HC Deb 17 February 1887 vol 310 cc1833-54
MR. COX (Clare, E.)

, in rising to move the following Amendment to the Address:— Humbly to represent to Her Majesty that the want of employment and general distress prevalent among the working classes in England and in Ireland deserve the immediate attention of this House, said, the Irish Members did not particularly want to be in the English House of Commons—they wanted permission to go back to Ireland to make their own laws for their own people; but if hon. Members on the other side insisted upon keeping them there, they would insist upon taking up as much of the time and the attention of the House as the interests and needs of the suffering people at home and in England demanded. They had those things more at heart than Procedure Rules for gagging Members. [Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!] He was not inclined to be disrespectful to the House or to the Government; but if the House gave them the time they demanded in the interest of the working classes, they might tie down themselves to a slate and piece of pencil, and need not open their mouths from one end of the week to the other.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing my satisfaction that the claims of the working classes in this country have not been altogether overlooked. We have arrived at the 16th day of the debate on the Address—

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has already spoken to the Main Question.

MR. CONYBEARE

Have I not a right to speak on the Amendment?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member cannot second the Amendment.

An hon. MEMBER

I beg to second the Amendment.

MR. CONYBEARE

I rise to Order—

MR. P. McDONALD

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, At the end of paragraph 12, to insert the words—"Humbly to represent to Her Majesty that the want of employment and general distress prevalent among the working classes in England and Ireland desire the immediate attention of this House."—(Mr. Cox.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR—

[Cries of "Divide!" and "Oh, oh!"]: I must say, on behalf of the working men of this country—of whom probably I know more than many of the hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite who jeer at me—that the hon. Member for East Clare is entitled to expressions of gratitude for not having allowed the Address to pass without putting forward some representation in their behalf. This Address, like the Gracious Speech from the Throne, to which it is an answer, appears to survey mankind from China to Peru; but there is very little notice in it of this particular country, of the people who dwell in it, or of their needs or distresses. We are told a great deal about Burmah, Bulgaria, and Egypt; we have references to meddling and I muddling in Europe, Asia, and Africa; but as to what the Government intend to do in reference to the distress that prevails in this country, we are told absolutely nothing. Well, Sir, there is no reference in this Address to that which ought to have brought to the minds of many Members of this House—the condition in which many of the people of this country now are. One of the references in the Address is to that paragraph in the Gracious Speech from the Throne which refers to the Royal Commission which Her Majesty issued in 1885 to inquire into the lamentable depression under which trade and agriculture have been suffering of late years, which has presented a valuable Report, which Report, together with the important evidence collected, is to be presented to this House. With reference to that paragraph, I would like to remind the House that the Commission in question reported some time before the House met; and that the Report was not only printed, but actually published as a Parliamentary Paper before this House met at all—before this Speech was as much as drafted. The contents of that Report were perfectly well known to all the Members of Her Majesty's Government when they came down to present to us their programme of Business for the Session; yet, beyond this passing allusion to the fact that the Commission had inquired into the subject committed to it for inquiry, we have nothing to show that the distress existing in the country has engaged the attention of Her Majesty's present advisers, or caused them any anxiety. Well, Sir, there may be those who are inclined to disbelieve in the distress and suffering which I say prevails. We are told that there has been much exaggeration, that trade is improving, that employment is more easily obtained than it used to be. We are told by those in Office, who refer to official statistics, that so far from depression extending and distress becoming worse, pauperism has very much diminished, and that the Official Returns show there is nothing like the distress that there used to be. Now, Sir, with reference to that, I beg to submit to the House that the Official Returns so quoted are of the most misleading description. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) has more than once referred to the diminishing number shown as in receipt of relief; but the way in which the Government, on occasions of this kind, manipulate or represent these figures, requires very careful scrutiny on the part of those anxious to arrive at the real state of things. What do these figures show? They show that whereas in 1858, with a population of something over 19,000,000, something like 750,000 in England were in receipt of out-door relief; in the year 1886, with a population of 27,000,000, there were in receipt of out-door relief, not 790,000, as there used to be, but 560,000 only. And these figures are paraded, as I have said, in order to induce the impression that there is not the distress existing in the country that once there was. Sir, these figures only show half the story—the other half is to be seen in the Returns with regard to in-door relief. And what do those Returns show? They show that whereas, in 1858, there were only 126,000 persons in receipt of in-door relief, in the year 1886 that number had increased by 50 per cent, having reached a total of 177,000. Why is that? It is simply because that Poor Law is no longer administered as it used to be 25 years ago. During late years, under pressure from the head-quarters of the Local Government Board, the amount of out-door relief has been steadily decreased, these poor people being obliged to take refuge within the workhouse. Tens of thousands of homes have been broken up within the last 25 years by reason of the inexorable forcing on of this system. In 1858, outdoor relief cases, as compared with indoor relief cases, were in the proportion of more than six to one. If you multiply the present number of in-door paupers by six, you will find that the number of out-door paupers ought to be, according to the old system, not 560,000, but something considerably over 1,000,000—in other words, your old pauper roll, if you administered the Poor Law as it used to be administered some years ago, would be 1,200,000 at least—that is to say, a higher number of official paupers than has ever yet been recorded. But there is another point. In the year 1858, you had in the workhouses only 7,671 able-bodied men; whereas, in the last month of the year 1886, you had no less than 12,000 male adult able-bodied paupers. Now, it is not to be supposed that these 12,000 able-bodied adult males go into the workhouses for the love of the thing. They go into the workhouses because they have absolutely no other resource left open to them. And why is there no other resource left open to them? It is because they are not allowed to have access to the means of living that ought to be accorded to the poor in this country. Only yesterday the Duke of Rutland, I think, whose authority will scarcely be contested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, presided at a meeting at which a resolution was carried nem. con., urging on the attention of the Government to the very serious condition of the agricultural population and agricultural interests in England. Well, what did this Trade Depression Commission ascertain, amongst other things? They ascertained this—that your agricultural population in England had, within a comparatively short time, diminished by no less than eight per cent. Your agricultural population is falling off. What else did the Commission find? It found that whereas the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture was eight per cent less than it used to be, there is no corresponding increase in the number of those who are employed in manufacture—in other words, the actual proportion of population out of employment is greater now than ever it was before. Sir, in 1886—and I quote these few figures to show that not only is the present condition of things bad, but that it is likely to become very considerably worse—agriculture produced a wheat crop of 58,000,000 bushels or about 10,000,000 bushels, equal to 21½ per cent, less than in 1885. Not only was the total out-put less, but the acreage in wheat crop in 1886 shows a falling off as compared with 1885 of 8 per cent, and not only was the acreage 8 per cent less, but the yield per acre was also less by 7 per cent. Similarly, with regard to barley. The aggregate produce of barley has gone down from 79,000,000 bushels to 72,000,000 bushels in 1886 as compared with 1885, or a reduction of 10 per cent. In root crops, such as potatoes, turnips, and swedes, the out-put in 1886 was also less than the average. Under the circumstances, it is perfectly clear that the agricultural distress will, during the next twelve months, be greater and more serious than it has ever been up to the present time. The effect of the distress upon your agricultural population will be still more severe than it has been in the past, and with what result? These poor people will becoming into your centres of population, into your manufacturing centres, heaping distress on distress and rendering the obtaining of employment more difficult even for those who are in the towns than it is at present. You complain in this House that the Irish Members with persistent and unreasonable reiteration urge on Parliament the claims of Ireland, and you tell us, with all fairness, the claims of England have to be considered as well; and in the Speech from the Throne, to which this Address is an echo, and in which we have foreshadowed the programme of the Government for the present Session, we do find that Ireland, however miserable and hideous in her condition, is relegated to the back-ground, and that England obtains the foremost place. I ask the Government to let us know what it is they propose to do for those classes of their fellow-countrymen who stand most in need of their care? What measures of relief do they propose for these poor people in their distress? What do they propose to do for the thousands of starving men and women in England—what beginning, even of useful action are they proposing to make in order to relieve the distress of which they must be aware, but which, apparently, has, so far, received so little attention at their hands? We are told that there are thousands of people in Ireland who, even if they were allowed their holdings rent free, could never manage to get a living out of them. Well, I ask, are there not tens of thousands in this country too, who cannot earn bread for their children, though they are perfectly ready to work? Are there not tens of thousands of honest, sober, willing, industrious men who cannot get work—are there not tens of thousands of poor men whose miserable rooms echo every night with the cries of famished children—are there not tens of thousands of these poor men who must almost be driven to desperation by the sobs and tears of their starving wives and little ones? Yes; then what does the Government propose to do for these people? There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne, or in this Address, to show that the Government are heedful of this misery at their door; and it does appear to me to be a strange thing that it should be left to the hon. Member for East Clare at this hour of night—[laughter]—I am speaking what is the fact—that it should have been left to the hon. Member for East Clare to bring forward this subject. This matter has not been brought before the House in the Address. It does appear tome that whilst we are discussing matters relating to other parts of the world, the affairs of the working people of this country are passed over in silence by the great Conservative Party and by the Conservative Government. The noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), who has great authority with Her Majesty's present Advisers—because, though he is not in Office, he is in power—told us that Her Majesty's Government were not averse to some measures for employing the people of Ireland in their own districts, in the development of the resources of their country. Well, but are there no people in England who might be employed in developing the resources of their country too? What is the Government going to do for the distressed classes in England, that they also may be employed in the different districts in developing the resources of the country? Are there no resources of England undeveloped? Are there not in England many thousands of acres of good lands now lying idle? Are there not, even in Essex, many thousands of acres of good land which are practically now waste land? Some time ago, I was offered by a solicitor 1,000 acres of land in Essex if I would undertake to pay the rates and taxes of the property. I said I would accept the offer on one condition, and that was that I should be allowed to keep the land on those terms as long as I liked. "Oh, no!" was the answer, "Not as long as you like, but as long as the owner likes." There is the rub, Mr. Speaker. This owner was not able to utilize the land over which he had dominion. It was lying on his hands, useless to him and to the community, and there are tens of thousands of men within walking distance of that land who are willing to work, but who have no access to this good land which is thus lying idle. The bane that has worked so much mischief in Ireland is producing its natural effect in England too; and that curse that has depopulated and impoverished Ireland is ruining your agricultural districts and thinning your agricultural population, and the Government, no doubt, are perfectly well aware of it. It is because the owners of lands, like this land I have referred to in Essex, who are unable to pay their proportion of Imperial and local expenditure in respect of that land, are yet allowed to remain in unchallenged and exclusive occupation of it—that there is so much agricultural distress existing in this country. The same curse is affecting your mining industry, and the proof of it is to be found in the volume which is referred to in this Address. And not alone is this curse observable in connection with your agriculture and your mining industries, but in your manufacturing centres you find precisely the same mischief. There is a very wealthy nobleman who owns, practically, half of Sheffield. He is a most edifying gentleman. He gives thousands of pounds away for the building of churches; he makes pilgrimages in pleasure yachts and saloon carriages, but all the while he is grinding the faces of the poor. He draws thousands upon thousands a-year in the shape of ground rents from an industrial centre where there are tens of thousands of men vainly seeking for employment. I wonder what this nobleman thinks of the doctrine of ransom. I must say that when I heard the evidence adduced before the Commission, I thought the doctrine of ransom a very reasonable one. Here you have tens of thousands of men in your manufacturing centres and in this great Metropolis—particularly in the East End, around the docks—in enforced idleness, though willing and anxious to work; here you have tens of thousands of acres of good land lying idle, and here also in London you have millions of capital vainly seeking for employment—I say these three facts are sufficient to justify immediate action on the part of the Government, or, at any rate, to justify them in taking this problem into their most serious consideration. What do the people of this country care about the nebulous claims of Prince Alexander of Bulgaria? Why, the people do not care a button about them. We are told in the Address that order is slowly being restored in Egypt; but it would be much more to the interest of the people of this country if the Government would devote less attention to the question of order in Egypt, and more to the advancement of order and progress at home. That would be better than all the consideration the Government are giving to Prince Henry of Battenburg, or Prince Alexander of Bulgaria. At home, they are only thinking of completing and perfecting their police arrangements. They may complete and perfect their police arrangements as much as they like; but they will never solve the social problem which the condition of the poor presents before their eyes in that way. Is it nothing that you have, and have had now and again for some months, immense bodies of hungry men coming from the East of London to the West, and parading before their fellow-countrymen, who are better off, the spectacle of their misery and wretchedness? You have seen these men, a hungry horde, coming from the East of Aldgate pump to Trafalgar Square, and walking down Pall Mall, where the windows are tapestried with tooth-picking idlers. [Laughter.] You have seen these men visit this part once and go away. You have seen them come a second time and go away; but it is worthy of consideration whether some day they may not come and not be so ready to go away. When you have reached that point—that East of Aldgate pump—you have hundreds of thousands of human beings whose lot in life is such that scarcely any imaginable change can make them much worse off than they are—you have arrived at a point in your social history that is a very critical point. As a matter of fact, in the East of London, and round about the different suburbs, you have an amount of misery that is simply appalling. The hon. Gentleman laughed at me when I spoke of it in my opening words. The misery I have referred to I have seen myself; I have been in the dwellings of these people, and therefore I am speaking of what I know and understand. There are tens of thousands of homes in London in which there is hardly a stick of furniture, and in which there is not a vestige of food to be discovered, where the children are attired in rags, which, to say nothing about keeping them warm, are hardly sufficient to cover them. No help comes to these people, and they seem to be almost without hope. I heard, not long ago, of a case in which a poor man with his wife and family were reduced to destitution. The man goes out, as he has often done before, to seek work. When he comes home, what does he find? Why, that his poor wife, driven to desperation by hunger, has cut the throats of his two children, and is herself a lunatic. That is an incident very horrible, no doubt. It is like the grating of a harp-string in the night—it startles one with its suddenness; but it is only indicative of a great deal more misery that exists undiscovered and unknown. One can imagine this—that while two children have been deprived of life in their infantile misery, thousands and thousands are living and crying out daily for food which their parents are unable to give them. And what relief is offered by Her Majesty's Government—what do they do? Why, this—they say that the statistics of pauperism show a diminution of this kind of misery and suffering. I say that the statistics do nothing of the kind. I say they show that the amount of official relief is very much greater and of a much more inhuman kind than it ever was before. That is the real secret of these Poor Law Returns. Well, I would ask the Government to say, whether they are really alive to the social dangers and social difficulties which beset the community in England, and not only in England, but in Scotland also? Are the riots and disturbances in Lanarkshire, about which we have heard so much, to go for nothing? Are these symptoms of social anarchy nothing—are the disturbances occurring in different parts of the country nothing to the English Administration? What do the Government propose to do? The working men of London are not represented in this House directly, and that is a great pity. I should have thought that the Government, seeing that these people are not represented, would have become alive to the fact that men who are without representation are forced to adopt other means to secure attention to their grievances; and unless the Government shows itself alive to the distress which exists, unless it manifests some good-will and some desire to bring forward a measure which will be a first step in the direction of finding employment for the distressed classes of this Metropolis, I do not see what is left for these classes other than to seek any and every opportunity of obtruding again and again their distresses upon that portion of the community which seeks only its own ease. We have already seen that these distressed classes have taken to attending churches. Silks rustle against what has never before been in contact with silk, or, at any rate, has not been in contact with it for a long time. That sort of movement is likely to spread. What is done on Sunday is likely to be repeated on week-days. What would hon. Gentlemen, who laughed at what I said with reference to Pall Mall just now, say if they saw these men coming, and not by violence, but by sheer force of numbers, entering the doors of the clubs in Pall Mall, and actually eating up all the provisions they could find there? How many people would blame them? If there was a prospect of the poor of the Metropolis following that course, I dare say the members of these clubs would only be too anxious to support measures brought forward on the Government, or any other, side of the House likely to relieve them from such unpleasant experience. I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are rights of human nature, as well as rights of property. The rights of property are held sacred in this country, and the rights of humanity are not always readily conceded; but I trust that the Amendment brought forward by the hon. Member for East Clare will, at any rate, have the effect of eliciting from the Government some declaration, to show that they are not altogether oblivious to the claims of a most deserving class of their own countrymen.

MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.)

It would ill-become working-men Representatives in this House if they failed to support the Motion that is now before the Chair. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members on the other side may shout "Divide." They are what are called the ornamental members of society. I do not pretend to be ornamental myself—my endeavour is to make myself useful, and I desire to point out that, in my opinion, one thing the Government of this country altogether fails to grasp is that, by reason of labour-saving instruments and scientific appliances being used in the factories and workshops, tens of thousands of working men are put out into the streets. Very many of the trades, I may say nearly all the trades, in England at the present moment use an immense amount of machinery, to the saving of manual labour. These labour-saving appliances which are now in the market send men into the streets. It may be said that labour-saving machinery is a blessing, and no doubt it is. But though a blessing to the country generally, it has been a curse to a great many people, as it has shut out two-thirds of the work from the working people of this country. Where will these working people who have lost their work go to, or what will they do? If they turn to any other trade or profession they are again met by machinery. So vast has been the introduction of machinery in every department of trade, that it has come to be a difficult question with a man as to what trade he should put his son to. Labour-saving machinery is a blessing to this or any other country if the lands of the country are open to the people; but the lands of this country are not open to the people, hence it is that you have this disgraceful state of affairs—that one in every 13 of your population is a pauper, that one out of every 13 of the people of Great Britain is dependent for his existence either on the poor rate, or the assistance he receives from his neighbour. I hold that to be a most disgraceful state of affairs. These facts go a long way towards making up this army of Socialists you have in the Metropolis. It may be said that these Socialists are very bad men; but, in my opinion, those engaged closing up the lands of the country against the labour of the country are far worse. Communism may be bad; but the absorption of the lands of this country, and the placing of them in a few private hands, to the shutting out of labour, is still worse. The royalties paid on mines, and the comparative freedom from taxation of lands not in use, puts a premium upon laziness itself. The classes who are not useful, but highly ornamental, escape the taxation of the country, and those that are useful have to pay all the taxation. We hear a great deal in this House about the rights of property. In my opinion, property has no rights. Land has no rights. There are no rights attached to it except those that are reflected from the rights of man himself—reflected from the whole community. I hold, I say, as a first principle, that land in the abstract has no rights. They are only reflected from the people at large, and the owners of lands hold them at the will of the people at large; and it is to the negation of this first principle that is owing the fact that one out of every 13 of your population is a pauper. When I state in this House that property has no rights, it is a startling doctrine to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, as a matter of fact, all the rights they possess are merely reflected from individuals or from the community. It will be a long time before you will be able to override a protest against the rights of man. We protest against the rights of property ever being allowed to override the rights of man. That they have overridden the rights of man in England to a certain extent is manifested by the fact that pauperism exists in your midst to an extent that you find in no other country in the world. The landlords of this country have stolen the lands from the people. These landlords who are constantly talking about defending the Empire are not the men who rush to the front when the Empire needs defence. We know that during the Crimean War 2,000 aristocratic cowards in this country laid down their swords. ["Oh, oh!"] I am only quoting the articles in The Times newspaper. The country was in peril in those days, and The Times accused these people of laying down their swords—these ornamental gentlemen. The useful men of the community did not lay down their swords. The working men of the country fought the battles of their country, and whether they were right or wrong in so doing, they have received but a poor return for their gallantry. You do not see one word in this Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne about the working classes, or about the distress that exists in the country. There is pauperism in this country and distress deeper than you will find in any other country of the world. I have seen pauperism in London of a worse type than I have ever seen it in Ireland. The fact that I am an Irish Representative does not prevent me from sympathizing with English and Scotch working men. If Englishmen are in distress in their own country, they have as good a right to our advocacy as our own countrymen have. We are bound to, in the spirit of charity; and I do not envy the spirit of those who, when questions affecting the welfare of the working people—of the people on whom the safety of the Empire depends, for it rests with the useful, and not with the ornamental members of society—are brought before them, laugh and jeer, and cry "Divide!" Even Stephenson was mocked and laughed at in this House when he put forward his project for railways. Anyone who makes an attack on what are called "vested interests," or who defends the rights of working people, is said to be a Communist or a Socialist, or some other "ist." I have much pleasure indeed in supporting the Amendment now before the House.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall)

rose, when—

MR. SPEAKER

It is my opinion that the subject has been adequately discussed—that it is the evident sense of the House that the subject has been fully and fairly debated. It is my duty accordingly to inform the House of that opinion.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Sir, in accordance with the Standing Order, I now beg to move that the Question be now put.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Question be now put."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

The House divided:—Ayes 291; Noes 81: Majority 210.

AYES
Addison, J. E. W. Beadel, W. J.
Ainslie, W. G. Beaumont, H. F.
Allsopp, hon. G. Beckett, E. W.
Ambrose, W. Bective, Earl of
Amherst, W. A. T. Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.
Anstruther, Colonel R. Beresford, Lord C. W.
H. L. de la Poer
Anstruther, H. T. Bethell, Commnder G. R.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Asquith, H. H. Bickford-Smith, W.
Baggallay, E. Biddulph, M.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Birkbeck, Sir E.
Baird, J. G. A. Blake, T.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J. Blundell, Col. H.B. H.
Balfour, G. W. Bond, G. H.
Banes, Major G. E. Bonsor, H. C. O.
Baring, Viscount Borthwick, Sir A.
Barry, A. H. Smith- Bridgeman, Col. hon.
Bartley, G. C. T. F. C.
Bates, Sir E. Bristowe, T. L.
Baumann, A. A. Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.
Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-
Brown, A. H.
Bruce, Lord H. Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.
Bruce, hon. R. P.
Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B. Gedge, S.
Gent-Davis, R.
Burghley, Lord Giles, A.
Caine, W. S. Gilliat, J. S.
Caldwell, J. Godson, A. F.
Campbell, Sir A. Goldsmid, Sir J.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J. Gorst, Sir J. E.
Chamberlain, R. Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.
Chaplin, right hon. H. Gray, C. W.
Charrington, S. Greene, E.
Clarke, Sir E. G. Grimston, Viscount
Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N. Gully, W. C.
Gunter, Colonel R.
Coddington, W. Hall, C.
Coghill, D. H. Halsey, T. F.
Cohen, L. L. Hambro, Col. C. J. T.
Coleridge, hon. B. Lord G. F. Hamilton, right hon.
Collings, J. Lord G. F.
Colomb, Capt. J. C. R. Hamilton, Lord C. J.
Cooke, C. W. R. Hamilton, Col. C. E.
Corbett, A. C. Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.
Corry, Sir J. P.
Cotton, Capt. E. T. D. Hanbury, R. W.
Courtney, L. H. Hanbury-Tracy, hon.
Cranborne, Viscount F. S. A.
Cross, H. S. Hankey, F. A.
Crossman, Gen. Sir W. Hardcastle, E.
Currie, Sir D. Hardcastle, F.
Curzon, Viscount Hartington, Marq. of
Dalrymple, C. Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.
Davenport, H. T.
Davenport, W. B. Heath, A. R.
Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P. Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-
De Cobain, E. S. W. Heaton, J. H.
De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P. Heneage, right hon. E.
Herbert, hon. S.
De Worms, Baron H. Hermon-Hodge, R. T.
Dimsdale, Baron R. Hervey, Lord F.
Dixon-Hartland, F. D. Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.
Dorington, Sir J. E.
Duncan, Colonel F. Hill, Colonel E. S.
Duncombe, A. Hill, A. S.
Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H. Hoare, S.
Hobhouse, H.
Ebrington, Viscount Holland, right hon.
Edwards-Moss, T. C. Sir H. T.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D. Holmes, right hon. H.
Elliot, hon. H. F. H. Houldsworth, W. H.
Elton, C. I. Howard, J.
Evelyn, W. J. Howorth, H. H.
Ewart, W. Hozier, J. H. C.
Ewing, Sir A. O. Hughes, Colonel E.
Eyre, Colonel H. Hughes-Hallett, Col.
Fellowes, W. H. F. C.
Field, Admiral E. Hulse, E. H.
Feilden, T. Hunt, F. S.
Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E.G. Hunter, Sir W. G.
Isaacs, L. H.
Fisher, W. H. Isaacson, F. W.
Fitzgerald, R. U. P. Jackson, W. L.
Fletcher, Sir H. James, rt. hon. Sir H.
Folkestone, right hon. Viscount Jarvis, A. W.
Jennings, L. J.
Forwood, A. B. Johnston, W.
Fowler, Sir R. N. Kelly, J. R.
Fraser, General C. C. Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Fuller, G. P. Kenrick, W.
Fulton, J. F. Kerans, F. H.
Gardner, R. Richardson- Kimber, H.
King, H. S.
Knatchbull-Hugessen, hon. H. T. Plunkett, hon. J. W.
Price, Captain G. E.
Knowles, L. Puleston, J. H.
Kynoch, G. Quilter, W. C.
Lafone, A. Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Lambert, I. C. Rankin, J.
Laurie, Colonel R. P. Rasch, Major F.
Lawrence, Sir T. Reed, H. B.
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H. Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.
Lees, E. Robertson, W. T.
Legh, T. W. Robinson, B.
Leighton, S. Rollit, Sir A. K.
Lowisham, right hon. Viscount Ross, A. H.
Rothschild, Baron F. J. de
Llewellyn, E. H.
Long, W. H. Round, J.
Low, M. Russell, Sir G.
Lowther, hon. W. Russell, T. W.
Lowther, J. W. St. Aubyn, Sir J.
Lubbock, Sir J. Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.
Macartney, W. G. E.
Macdonald, right hon. Sellar, A. C.
J. H. A. Selwyn, Capt. C. W.
Maclean, F. W. Seton-Karr, H.
Maclean, J. M. Sidebottom, T. H.
Maclure, J. W. Sidebottom, W.
M'Calmont, Captain J. Sinclair, W. P.
M'Lagan, P. Smith, rt. hn. W. H.
Malcolm, Col. J. W. Smith, A.
Manners, rt. hn. Lord J. J. R. Spencer, hon. C. R.
Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
March, Earl of Stanley, E. J.
Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E. Stewart, M.
Sutherland, T.
Marriott, rt. hn. W. T. Talbot, J. G.
Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story- Tapling, T. K.
Temple, Sir R.
Matthews, rt. hn. H. Thorburn, W.
Maxwell, Sir H. E. Tollemache, H. J.
Mayne, Admiral R. C. Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Mildmay, F. B. Tottenham, A. L.
Mills, hon. C. W. Townsend, F.
Milvain, T. Trotter, H. J.
More, R. J. Vernon, hon. G. R.
Morgan, O. V. Vincent, C. E. H.
Morley, A. Walsh, hon. A. H. J.
Mount, W. G. Waring, Colonel T.
Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R. Watson, J.
Webster, Sir R. E.
Mowbray, R. G. C. Webster, R. G.
Mulholland, H. L. West, Colonel W. C.
Muntz, P. A. White, J. B.
Murdoch, C. T. Whitley, E.
Newark, Viscount Whitmore, C. A.
Noble, W. Winn, hon. R.
Norris, E. S. Winterbotham, A. B.
Northcote, hon. H. S. Wodehouse, E. R.
Norton, R. Wolmer, Viscount
O'Neill, hon. R. T. Wood, N.
Paget, Sir R. H. Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Parker, C. S. Wright, H. S.
Parker, hon. F. Wroughton, P.
Paulton, J. M. Yerburgh, R. A.
Pearce, W. Young, C. E. B.
Pelly, Sir L.
Penton, Captain F. T. TELLERS.
Plunket, right hon. D. R. Douglas, A. Akers-Walrond, Col. W. H.
NOES.
Abraham, W. (Glam.) Atherley-Jones, L.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.) Biggar, J. G.
Blake, J. A.
Blane, A. M'Ewan, W.
Brown, A. L. Marum, E. M.
Byrne, G. M. Molloy, B. C.
Campbell, H. Murphy, W. M.
Carew, J. L. Nolan, Colonel J. P.
Clancy, J. J. Nolan, J.
Clark, Dr. G. B. O'Brien, J. F. X.
Cobb, H. P. O'Brien, P.
Conway, M. O'Brien, P. J.
Cox, J. R. O'Connor, A.
Crawford, W. O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)
Cremer, W. R. O'Hanlon, T.
Dillon, J. O'Hea, P.
Dillwyn, L. L. O'Kelly, J.
Ellis, J. E. Picton, J. A.
Ellis, T. E. Pinkerton, J.
Evershed, S. Power, P. J.
Fenwick, C. Pyne, J. D.
Flynn, J. C. Quinn, T.
Foley, P. J. Rowlands, J.
Fox, Dr. J. F. Rowlands, W. B.
Gill, T. P. Rowntree, J.
Graham, R. C. Sexton, T.
Harrington, E. Shaw, T.
Hayden, L. P. Sheehan, J. D.
Hayne, C. Seale- Sheil, E.
Healy, M. Stack, J.
Holden, I. Stanhope, hon. P. J.
Hooper, J. Stuart, J.
James, hon. W. H. Sullivan, D.
Jordan, J. Tuite, J.
Kenny, M. J. Wallace, R.
Labouchere, H. Watt, H.
Lalor, R. Wayman, T.
Lane, W. J. Will, J. S.
Lawson, Sir W. Williams, A. J.
Leahy, J.
M'Cartan, M. TELLERS.
M 'Donald, P. Conybeare, C. A. V.
M'Donald, W. A. Gilhooly, J

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 283: Majority 199.

AYES.
Abraham, W. (Glam.) Fenwick, C.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.) Flynn, J. C.
Foley, P. J.
Atherley-Jones, L. Fox, Dr. J. F.
Biggar, J. G. Gilhooly, J.
Blake, J. A. Gill, T. P.
Blake, T. Graham, R. C.
Blane, A. Harrington, E.
Brown, A. L. Hayden, L. P.
Byrne, G. M. Hayne, C. Seale-
Cameron, C. Healy, M.
Campbell, H. Holden, I.
Carew, J. L. Hooper, J.
Clancy, J. J. Jordan, J.
Clark, Dr. G. B. Kenny, M. J.
Cobb, H. P. Labouchere, H.
Coleridge, hon. B. Lalor, R.
Conway, M. Lane, W. J.
Crawford, W. Lawson, Sir W.
Cremer, W. R. Leahy, J.
Dillon, J. M'Cartan, M.
Dillwyn, L. L. M'Donald, P.
Ellis, T. E. M'Donald, W. A.
Esslemont, P. M'Ewan, W.
Evershed, S. M'Laren, W. S. B.
Marum, E. M. Quinn, T.
Molloy, B. C. Rowlands, J.
Morgan, O. V. Rowlands, W. B.
Murphy, W. M. Rowntree, J.
Nolan, Colonel J. P. Sexton, D.
Nolan, J. Shaw, T.
O'Brien, J. F. X. Sheehan, J. D.
O'Brien, P. Sheil, E.
O'Brien, P. J. Stack, J.
O'Connor, A. Stanhope, hon. P. J.
O'Connor, J. (Tippry.) Sullivan, D.
O'Hanlon, T. Tuite, J.
O'Hea, P. Wallace, R.
O'Kelly, J. Watt, H.
Paulton, J. M. Wayman, T.
Picton, J. A. Will, J. S.
Pinkerton, J. TELLERS.
Power, P. J. Conybeare, C. A. V.
Pyne, J. D. Cox, J. R.
NOES.
Addison, J. E. W. Campbell, Sir A.
Ainslie, W. G. Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.
Allsopp, hon. G. Chamberlain, R.
Ambrose, W. Chaplin, right hon. H.
Amherst, W. A. T. Charrington, S.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L. Clarke, Sir E. G.
Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.
Anstruther, H. T.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Coddington, W.
Baggallay, E. Coghill, D. H.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Cohen, L. L.
Baird, J. G. A. Collings, J.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J. Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.
Balfour, G. W. Cooke, C. W. R.
Banes, Major G. E. Corbett, A. C.
Baring, Viscount Corry, Sir J. P.
Barry, A. H. Smith- Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.
Bartley, G. C. T. Courtney, L. H.
Bates, Sir E. Cranborne, Viscount
Baumann, A. A. Cross, H. S.
Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks- Crossman, Gen. Sir W.
Currie, Sir D.
Beadel, W. J. Curzon, Viscount
Beaumont, H. F. Dalrymple, C.
Beckett, E. W. Davenport, H. T.
Bective, Earl of Davenport, W. B.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.
Bentinck, W. G. C.
Beresford, Lord C. W. De Cobain, E. S. W.
De la Poer De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.
Bethell, Commander G. R.
De Worms, Baron H.
Bickford-Smith, W. Dimsdale, Baron R.
Biddulph, M. Dorington, Sir J. E.
Birkbeck, Sir E. Duncan, Colonel F.
Blundell, Col. H. B. H. Duncombe, A.
Bond, G. H. Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.
Bonsor, H. C. O.
Borthwick, Sir A. Ebrington, Viscount
Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C. Edwards-Moss, T. C.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D.
Bristowe, T. L. Elliot, hon. H. F. H.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. Elton, C. I.
Evelyn, W. J.
Brown, A. H. Ewart, W.
Bruce, Lord H. Ewing, Sir A. O.
Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B. Eyre, Colonel H.
Fellowes, W. H.
Burghley, Lord Field, Admiral E.
Caine, W. S. Fielden, T.
Caldwell, T. Finch, G. H.
Finch-Hatton, hon. M. E. G. Isaacs, L. H.
Isaacson, F. W.
Fisher, W. H. Jackson, W. L.
Fitzgerald, R. U. P. James, rt. hon. Sir H.
Fletcher, Sir H. James, hon. W. H.
Folkestone, right hon. Viscount Jarvis, A. W.
Jennings, L. J.
Forwood, A. B. Johnston, W.
Fowler, Sir R. N. Kelly, J. R.
Fraser, General C. C. Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Fuller, G. P. Kenrick, W.
Fulton, J. F. Korans, F. H.
Gardner R. Richardson- Kimber, H.
King, H. S.
Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E. Knatchbull-Hugessen, hon. H. T.
Gedge, S. Knowles, L.
Gent-Davis, R. Kynoch, G.
Giles, A. Lafone, A.
Gilliat, J. S. Lambert, I. C.
Godson, A. F. Laurie, Colonel R. P.
Goldsmid, Sir J. Lawrence, Sir T.
Goldsworthy, Major- Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.
General W. T.
Gorst, Sir J. E. Lees, E.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. Legh, T. W.
Gray, C. W. Leighton, S.
Greene, E. Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
Grimston, Viscount
Gunter, Colonel R. Llewellyn, E. H.
Hall, C. Long, W. H.
Halsey, T. F. Low, M.
Hambro, Col. C. J. T. Lowther, hon. W.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F. Lowther, J. W.
Lubbock, Sir J.
Hamilton, Lord C. J. Macartney, W. G. E.
Hamilton, Col. C. E. Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.
Hamley, General Sir E. B.
Maclean, F. W.
Hanbury, R. W. Maclean, J. W.
Hankey, F. A. Maclure, J. W.
Hardcastle, E. M'Calmont, Captain J.
Hardcastle, F. Malcolm, Col. J. W.
Hartington, Marq. of Manners, right hon. Lord J. J. R.
Havelock-Allan, Sir H. M.
March, Earl of
Heath, A. R. Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.
Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-
Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.
Heaton, J. H. Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-
Heneage, right hon. E.
Herbert, hon. S. Matthews, rt. hon. H.
Hermon-Hodge, R. T. Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Hervey, Lord F. Mayne, Adml. R. C.
Hill, right hon. Lord A. W. Menzies, R. S.
Mildmay, F. B.
Hill, Colonel E. S. Mills, hon. C. W.
Hill, A. S. Milvain, T.
Hoare, S. More, R. J.
Hobhouse, H. Mount, W. G.
Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T. Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.
Holmes, rt. hon. H. Mowbray, R. G. C.
Houldsworth, W. H. Mulholland, H. L.
Howard, J. Muntz, P. A.
Howorth, H. H. Murdoch, C. T.
Hozier, J. H. C. Newark, Viscount
Hughes, Colonel E. Noble, W.
Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C. Norris, E. S.
Northcote, hon. H. S.
Hulse, E. H. Norton, R.
Hunt, F. S. O'Neill, hon. R. T.
Hunter, Sir W. G. Paget Sir R. H.
Parker, C. S. Stanley, E. J.
Parker, hon. F. Stewart, M. J.
Pearce, W. Sutherland, T.
Peily, Sir L. Talbot, J. G.
Penton, Captain F. T. Tapling, T. K.
Plunket, right hon. D. R. Temple, Sir R.
Thorburn, W.
Plunkett, hon. J. W. Tollemache, H. J.
Price, Captain G. E. Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Puleston, J. H. Tottenham, A. L.
Quilter, W. C. Townsend, F.
Raikes, rt. hon. H. C. Trotter, H. J.
Rankin, J. Vernon, hon. G. R.
Rasch, Major F. C. Vincent, C. E. H.
Reed, H. B. Walsh, hon. A. H. J.
Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T. Waring, Colonel T.
Robertson, W. T. Watson, J.
Robinson, B. Webster, Sir R. E.
Rollit, Sir A. K. Webster, R. G.
Ross, A. H. West, Colonel W. C.
Rothschild, Baron F. J. de White, J. B.
Whitley, E.
Round, J. Whitmore, C. A.
Russell, Sir G. Winn, hon. R.
Russell, T. W. Winterbotham, A. B.
St. Aubyn, Sir J. Wodehouse, E. R.
Sclater-Booth, right hon. G. Wolmer, Viscount
Wood, N.
Sellar, A. C. Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Selwyn, Captain C. W. Wright, H. S.
Seton-Karr, H. Wroughton, P.
Sidebottom, T. H. Yerburgh, R. A.
Sidebottom, W. Young, C. E. B.
Sinclair, W. P.
Smith, rt. hon. W. H. TELLERS
Smith, A. Douglas, A. Akers-
Stanhope, rt. hon. E. Walrond, Col. W. H.

Main Question again proposed.

DR. CLARK

rose to address the House, when—

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! It is my duty to report to the House that, in my opinion, the Address has been adequately discussed—[Dr. CLARK: I rise, Sir—Cries of "Order!"]—and that it is the evident sense of the House that the Question should now be put.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Sir, It is my duty to move that the Question be now put.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Question be now put."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

The House divided:—Ayes 289; Noes 74: Majority 215.—(Div. List, No. 16.)

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 283; Noes 70: Majority 213.—(Div. List, No. 17.)

The following is the Entry in the Votes;— And it appearing to Mr. Speaker that the subject had been adequately discussed, and that it was the evident sense of the House that the Question be now put, he so informed the House:— Motion made, and Question put, "That the Question be now put:"—(Mr. William Henry Smith:)—The House divided; Ayes 291, Noes 81. Question put, "That those words be there inserted:"—The House divided; Ayes 84, Noes 283.

Main Question again proposed:—

And it appearing to Mr. Speaker that the subject had been adequately discussed, and that it was the evident sense of the House that the Question be now put, he so informed the House:—

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Question be now put:"—(Mr. William Henry Smith:)—The House divided; Ayes 289, Noes 74.

Main Question put:—The House divided; Ayes 283, Noes 70.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Committee be appointed to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I beg to move that the Committee be appointed to-morrow (Friday).

MR. SPEAKER

This is a purely formal and supplemental matter to what has been done, and no Motion can be made upon it.

Question put, and agreed, to. Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Viscount WEYMOUTH, Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. Secretary MATTHEWS, Secretary Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. Secretary STANHOPE, Mr. GOSCHEN, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Mr. JACKSON, and Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS; Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately:—Queen's Speech referred.

Forward to