MOTION FOE ADJOURNMENT.

HC Deb 19 May 1887 vol 315 cc525-39

MR. LABOUCHERE,

Member for Northampton, rose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the recent Annexation of portions of the Zulu territory, without the consent or knowledge of this House.

The pleasure of the House not having been signified—

MR. SPEAKER

called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he was not surprised that so large a number of Members approved the course he had taken, because no man of independent mind could deny that this was a matter of urgent public importance, and because the news of this annexation had come upon the public unofficially through the newspapers, and with great suddenness and surprise, When he asked for a day to consider the subject, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) stated that the Zulu Question might be discussed on the Colonial Estimates. But as the Government already had Supply to take them to July, he did not know when that could be, and the right hon. Gentleman might as well have offered them the Ides of March; and even when they had the opportunity the subject could only be raised by moving the reduction of the salary of the Secretary for the Colonies. Besides which the Chairman of Committees would probably rule out of Order a full discussion of the Question. He was, therefore, justified in bringing forward the Question at once and in the manner he had done. It must be admitted that our policy in South Africa had for many years been a most costly one. The wars that took place before the Transvaal difficulty arose had cost this country from £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 sterling, on which we had still to pay a large sum annually for interest. Since then the Transvaal and Zulu Wars and annexation had entailed a public expenditure of some£l2,000,000 more. With reference to our relations with South Africa, and with Zululand in particular, from 1877 to the present year, he might remark that by the Zulu War and the measures by which it was immediately succeeded, we reduced a once nourishing nation to a state of almost absolute anarchy, and brought the people to a condition of starvation. Zebebu was a rival chief of Cetewayo. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler) laughs.

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)

That is not the way to pronounce the name.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he did not pretend to pronounce these names correctly. He was not an Alderman of the City of London. His name was spelt Z-e-b-e-b-u, and he called that Zeb-ee-boo. Cetewayo was destroyed by Zebebu, who became master of Zululand. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) that Zulu-land had been practically annexed since 1879. But, if so, why was it that we had simply acted as arbitrators between the Zulus and the Boers in settling the frontier line of the new Republic? That did not look like an act of sovereignty. The real condition of things at the commencement of the present year was that one-third of Zululand belonged to us, about one-half of it was independent, and the rest of it had become the new Boer Republic. All that could be gathered of what had transpired since then was only to be found in the vague statements of newspaper correspondents, and in an answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, given on Tuesday last, in which he gave an account of how this annexation took place. The right hon. Gentleman said that on the 8th of February the chiefs were informed by Mr. Osborn that British protection, carrying with it the supreme authority of Her Majesty's Government, was to be extended to Eastern Zululand. Four days later, that was on the 12th of February, he telegraphed for information as to the feeling of the Zulus on the subject, and received an answer on the 14th, giving it as Mr. Osborn's opinion that the majority of the chiefs would gladly accede. On the 15th the right hon. Gentleman said he received a telegram to the same effect from Sir Arthur Havelock. Now, this only began on the 8th of February, and by the 16th Her Majesty's Government had decided to carry out this annexation. He did not know whether it was sprung upon the Zulus; but it seems to have been sprung upon Her Majesty's Government by Mr. Osborn, and still more had it been sprung upon the House by Her Majesty's Government. Speaking last night at a banquet given to Mr. John Robinson, Lord Onslow had said that the annexation was necessary to secure peace and quiet on the Northern Frontier of Natal, to prevent internecine war, by regulating the relations of the Boers with the Zulus, and to preserve the existence of the latter people. That was but the ordinary trash put forward by every Government that effected an annexation. The Conservatives in this respect were worse than the Liberals, but the Liberals were bad enough. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for State perceived that a little more than that would be required by the House to explain this extraordinary annexation of territory. He therefore told the House, in answer to a Question, that the Zulus came under the permanent authority of Her Majesty's Government at the end of the war of 1879. He could not understand what was meant by the word "permanent." It was true that we occupied the country with troops, but afterwards withdrew and put up independent kinglets. It would be remembered that in 1880 the Natal Government was very anxious for the annexation, and there was a minute of Lord Wolseley's protesting against it. There was another point. Was this new Republic part of the British Empire? The Government did not in any way interfere when the Boers sought to establish their new Republic. Instead of stepping in and saying—"How has this been done?" they stepped in as arbitrators, and assisted in settling the frontier. The fact had to be faced that suddenly a huge territory as large as Ireland—[An hon. MEMBER: Not so large.]—well, say half as large-—had been annexed, while Parliament had had no information, and there had been no discussion. They had had a very great experience of annexa- tion in South Africa and elsewhere on the part of the Conservatives. They wanted to draw a trail over their conduct in Great Britain by some swagger abroad, so that they might say—" Look what a Government we are—we have increased the area of the British Empire." As he had said, there was no information on the subject forthcoming, and there had been no discussion, and they were told that perhaps there would be an opportunity of discussing it on the Colonial Estimates whenever they might come on. It was said in support of the annexation that it would prove a very remunerative speculation. The same thing was said of the annexation of Burmah. It was not known what Burmah had cost at present; but it must be a very wealthy country if it could afford an equivalent to that Bill. In all probability the Zulus hated us, and they would be very silly if they did not; for we had been a persistent curse to the country. The probability was that just as the Zulus objected to the Boers taking their country, so they objected to us doing the same, and anyone who went into their country to make war upon them or annex them was their enemy, and justly so. In fact, they wanted to be independent both of Boers and Englishmen. If Zululand were taken, Tongaland must also be taken. That was a very rich country, and he already saw a greedy look in the right hon. Gentleman's eye. But if we annexed the territory, what should we do with Amatongaland? and when we had swallowed up Zululand and Amatongaland, what should we do with Swaziland? He was perfectly certain that if we got meddling with Swaziland we should get into difficulties. In Africa they were reverting to the grand scheme of Lord Salisbury; they wanted annexation to this country, and they wanted unity, as it was called. He was not surprised that the English merchants connected with Southern Africa should be in favour of this annexation; they were always wanting this country to do something which would end in war, in order that a portion of the money should go into their pockets. They made their livings out of our small wars, and the very fact of their being in favour of the annexation was the best reason why they should be against it. He was opposed to all these Tory annexations. The Go- vernment professed to have shaken off their Jingo policy. He believed they were Jingoes still, and would remain Jingoes to the end of the chapter. He had moved the adjournment as a protest against this annexation. He believed a large number of hon. Members were of opinion that our policy in South Africa had been not only a most expensive one, but a most injurious one to the honour of the country. We were, without exception, the greatest robbers and marauders in regard to these annexations that had ever existed upon the face of the globe. If Russia took some little territory for the benefit of their frontier we said it was scandalous on the part of Russia. We were worse than other countries, because we were hypocrites also, for we plundered and always pretended that we did so for other people's good. Slave-owners said they took slaves from Africa for their benefit; but whether this annexation proved beneficial to the Zulus or not, he was certain it would be by no means beneficial to the British taxpayers, and, therefore, he thought they ought to protest from the very first against the Government recommencing that career of crime and annexation which distinguished them in 1878. He knew that in protesting against this annexation they would be told that they were obstructionists—[Cries if "Hear, hear!"] He thought so. Hon. Members opposite had such confidence in Her Majesty's Government as to allow them to do whatever they pleased without let, hindrance, or explanation. He perfectly understood their desire to coerce Ireland, but Ireland was not the only part of the British Empire. Hon. Members on the Opposition side, on the other hand, thought that on the present occasion they ought to take advantage of the Rule which allowed them to move the adjournment of the House, in order that the Minister might give some clear and definite explanation of what had been done.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND) (Hampstead)

said, he would in the first place enter a protest, which the hon. Member evidently expected would be entered, and which he (Sir Henry Holland) thought might most justly be entered against the course which the hon. Member had taken. He protested against this Motion for adjournment being made during the discussion of the Irish Criminal Procedure Bill, and solely for the purpose of delaying the discussion on that Bill. Entertaining that view, he should endeavour, as shortly as possible, to answer the argument put forward by the hon. Member. In the first place, he must remark that when the hon. Gentleman said this matter had been sprung upon the House, he must have carefully refrained from reading the Blue Book which was presented not long ago, and in which the question of the protection of Zululand and of its annexation was raised over and over again. To understand this question properly it was necessary to go back to the end of the war of 1879. At that time, Zululand came under the paramount authority of Her Majesty. She might, without doubt, have exercised that authority, and annexed the whole territory. That authority, although not fully exercised by us, had always existed, and had been fully recognized over and over again by the Zulus. It was recognized when we parcelled out Zululand among the Chiefs, and again when Cetewayo was restored. The conditions which specified that paramount authority were read out publicly when Cetewayo wa3 restored to his monarchy. Cetewayo, ill-advised and ill-counselled, broke his pledges to Her Majesty's Government, fought Usibebu, wag defeated and died. His son Dinizulu and the Usutu Chiefs then, in 1884, called in the Boors to assist them against Usibebu, and by the agreement of August, 1884, the Zulus practically coded 4,234 square miles of country to the Boers, being a larger portion of laud than is now recognized as the New Republic. Afterwards, the Chiefs became alarmed at the rapid encroachment of the Boers, which threatened their entire absorption, and they appealed to Her Majesty as the paramount authority to defend them. He would not take up the time of the House by reading the passages, but would refer them to pages 74 and 92 of [C. 4,645.] There were interviews with Sir Arthur Havelock in March and May, 188G, when in answer to appeals to save them from utter ruin the Chiefs were told that it was not pos- sible to withhold recognition of the New Republic, but that Her Majesty's Government, although it was impossible to save all, or nearly all, for them, would endeavour to save as much they could. They then expressed their thanks, and said that, if the Government would take charge of them they would be taken care of, and freed from their troubles. The New Republic was recognized by Lord Granville in March, 1886, and Sir Arthur Havelock was then authorized to negotiate for a demarcation of boundary between the Republic and Eastern Zululand. He (Sir Henry Holland) found no fault with that policy of the late Government. On the contrary, he was inclined to think that it was the best policy in the interest of the Zulus. After some troublesome negotiations and troubles an agreement was signed on 22nd October, 1886, by which Commissioners were to be appointed to settle the Boundary. The Commission was composed of English, Boer, and Zulu Commissioners; but the latter did not attend. His presence might have been useful, but it was clearly not indispensable, as the Zulus had placed themselves in our hands. The demarcation was completed on the 25th of January, 1887, and although there was no doubt that some of the Zulu Chiefs had protested against the boundary agreed upon with the Boers, the ground of their protest was cut away from their feet by the fact that they had themselves invited in the Boers, and given them a much larger piece of territory than they had under this agreement and demarcation; and, also, because they had placed themselves unreservedly in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and agreed to abide by what we did for them. Nor was there, in truth, any ground for complaint or protest. British Zululand will contain about 8,220 square miles—the Reserve Territory containing about 2,567 square miles, and Eastern Zulu-land 5,653 square miles—and this is irrespective of the St. Lucia Lake district, about 680 square miles. The area of the New Republic is 2,854 square miles, not much more than one-fourth of the total area. Again, by the agreement of August, 1884, the Zulus had practically ceded to the Boers some 4,234 square miles, and, therefore, the difference of 1,380 square miles had been secured to the Zulus by the inter- vention of Her Majesty's Government. On the 8th February, 1887, Mr. Osborn informed the Zulus that protection, carrying with it the supreme authority of Her Majesty's Government, was to be extended to Eastern Zululand, "and Chiefs and people therein." The question of protecting or annexing Zululand had for some time occupied the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and as far back as September, 1886, Mr. Stanhope had informed Sir Arthur Havelock that the question of a general protectorate over Zululand was reserved for consideration, and called upon him for his views on the proposal contained in his recent despatches for annexing that country to Natal. He (Sir Henry Holland) telegraphed to Sir Arthur Havelock on the 12th February to learn what was the then attitude of the Zulus, and whether there was any more general favourable feeling towards British protection. On the 14th he received a telegram in reply stating as follows:— Views as to general favourable feelings of Zulus strengthened by subsequent information received. Cardew recently returned from Zululand expresses opinion that people are prepared to accept British Government. Osborn says only obstacle is opposition of Ndabuko, other Chiefs do not offer any opposition to; thinks that majority, inclusive of Umnyamana, will gladly accede. People will be specially glad of British rule. And again on the 14th February he received another telegram containing the following words:— Announcement received favourably by Umnyamana, who promised to send information to all headsmen thereof. Dinuzulu and Undabuko did not reply. Then on the 15th he received another telegram, which showed that Dinuzulu, Undabuko, and other Chiefs had given a favourable answer. In these circumstances he approved of Mr. Osborn's action, but that approval was not given until it appeared from those best qualified to offer an opinion, that the Chiefs and people assented to British rule. The only point that then remained for the decision of the Government was whether we should exercise sovereignty and annex Zululand or only establish a protectorate. Both Sir Arthur Havelock and Mr. Osborn strongly advocated annexation, and there were strong and weighty reasons for annexation as against a protectorate. Under a protectorate Her Majesty had no power of legislation, and the Government had been advised that she could not, under the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, 1843 to 1878—which define Her authority in foreign countries—obtain legal jurisdiction over foreigners without the consent of their Governments, although she might establish Courts for her own subjects, and, if so conceded by the authorities of the country, over persons actually subject to Her protection. Again, in a protectorate Her Majesty could not issue titles to land, a matter of importance in Zululand, where individual ownership is practically unknown. These difficulties were all felt in Bechuanaland. There we began with a protectorate, and it broke down as soon as ever Europeans of different nationalities came into the country, and like difficulties had been experienced in governing the Reserve as a protectorate. He believed the Government acted wisely in abandoning a protectorate in favour of annexation. The situation, from a financial point of view, was satisfactory. He had already shown, in an answer to the hon. Member for Caithness, that the management of the Reserve under Sir Arthur Havelock had been most successful; £1,500 out of £6,000 advanced out of the Imperial Treasury had been repaid, and Sir Arthur Havelock had a cash balance of £6,736. The Revenue of the Reserve for the current year was estimated at about £11,980, and the expenditure at £9,748, so that there would be a balance of about £2,200, in addition to the Reserve balance of £G,736. The increase in the cost of the administration of Zululand was calculated at about £6,000 a-year, and about £5,000 would be due this year. Looking to the disturbed state of the country, the struggles through which the Zulus had been going, and their impoverished condition, it had not been thought wise to levy a Native Hut Tax this year. It was proposed to take £5,000 from the balance of the Reserve and apply it to the purposes of the Government. It was calculated that in future years Hut Taxes, licenses, and imposts, such as were levied in the Reserve, would cover the expenses of administration. He felt that he had not done justice to the case, because he thought the question ought not to have been brought on now, and he had, therefore, contented himself with simply stating the view of the Govern- ment and the grounds for their decision. Her Majesty's Government had been throughout actuated by a desire to do the best for the Zulus, and to maintain not only their liberty, but as large a part as possible of their territory. The task had been full of difficulty, and he could not close his remarks without bearing testimony to the zeal, ability, and judgment displayed by Sir Arthur Havelock and Mr. Osborn in dealing with these difficult questions.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,

said, he entirely agreed with the action of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in bringing this matter forward, and in his statement of facts, but he did not agree with the conclusion at which he had arrived. If we had to begin all over again it would be better to have nothing to do with Zululand. We committed a blunder and a crime in taking Zululand. But we had done these unfortunate persons so much injury that we were bound to do something for them. The hon. Member for Northampton had greatly exaggerated the geographical aspect of the question. The whole of Zululand was only about one-quarter of the area of Ireland. Whatever happened, he earnestly hoped that the country would not be treated like Basutoland, and handed over to Natal. The Zulus had a great deal to complain of in our having allowed the Boers to take part of their territory. The Boers were called in by discontented Zulus because they wanted to get possession of lands which did not belong to them. Having done them this wrong, it was the more incumbent on us not to hand the Zulus over to the tender mercies of the oligarchy in Natal. He would approve of the action of the Government if it would lead to a bonâ fide protectorate of the natives; but what he feared and apprehended, was that the country would at a later period be handed over to Natal, which would be a most objectionable step, and it appeared to him to be contemplated as possible by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He again said, that if the Government would give them some pledge that they meant to administer this territory, and not leave it to a few Europeans in South Africa, then he thought the right thing had been done. If not, he believed an injustice would be done.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) had not adopted a very convenient mode of bringing that important question before the House; but, seeing how few opportunities the Session presented for doing so, he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) could hardly blame him for the course he had taken. As he had been Under Secretary of State for the Colony while the negotiations which culminated in this settlement were going on, he should be glad to be allowed to say a few words on the subject. It was but fair to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) to say that he had to make the best of a bad business. They must bear in mind that the Zulus, though a very brave people by nature, and once possessed of a splendid military organization, had like most semi savage nations, utterly collapsed when conquered. They had lost not only their spirit of independence and self-reliance, but their very sense of nationality. He referred shortly to the events which had followed on the Zulu War, to which all the evils of the country were to be traced, and especially to the agreement of August, 1884, under which the Zulu Chiefs had practically ceded to the Boers nearly the whole of their territory. The existence of that agreement made it impossible for Lord Granville-whose views would be found expressed in the despatch of March 11, 1885—altogether to ignore the claims of the Boers. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies had, in fact, taken up the negotiations for a settlement of the question where the late Government left them, and after listening attentively to the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) could not say that his statement was unsatisfactory. The settlement was, on the whole, more favourable to the Zulus than had been anticipated; nor could it be said that it had been sprung upon them. He was as much opposed to annexation as anyone; but, unfortunately, we had got ourselves so entangled in this matter that we must either throw the Zulus over entirely, in which case they would be'' eaten up "by the Boers—who were a most voracious race—or we must take them in some way or other under our charge. Of the two, he preferred an annexation to a protectorate, which meant responsibility without control. The really important question was would this arrangement last? He was not afraid of the Zulus, who were utterly broken and dispirited; but he did fear the Boers, and he could only approve the settlement upon the understanding that every care would be taken to secure their loyal and scrupulous observance of the Treaty.

Dr. CLARK and Mr. W. H. SMITH rose at the same time to address the House—

MR. SPEAKER

called upon Mr. W. H. SMITH—

MR. W. H. SMITH

I claim, Sir, to move that the Question be now put. [Loud cries of assent and dissent.]

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The Question is that the Question be now put.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 278; Noes 156: Majority 122.

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.	Bridgeman, Col. hon. F.C.
Ainslie, W. G.
Allsopp, hon. G.	Bristowe, T. L.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.
Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.
	Brookfield, A. M.
Anstruther, H. T.	Brooks, Sir W. C.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Brown, A. H.
Atkinson, H. J.	Burdett-Coutts, W.L. Ash.-B.
Baden-Powell, G. S.
Baggallay, E.	Burghley, Lord
Bailey, Sir J. R.	Caine, W. S.
Baird, J. G. A.	Caldwell, J.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.	Campbell, J. A.
Banes, Major G. E.	Campbell, R. F. F.
Baring, Viscount	Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.
Bartley, G. C. T.	Chaplin, right hon. H.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Charrington, S.
Bates, Sir E.	Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.
Baumann, A. A.
Beach, W. W. B.	Clarke, Sir E. G.
Beadel, W. J.	Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.
Beckett, E. W.
Beckett, W.	Coddington, W.
Bective, Earl of	Colomb, Capt. J. C. R.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.
Bentinck, W. G. C.
Bethell, Commander G. R.	Compton, F.
	Cooke, C. W. R.
Bickford-Smith, W.	Corbett, J.
Biddulph, M.	Corry, Sir J. P.
Bigwood, J.	Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.
Birkbeck, Sir E.	Cozens-Hardy, H. H.
Blundell, Colonel H. B. H.	Cross, H. S.
	Crossley, E.
Bond, G. H.	Cubitt, right hon. G.
Bonsor, H. C. O.	Currie, Sir D.
Boord, T. W.	Curzon, Viscount

Curzon, hon. G. N.	Hartington, Marq. of
Dalrymple, G.	Havelock - Allan, Sir H. M.
Davenport, H. T.
De Worms, Baron E.	Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-
Dimsdale, Baron R.
Dorington, Sir J. E.	Heaton, J. H.
Dugdale, J. S.	Heneage, right hon. E.
Duncan, Colonel F.	Herbert, hon. S.
Duncombe, A.	Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.
Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.
	Hill, Colonel E. S.
Eaton, H. W.	Hill, A. S.
Ebrington, Viscount	Holland, right hon. Sir H. T.
Edwards-Moss, T. C.
Egerton, hon. A. J. F.	Holmes, rt. hon. H.
Elcho, Lord	Hornby, W. H.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D.	Houldsworth, W. H.
Elliot, hon. H. F. H.	Howard, J.
Elliot, G. W.	Howard, J. M.
Elton, C. I.	Howorth, H. H.
Evelyn, W. J.	Hozier, J. H. C.
Ewart, W.	Hubbard, E.
Ewing, Sir A. O.	Hughes - Hallett, Col. F. C.
Eyre, Colonel H.
Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.	Hulse, E. H.
Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.	Hunt, F. S.
	Hunter, Sir W. G.
Fielden, T.	Jackson, W. L.
Finch, G. H.	Jennings, L. J.
Finlay, R. B.	Johnston, W.
Fisher, W. H.	Kelly, J. R.
Fitzgerald, R. U. P.	Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.	Kenrick, W.
	Kenyon, hon. G. T.
Fletcher, Sir H.	Kenyon - Slaney, Col. W.
Folkestone, right hon. Viscount
	Ker, R. W. B.
Forwood, A. B.	Kerans, F. H.
Fowler, Sir R. N.	Kimber, H.
Fraser, General C. C.	King, H. S.
Fulton, J. F.	King - Harman, right hon. Colonel E. R.
Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-
Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.	Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.
Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.	Knowles, L.
	Lafone, A.
Gedge, S.	Lambert, C.
Gent-Davis, R.	Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.
Gibson, J. G.	Lawrence, W. F.
Giles, A.	Lea, T.
Gilliat, J. S.	Lechmore, Sir E. A. H.
Godson, A. F.	Leighton, S.
Goldsmid, Sir J.	Lethbridge, Sir R.
Goldsworthy, Major General W. T.	Lewisham, right hon. Viscount
Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.	Llewellyn, E. H.
Gray, C. W.	Long, W. H.
Green, Sir E.	Low, M.
Greene, E.	Lowther, hon. W.
Grimston, Viscount	Lowther, J. W.
Grotrian, F. B.	Lubbock, Sir J.
Grove, Sir T. F.	Lymington, Viscount
Gunter, Colonel R.	Macartney, W. G. E.
Hall, C.	Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.
Halsey, T. F.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.	Maclean, J. M.
	Maclure, J. W.
Hamilton, Lord C. J.	M'Calmont, Captain J.
Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.	M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J. M.
Hanbury, R. W.	M'Lagan, P.
Hardcastle, E.	Malcolm, Col. J. W.
Hardcastle, F.	Mallock, R.

March, Earl of	Selwin - Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.
Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.
Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-	Selwyn, Captain C. W.
	Seton-Karr, H.
Matthews, rt. hn. H.	Shaw-Stewart, M. H.
Maxwell, Sir H. E.	Shirley, W. S.
Mayne, Admiral R. C.	Sidebotham, J. W.
Milvain, T.	Sidebottom, W.
More, R. J.	Sinclair, W. P.
Morgan, hon. F.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Morrison, W.	Smith, A.
Mowbray, right hon. Sir J. R.	Spencer, J. E.
	Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
Mowbray, R. G. C.	Stanley, E. J.
Mulholland, H. L.	Stewart, M. J.
Murdoch, C. T.	Sutherland, T.
Newark, Viscount	Sykes, C.
Noble, W.	Talbot, J. G.
Northcote, hon. H. S.	Taylor, F.
Norton, R.	Temple, Sir R.
O'Neill, hon. R. T.	Thorburn, W.
Paget, Sir R. H.	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Parker, C. S.	Tottenham, A. L.
Parker, hon. F.	Trotter, H. J.
Pearce, W.	Tyler, Sir H. W.
Pelly, Sir L.	Verdin, R.
Penton, Captain F. T.	Vincent, C. E. H.
Pitt-Lewis, G.	Waring, Colonel T.
Plunket, right hon. D. R.	Watkin, Sir E. W.
	Watson, J.
Plunkett, hon. J. W.	Webster, Sir R. E.
Powell, F. S.	West, Colonel W. C.
Puleston, J. H.	Wharton, J. L.
Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.	Whitley, E.
Rankin, J.	Williams, J. Powell-
Richardson, T.	Wilson, Sir S.
Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.	Wodehouse, E. R.
Robertson, J. P. B.	Wood, N.
Robertson, W. T.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Ross, A. H.	Wright, H. S.
Round, J.	Wroughton, P.
Russell, T. W.	Yerburgh, R. A.
St. Aubyn, Sir J.	Young, C. E. B.
Salt, T.
Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.	TELLERS.
	Douglas, A. Akers-
Sellar, A. C.	Walrond, Col. W. H.

NOES.
Abraham, W. (Glam.)	Cameron, J. M.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)	Campbell, Sir G.
	Campbell, H.
Anderson, C. H.	Carew, J. L.
Atherley-Jones, L	Chance, P. A.
Balfour, Sir G.	Channing, F. A.
Barbour, W. B.	Clancy, J. J.
Barclay, J. W.	Cobb, H. P.
Barran, J.	Coleridge, hon. B.
Barry, J.	Connolly, L.
Beaumont, W. B.	Conway, M.
Biggar, J. G.	Conybeare, C. A. V.
Blake, T.	Corbet, W. J.
Blane, A.	Cossham, H.
Bolton, J. C.	Cox, J. R.
Bradlaugh, C.	Craig, J.
Bright, Jacob	Crawford, W.
Bright, W. L.	Cremer, W. R.
Broadhurst, H.	Crilly, D.
Brown, A. L.	Dillon, J.
Bruce, hon. R. P.	Dodds, J.
Buchanan, T. R.	Ellis, J. E.
Buxton, S. C.	Ellis, T. E.
Byrne, G. M.	Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

Esslemont, P.	Palmer, Sir C. M.
Farquharson, Dr. R.	Paulton, J. M.
Finucane, J.	Pease, Sir J. W.
Flynn, J. C.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Foley, P. J.	Picton, J. A.
Fox, Dr. J. F.	Pinkerton, J.
Fuller, G. P.	Powell, W. R. H.
Gardner, H.	Power, P. J.
Gilhooly, J.	Power, R.
Gill, H. J.	Price, T. P.
Graham, R. C.	Priestley, B.
Gully, W. C.	Pyne, J. D.
Harrington, E.	Rathbone, W.
Harris, M.	Redmond, W. H. K.
Hayden, L. P.	Reed, Sir E. J.
Healy, M.	Richard, H.
Healy, T. M.	Roberts, J.
Holden, I.	Robertson, E.
Hooper, J.	Roe, T.
Howell, G.	Rowlands, J.
Hunter, W. A.	Rowlands, W. B.
Illingworth, A.	Rowntree, J.
Jacoby, J. A.	Schwann, C. E.
James, C. H.	Sexton, T.
Joicey, J.	Shaw, T.
Jordan, J.	Sheehan, J. D.
Kennedy, E. J.	Sheehy, D.
Kenny, C. S.	Sheil, E.
Kenny, J. E.	Stack, J.
Kenny, M. J.	Stevenson, F. S.
Lacaita, C. C.	Storey, S.
Lalor, R.	Stuart, J.
Lawson, Sir W.	Sullivan, D.
Leahy, J.	Sullivan, T. D.
Lewis, T. P.	Summers, W.
Macdonald, W. A.	Swinburne, Sir J.
M'Arthur, A.	Thomas, A.
M'Cartan, M.	Tuite, J.
M'Donald, P.	Vivian, Sir H. H.
M'Donald, Dr. R.	Wallace, R.
M'Ewan, W.	Wardle, H.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N.	Warmington, C. M.
M'Laren, W. S. B.	Will, J. S.
Marum, E. M.	Williams, A. J.
Montagu, S.	Williamson, J.
Morgan, O. V.	Williamson, S.
Nolan, Colonel J. P.	Wilson, H. J.
Nolan, J.	Wilson, I.
O'Brien, J. F. X.	Winterbotham, A. B.
O'Brien, P.	Woodall, W.
O'Brien, P. J.	Wright, C.
O'Connor, A.	Yeo, F. A.
O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)
O'Connor, T. P.	TELLERS.
O'Hanlon, T.	Clark, Dr. G. B.
O'Hea, P.	Labouchere, H.
O'Kelly, J.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 280: Majority 138.—(Div. List, No. 158.)

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I beg to give Notice, Sir, that on as early an opportunity as possible I will call the attention of the House to your action and the action of the Leader of the House in proposing the closure on this occasion, and move a Resolution.