of that House—["No!"]—but he thought such an apprehension a bad compliment to the ladies of England. ["No, no!"] They would soon find out that the politics of the party opposite did not conduce to the benefit of the country. He had heard no arguments on the other side which bore with any weight upon the question, and therefore he should support the Motion for going into Committee upon the Bill.

LORD GARLIES

said, he did not wish to trespass on the time of the House; but he believed hon. Members would indulge him for a few moments when they knew the position in which he was placed. A great portion of his constituents had gone mad in respect to the rights of women, and it was because he did not join in the furor that he wished to say a few words in respect to the question before the House. He represented a constituency of some 16 parishes, half of which had sent to him Petitions in favour of the present Bill; but it was not in his power to vote for it. One argument in favour of the measure was that it favoured the direct representation of property, which he, as a Conservative, naturally approved; and another consideration, which, from self-interest, might induce him to support the measure, was that the women were supposed to take an unusual amount of interest in any man ranking among the class of bachelors. It had, by recent legislation, been determined that the suffrage was a privilege; and, on that ground, he argued that it should not be given to the female sex, for it would be no privilege to them; and he believed that the majority of the women for whose supposed benefit the Bill was brought forward, would recoil from exercising what they believed to be a masculine privilege.

MR. EASTWICK

, considering the importance of the subject, and the lateness of the hour, moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Eastwick.)

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he believed the House was perfectly prepared to deal with the question, after the very able speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). "When; the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife-shire (Sir Robert Anstruther) said that the right hon. Gentleman had used no arguments, he must have meant that the arguments used did not reach his understanding, for a more lucid exposition of sound doctrine in opposition to the Bill could not have been made. It was argued that, because women were admitted to vote at municipal elections, they ought to be allowed to vote at Parliamentary elections. He had observed some disposition to confound the functions of the House, the most powerful element of the Imperial Parliament, with those of municipalities; but he trusted that the distinction between the functions of the House and those of mere municipalities would always be observed. ["You, Sir," said the hon. Member, addressing the Speaker, "are not a Mayor, sitting in that chair."] The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say, that he hoped that with respect to the qualifications and rights of women, the House would abide by the opinion of the greatest Sovereign, who ever in the person of a lady occupied the Throne of this country, that woman had a right to vote in matters connected with the Poor Law, for that was a system locally administered, so completely so, as originated in the days of Queen Elizabeth, as to render the parochial system an extension of the system of "the family." It was quite right that women should have a voice in the care of their poorer neighbours. So, likewise, by voting for the parochial churchwardens Queen Elizabeth very properly decided that women should have a voice in the internal arrangements of their parish churches; but it was not proper to presume that the education of women generally fitted them to have a voice in the Imperial questions which were to be decided in Parliament, or to throw women into the contest and rough passages of a Parliamentary election. The hon. Member for Manchester quoted the other day a passage from a speech of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, but laid no stress on the qualification accompanying that passage. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire said that if there were to be universal suffrage then women should vote. That point, however, had not yet been reached by the extension which Parliament had given to the suffrage, and he (Mr. Nowdegate) shared the prevailing opinion of the House in thinking the extension of the suffrage under the last Reform Bill quite wide enough. It was a great mistake to conceive, that the proposal before the House could have a Conservative tendency. Whenever a proposal like the one before the House had been advocated it was advocated by those who entertained the most ultra democratic views. That was the case in the United States. This proposal was an exaggeration, and a precedent which he believed would be very dangerous, and, therefore, being remarkable for his obstinacy and for his determination that his fellow-countrywomen should suffer no wrong, he could not lend himself to the support of doctrines which even in the United States were thought to be wild and exaggerated.

MR. GLADSTONE

I hope the hon. Member who has moved the Adjournment of the debate does not intend to press that Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GLADSTONE

That being so, I may say a few words on this subject, and I rise chiefly for the purpose of answering the appeal which was made to; the Government by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), who made a complaint that the Government had not taken any part in the discussion on the second reading of the Bill. I must say that the importance of a measure is not the only criterion of the question whether it is the duty of a Government as such upon all occasions to take part in the debate. Whenever the Government in its official capacity takes part in a debate, it is supposed and understood to invade the liberties of the independent Members of this House, and that is a consideration which often makes it desirable to leave even questions of very considerable importance outside the direct action of the Government, which direct action again has a tendency to draw them within the sphere of political party—a result not always to be desired. That was in a marked degree the view taken by the late Government at a time when we had among us Mr. Stuart Mill, the late Member for Westminster, whose absence from this House we all deplore. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon for my rashness in speaking on behalf of dissentient Members who have just signified their disagreement; but I did believe that that was the unanimous sentiment of the House, and I am very sorry if the time has come when either political or other prejudice can so blind us that we cannot recognize and appreciate the merits of one who was an ornament to this House. On the occasion to which I refer my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who was then the Leader of this House, quitted it and gave no vote upon the subject, he having been in the House when the subject was brought on, and the state of the opposite Bench at this moment, so far, at least, as the late Cabinet is concerned, appears to me an emphatic testimony that they agree with the doctrine I am pronouncing. A very important element in the consideration is, whether there is a practical necessity for the interference of the Government, or whether the Government are convinced that the matter is one on which the House is perfectly competent to act for itself. That undoubtedly is a matter that may very naturally influence their conduct; and I may say for most of my Colleagues as well as for myself, that we were both surprised and disappointed at the result of the debate on Wednesday last. We do not attempt to limit the freedom of anyone either in the official body or elsewhere; but, undoubtedly, there is a prevailing opinion, which I, for one, strongly entertain in common with all those who are sitting near me, that it would be a very great mistake to proceed with this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther) has made a most gallant and chivalric defence of the opinions which he entertains. But I cannot say that his argument weighed with me. He said that he regarded the turbulent proceedings at elections as likely to be abolished by the Bill which has been introduced by my noble Friend the Postmaster General; but in answer to that I may say that we had better wait until that Bill has become law, and those happy results have been achieved, before we venture to assume as a fact such a transformation in the elections of this country. My hon. Friend says that the property held by women requires to be represented, yet if that be so that argument does not apply to the principle on which this Bill is founded, because the Bill excludes all married women from the benefit—or the evil as it may be—to be derived from the franchise. But even if women are as competent as men to exercise the franchise—if it is a function equally suitable for them, why do you not recognize in married women that which you recognize in joint proprietorship, in joint ownership, in joint trade, in joint tenancy, and allow both a man and his wife to vote in respect of property which is sufficiently valuable to qualify them? Again, if it be true that the property of women ought to be represented, the ingenuity of the legislators of other countries has discovered a mode of attaining that end without its being open to the objection which attaches to this measure. In Italy widows and single women who are possessed of a property qualification are authorized to exercise the franchise, but only through the medium of a relative whom they appoint for the purpose. These, however, are particular points in the question; and the real matter at issue is much broader, for the question really is whether there is a necessity, nay, even, whether there is a desire or a demand for this measure. I must say I cannot recognize either the one or the other which would justify such an unsettling not to say uprooting, of the old landmarks of society, which are far deeper than any of those political distinctions which separate Gentlemen now on these Benches from those on the other. I am not aware of any such case, while I think that the practical matters that we have in hand are amply sufficient for our energies and our best attention. At nearly 2 o'clock in the morning I will not attempt to go into the general arguments, but I have listened to the debate with interest, and I am perfectly content to give my adhesion not only to the proposal, but also to the declaration and the reasoning of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and I shall therefore cheerfully follow him into the Lobby.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT

said: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) seems to think that no one in his district at all events cares about this question, and that the women certainly do not want to have the fran- chise. I do not know how it happens—I know nobody in Kilmarnock myself—but since I came into this House to-night I have received no less than four telegrams from Kilmarnock, telling me that Petitions are being forwarded, and that meetings are being held in favour of this Bill. Now, I think that I have a right to remind the House that we are accustomed to deal with Petitions as showing the general feeling of the country upon any question. Since we met this Session, 130,000 signatures have been attached to Petitions in favour of this Bill, and sent to this House. When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke upon this question on the second reading of the Bill, he made it a great point that if we give women the suffrage they will next want to come into this House. I doubt whether that is a serious argument. Last Session we gave women a right to vote in municipal elections; but we did not also give them a right to sit in our town councils. If this Bill were passed, no one believes for a single moment that women would expect to have seats in this House, and that being so, and it being granted that women are not likely to come into the House, that in itself is a very strong reason why they should have some influence in electing Members of Parliament outside the House. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock says that women would be unsexed by the passing of this Bill, but that cannot be seriously believed by any one. If this Bill were passed women could come up to the polling-booth, if they chose, once in three, four, or five years, and that is the only difference that would be made, and yet we are told that in that way we should be unsexing women. Much has been said as to the undesirableness of introducing women into the turbulent scenes of contested elections, but that objection should be entirely abandoned, because by the legislation of last year we have already brought women into political contests by giving them the municipal franchise, and an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, who is opposed to me on this question, admitted that municipal contests are quite as political as Parliamentary contests. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock gave us some information on the subject from a book written by a lady. But I think that if he had tried to discredit the mat- ter by reading extracts from a book, he should at least have given us an English and not an American book. We look at this subject from very different points of view on different sides of the Atlantic. There is no person in this House who has a higher sense of justice than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure there is no one who is prepared to make greater sacrifices for impartial legislation. I should like to call his attention to one argument. There are two kinds of votes in this country—the local vote and the Imperial vote. Women now have the local vote universally, but it is f comparatively small importance to them, for as no distinction is made between men and women in the action of the local bodies, men in protecting themselves protect women also. Parliament, however, legislates for men and women separately; it constantly imposes inequalities upon women in regard to property, social matters, and many most important questions. It legislates in one direction for men, and in another for women. Thus, while the local vote is of comparatively small importance to women, the Imperial vote is of great importance to them. My opponents say that one-seventh portion of the occupiers and owners of property in the country are to be for ever excluded from the political franchise. Why are they to be excluded? No reason has been given for their exclusion, beyond the fact that they are women. Representation always means protection; protection is more necessary for the weak than for the strong; and I appeal to a Parliament elected by household suffrage to make household suffrage a reality.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 220: Majority 126.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill put off for six months.