HC Deb 23 May 1900 vol 83 cc1016-31

I rise to move, " That Committees do not sit to-morrow, being Ascension Day, until two of the clock." This is in accordance with the practice extending over a good many years past, and, as a rule, the motion is carried sub silentio, and though divisions have been taken upon it, it has been always carried. If I am departing from that practice, it is because of certain circumstances which have arisen which make it desirable that the House should consider its position in this matter. The circumstances to which I refer relate to the Grand Committees of this House and the Joint Committees of the two Houses; but before explaining how that matter stands, I may remind the House of what the history of this motion is. It was moved first in the year 1604, I think, and carried. It was next moved in 1614, and on that occasion it was not carried. Then there was an interval going over from 1614 to 1849 — a large gap during which no motion of the kind was made. In 1849 it was not moved by the Government, but by a private Member, though the Government accepted i it. I will tell the House exactly what was done from year to year since that time. After 1849 it was not moved until 1856. It was moved again in 1857. It was not moved in 1858, 1859, and 1860. It was moved in 1861, I think, and in 1862, but not in 1863 or 1864. Then it was moved in 1865–66–67, but not in 1868–69. In 1870 it was moved, and also in 1871. In 1872 it was moved and negatived, and in 1873 it was moved again and carried, and since then the practice has been unbroken. Now, that being the rather variegated history of this motion, I come to the particular difficulties to which I adverted in the opening sentences of these remarks. First, as to the Grand Committees, no doubt the difficulty could be got over by doing with regard to them what in former days used to be done with regard to other Committees—that is, giving them permission to sit to a later hour. They had to ask for permission, but that permission was seldom refused. It was given as a matter of course. The Grand Committees however, are now so large, or may be so large, that they really consist of a large fraction of the House, and I am told that it is in contemplation in the course of the present session, in order to get through the work before them rapidly, on public grounds, to have two Grand Committees sitting on the same day. If two Grand Committees were to sit on the same day, I suppose the joint numbers would probably not be less than one hundred Members, probably more. I think it will be admitted that that is a very large fraction of the House to withdraw from our debates while the House is sitting. The second point relates to the Joint Committees of this House and the House of Lords. We have now, I think, no less than four of these Joint Committees sit- ting. The House of Lords now meets at a different hour from this House, and in recent years they have allowed each of their Committees to decide whether they shall sit or shall not sit to a later hour. So that if there is any particular reason why a Committee should press on with its work, that Committee does sit at the ordinary hour—half-past eleven—and the other Committees would adjourn till two o'clock. Now the question is, when a Committee of this House meets a Committee of the House of Lords, which practice is to prevail? I believe it is laid down in Sir Erskine May's work on Parliamentary practice that the House of Lords Committee determines the time and the extent of the sitting of the Joint Committee. If that is to be taken as a conclusive statement of the law on the subject, it would be in the power of the House of Lords to overrule the resolution of the House of Commons passed with regard to Ascension Day. I myself am in doubt as to whether that is the true view of the case. I should rather have conjectured that the Members of the House of Commons sitting with the Lords and constituting a Joint Committee would be bound by any resolution passed by this House with regard to the sitting of its Committees. In that case the House of Lords might order their Committees to meet at half-past eleven, whereas the House of Commons part of the Committee would be precluded from sitting till two o'clock. The matter of the Joint Committees was brought to my notice because, I understand, one of these Committees, being extremely anxious on public grounds to hasten the work entrusted to them, has been summoned already for half-past eleven to-morrow. If, therefore, this resolution is passed they will not be summoned till two o'clock, and the result will be to cause considerable inconvenience to those interested in a rapid decision. That is the whole case. I have explained to the House that the practice, which is an unbroken practice all through my Parliamentary life, is that the House of Commons should not meet on Ascension Day till two o'clock. It rests with the House to decide now which alternative it will adopt—the policy which the House of Lords has pursued or the policy that we have pursued. I, therefore, though moving this customary resolution, shall not make it a Government matter. I shall follow the course which Mr. Gladstone took in 1873, after the resolution had been rejected in the previous year, and repeat, with him, that I do not urge the motion with the authority belonging to the Government, but in deference to precedent uninterrupted in recent years. I beg to move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Committees do not sit To-morrow, being Ascension Day, until Two of the clock."—(Mr. Balfour)

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I am always anxious to carry out the wishes of the Leader of the House when it is possible. I am convinced by the very able speech which he has just made that I should carry out his wishes by opposing his motion. The right hon. Gentleman is in this terrible position, that he himself sees the objections to carry a motion that the House should not meet till two of the clock on Ascension Day. Although he does not want to break through the precedent established since 1873, yet he furnishes the House with good practical arguments why we should do so. I confess I was very much astonished at the historical retrospect the right hon. Gentleman gave us, because up till now we always supposed that this motion had been moved ever since the days of the Witenagemot. It now appears that it was only moved in 1604, and not again till 1614, when, however, it was not accepted. Then there , was a lapse of two centuries, and not again till 1849 was it moved. Even since that year there have been a good many lapses, and only from 1873 can it be said that the usage and practice was established. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out to us that, if Sir Erskine May is right, and we pass this motion, there is a danger of our getting into a very serious difficulty with the House of Lords. That I am always against. If May is right we shall possibly find ourselves in this position in regard to Joint Committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons: that the House of Lords section of the Committee may sit at half-past eleven, while the House of Common section cannot sit till two, and therefore the House of Lords Committee may pass through a Bill between half-past eleven and two o'clock when no Member of the House of Commons will be present. Then with regard to the Grand Committees, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that even now a vast number of Members are engaged on these Grand Committees, and if two sat on the same day there might be a majority of Members absent from this House. The only way the right hon. Gentleman proposed to meet the difficulty was by allowing the Grand Committees to sit on longer, that is, to eat more into the time that they ought to be here. I have observed that hon. Members of the House do not listen to the debates, but go into the smoking-room, or into the lobbies, or go on the terrace until the Whips tell them to go in and vote, without having listened to the arguments for and against the question before the House. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman will only encourage hon. Members in that course. When a division is called they will rush downstairs and say to the Whip, "On which side are we to vote?" and then they will quite likely vote quite contrary to their convictions. There is one other point I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman which he himself did not urge, and that is in regard to Private Bill Committees. Now, Private Bill Committees are most expensive things to litigants. The lawyers in this House do not practise before Private Bill Committees, but still, they may have a fellow-feeling with their brothers in law whose briefs are all marked with a good round sum, and who get a good refresher whether they go in at eleven o'clock or at two o'clock. But at the same time a vast number of witnesses have to be brought up, audit becomes a most costly proceeding when the Committee does not meet till two, and even then there is often practically no Committee. I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman, and I always come here with an open mind. I confess that very seldom does he convince me, but I am ready for conviction. Under these circumstances I really do think that, after the way in which the right hon. Gentleman himself has put the matter, and the reasons which he has brought forward against his own motion, we would be only carrying out the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman if we voted against it and put an end to the somewhat foolish habit of postponing the meeting of the House until two o'clock on Ascension Day. It is said that we do this in order that we may go to church. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] I should like to know if that hon. Gentleman goes to church. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] Well, how many do go to church? I am not an '. expert in these matters myself, but I am told that, generally speaking, the ordinary service commences at eleven, and I am credibly informed that in almost all churches the service ceases before twelve o'clock. I hope that the House will carry out the wishes of the Leader of the House, and put an end, once for all, to this silly resolution.


I am not at all surprised that my right hon. friend should have moved this motion in somewhat doubtful terms, for it is quite clear from what was said, and from considerations which must be familiar to many of us, that there must be some measure of inconvenience in adjourning the Committees for one day—an inconvenience to litigants, and, to some extent, to the members of the Committees themselves. But I think my right hon. friend exaggerated that part of his case. It is quite true that the House of Lords has been in the practice of allowing its Committees to adjourn without making any positive order; but it is well known that the Committee work in the other House is less burdensome and of smaller concern than that in the Commons Committees. Moreover, the House of Lords does recognise the day in a much more complete manner than the House of Commons, because the House itself adjourns over Ascension Day. So that the argument of my right hon. friend is not quite so strong as he put it. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Grand Committees are now numerous bodies, and that if two sat on the same day more than a hundred Members would be withdrawn from the House. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has had experience of these Grand Committees. If he had he would have known that there are very seldom more than twenty-two or twenty-three members actually present. Yesterday I was sitting on one, and for a large part of the time there was a bare quorum of twenty, so that I do not think that the discussions in this House would suffer in the great degree which my right hon. friend anticipates, even if two Grand Committees were sitting on the same day. Then, everybody knows that the first hour and a half of the sitting of the House is by no means the most important part of our deliberations. A great portion of it is devoted to Private Bills, which generally pass without opposition; and the rest is devoted to questions, no doubt of interest, but of no great public moment, except that the answers are put on record, and embodied in the press reports. That the first hour and a half of the sitting is not very important is notorious, because a large number of Members do not come down here till afterwards; and my hon. friend the Member for Tiverton is careful to note in his circular to his followers the particular hour when it is important that Members should be in their places; sometimes, indeed, he asks them to come three or four hours before he really needs them. That in itself shows that the first hour or two is not a matter of very great moment, and Members can very well afford once or twice a year to spend them in the Committee room upstairs. I do not think my right hon. friend gives sufficient weight to the fact that the sitting of the Committees interferes with the wishes of those hon. Members who desire to attend church. It is not quite true that it is possible to attend church and be in this House at twelve o'clock. As a matter of fact most of those Members of the House who go to church will be in church at twelve o'clock. I know that to barristers practising before the Committees it would be inconvenient if the Committees sat at twelve. My right hon. friend says that this is not a very ancient practice; but if he had carried his investigations a little further, he would have found that there was very good reason why the adjournments had been so rare between the middle of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth. It was that, for a great part of the time, this House was very rarely in session on Ascension Day; the sessions of Parliament took place in winter. Another reason was that that period was precisely the same period of great ecclesiastical depression in England, when all religious duties were neglected to an extent that would now be thought scandalous, although there was even then a good deal of formal religion. This adjournment over Ascension Day is part and parcel of the revival of religious interest for which the present century is so prominently and honourably distinguished. Are we in this House to give up any association with that religious revival by the recognition of religious practices and observances? There are a great many practices and ceremonies of the House which are not defensible on grounds of mere utility. Why, Mr. Speaker, you wear a wig! It is not necessary for the reason attributed to the miller's head-gear; but it adds a certain dignity to Parliamentary proceedings. Then there is the Mace on the Table, which is also an ancient and honourable symbol. And so there are these adjournments over Ash Wednesday and Ascension Day, which, perhaps, are not important from a merely utilitarian point of view, but are important as solemn recognitions of the religious beliefs and convictions of a large number of our countrymen. I would point out, also, that while we have an Established Church, we are more or less bound to follow the religious customs of that Church; and according to the English Church Ascension Day is a festival of the greatest magnitude. It ranks second after Easter among the four great Church festivals. Surely it is not desirable that this House should not continue to mark that great day, and revert to the more negligent practice of former times — a practice which was abandoned largely through the influence of Mr. Gladstone and the respect he commanded in the House. I would regret the loss of the motion the more because the custom of keeping Ascension Day is by no means so common and so marked as the formulary of the Church enjoins. I heard the other day of a curious instance of this negligence. Even in so prominent a church as the Temple Church, which ought to be a leader in such matters there is no morning service—a very discreditable piece of neglect, which I hope the barristers in this House will bring prominently to notice. It illustrates that even on the very spot on which the religious revival originated Ascension Day is not observed as the Church insists it ought to be. I think it Mould be regretted if the House should take the lead in introducing a more negligent practice in the observance of Ascension Day. Some people think that because we have an Established Church we must necessarily have a system of State control over the Church. That is not my opinion. I have always thought and believed, and it is a sound opinion founded from induction of a large number of instances, that the State recognition of an Established Church necessarily involves the solemn recognition of observances of this kind. The Coronation of the Sovereign is one example, and the prayers with which the sittings of this House are opened is another and many more could be pointed out. It is part and parcel of the solemn recognition of what Churchmen set a high value upon and importance to. Those who are supporters of the Established Church should vote for the motion, and I entertain the strong hope that the House will accept it, and that the practice of recent years will be continued.

MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)

It was very interesting to listen to the very weighty argument, from his point of view, which has just been addressed to the House by the noble Lord; but, for my part, I am very curious to know what will be the action of the Leader of the House, who moved the resolution, and whether he himself is going to vote for it. That will have more influence with his followers than the arguments with which he supported the motion. The noble Lord said that most Members who attend church to-morrow would be in church at twelve o'clock. But how many Members does he consider will attend church, whether this resolution is passed or not? I doubt whether ten Members will attend. [HON. MEM-BERS: Oh, oh!] "Well, I will put it higher—whether a tenth part of the Members of this House will attend church to-morrow, whether the House adjourns to-morrow or not. It does seem to me that this question has been brought down to a farce, because if the House did not adjourn for Ascension Day for. 235 years, from 1614 till 1849, surely we can get along well enough without doing it now. The noble Lord said that many banisters wanted to attend church on Ascension Day, but that is contradicted by the fact that the Temple Church is closed on that day.


To the great discontent of many barristers.


I never heard of that before. I am persuaded that even fewer barristers desire to attend church to-morrow than Members of the House of Commons. But the particular reason for my rising is to express my anxiety that the Standing Committee on Trade, at all events, should be allowed to sit to-morrow at the usual time. We have a very important Government Bill before us, and I feel that if we do not sit to-morrow that Bill will be hung up until after Whitsuntide, and a very considerable delay will be caused. We already have had considerable delays. We were supposed to sit last Monday week, but we did not. Then we thought we would sit last Thursday, but owing to somebody's blunder we had no chairman, and again we were not able to sit. I think it is intolerable that a large Committee like that should have a whole sitting suspended because a chairman was not appointed. After the speech of the right hon. the Leader of the House, if we are to continue this practice, I think it should be left to each Committee to decide whether they should sit or not on Ascension Day. The Standing Committee on Trade want to be at business like business men; and if it were left to them not five Members would object to sitting to-morrow at the usual hour. I hope this will be the last motion made on this subject. I will not move an Amendment, but simply vote against the motion.

*MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

This is a customary motion by which Members of the House give effect to a recognition of the Church; but I think Hon. Members who have passed through the streets to-day, and have noticed the national enthusiasm which has been evoked by the birthday of Her Majesty must have wondered why this House does not accord the same recognition of the State. As a Churchman I shall vote for this motion, but there are many who are not Churchmen who may object to being called upon to give a distinct and exclusive recognition of the Church while they are denied a recognition of the Head of the State. I see no reason why the great twin institutions of Church and State should not be simultaneously recognised. I can recollect few occasions on which Her Majesty's birthday was not celebrated on a Saturday, and I have always thought it was very shabby to ignore the actual anniversary and to fix upon a day like Saturday, which is a half-holiday at any rate. I am certain that great good would have been achieved throughout Her Gracious Majesty's reign if opportunity had been given to her subjects to rejoice annually in connection with that occasion. This, the mother of Parliaments, is, I believe, the only Legislature throughout Her Majesty's wide dominions which has not celebrated this auspicious occasion by an adjournment amidst the most enthusiastic demonstration of loyalty. I find in "May"—the work to which we all look for guidance—that in May, 1864, May, 1865, and June, 1869, when the day selected for the celebration was in each instance a Wednesday, the House adjourned over the day, and, so far as I can ascertain, these were the only occasions within recent history when Her Majesty's birthday was celebrated on other than a Saturday, and the Legislature marked its sense of the importance of the occasion by adjourning. I hope my right hon. friend, when he obtains the sanction of the House to this recognition of the Church, will at once move that the House do forthwith adjourn in order to show sympathy with the universal feeling of loyalty which we see around us. Precedents are afforded by the action of Lord Palmerston and Mr. Gladstone on the occasions I have mentioned; and my right hon. friend will do well to move that the House forthwith adjourn with a view to enable hon. Members to join in the national commemoration, which is universal throughout the Empire.


I merely wish to point out that while Ash Wednesday is a Church day, Ascension Day is regarded by all Christians.

*MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)

I made a few remarks on this subject last year, and I only wish to renew my objection to the motion before the House. The very great inconvenience of this motion was then brought most forcibly before me when at that time presiding over the Grand Committee on Trade, with an important Bill before it. Of course, we are supposed to commemorate one of the great landmarks of the Christian faith. I would be the last to detract from any such commemoration, but there are other more suitable ways of doing so than by putting the Committees upstairs to great inconvenience and expense. After all, this is not an immemorial practice. In the diary of one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker — Mr. Speaker Denison—it is recorded that the House declined to make this order with respect to its Committees on Ascension Day, and he went on to say that he entirely approved of that course, and j that it was a right decision. I had the honour of being one of Mr. Denison's constituents, and knew him well; and no more loyal member of the Church of; England, or more religiously inclined man ever existed. The right hon. the Leader of the House is a Scotchman, and he knows very well that this particular event is very differently esteemed and honoured, if I may use the phrase, in Scotland from what it is in England; and the Scotch are not inferior to ourselves in their attachment to religion. The practice of setting aside all the work of the Committees of the House on Ascension Day is one which in my opinion should be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.


I rise with very great pleasure to support the motion made by the right hon. the Leader of the House, but if I may say so without disrespect, I should like to support it more earnestly and emphatically than he has done. I think it is most unfortunate that at this great crisis in the Empire's history there should be any hesitancy or weakness shown in upholding the religious sentiment of the country, and emphasing by a vote of the House of Commons one of the great cardinal points in the life history of Christ. The right hon. Member for Thanet has spoken of adjourning on the Queen's birthday. I should like to remind the House that to-morrow, besides being Ascension Day, is the eighty-first birthday of our Gracious Sovereign; and that is an additional reason why the motion should be adopted. I hope that the House will not, at this time of day, show to the Empire and to the world that we are becoming careless of those religious observances of which the noble Lord has spoken. I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the motion.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

I regard these motions with regard to Ascension Day as foolish. You have hon. Members voting for them who do not go to church at all. I am told that not 10 per cent., probably not 5 per cent., of the Members of this House go to church on Ascension Day. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, say even 20 per cent. go. I wish to know why the remaining 80 per cent. should be inconvenienced, and why public business should be delayed, causing enormous loss to litigants. These motions are absurd. If one desires—as, of course, every Chris- tian does—to reverence this particular day, let him go to church at an early hour in the morning, and not delay business.


A good deal has been said with regard to the inconvenience which may be caused in connection with the Grand Committee. It may satisfy some hon. Members to know that at the last sitting of that Committee arrangements were made in view of the adoption of this resolution. I would suggest that there is greater inconvenience in changing an established custom of the House at the last moment and without full notice.


I desire to give the reasons why I do not intend to participate in the coming division. In the first place, I do not propose to vote against the motion, because I quite recognise that there are a good many hon. Gentlemen in this House who, like the hon. Member for South. Belfast, hold extremely strong and conscientious convictions upon these matters. Those convictions ought to be respected to the fullest extent, and certainly they are by me. On the other hand, it is quite true that postponing the hour of the meeting of these Committees causes a great deal of inconvenience not only to Members of this House but to a large number of people who have come over from Ireland to appear before the Committees—people who do not take the same view of the matter as the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast and his friends. There is thus something to-be said on both sides of the question. I have the greatest possible sympathy for the hon. Member for South Belfast and those who desire to assert on every occasion the strong Christian feeling of this country. That feeling is magnificent, but I must say I cannot altogether understand the action of gentlemen who upon occasions like this strongly assert their Christianity and refer to the teachings of the Divine Saviour, and do all in their power to impress the world with the idea that their Christianity is as strong as ever it was, and yet at the same time give all their assistance and support to the slaughtering and destroying of an essentially Christian people.

*MR. JASPER MORE (Shropshire, Ludlow)

I think the hon. Gentleman who opposes the motion on the ground that hon. Members do not go to church can hardly be in a position to state what percentage of Members on this side of the House do attend these services. My object in rising is to call attention to the growing practice in other countries, and especially in Germany-with which we are such good friends just now-of observing these days. I heard from an official German last night that Germans were astonished at the little attention we pay to Ascension Day. In their country all the public offices and law courts are closed, and the day is observed as a general holiday. I should like to draw the attention of the Government to that fact. I think it is a very good precedent for them to follow, even if they are not in a position to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet that the House should at once adjourn in order to duly celebrate the Queen's birthday. We know how little attention is paid to the festivals of the Church in Scotland, for, on the Scotch Local Government Act, the Member for Mid-Lanarkshire moved that it should be lawful for County Councils to sit on Christmas Day.

MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

said it was not very satisfactory to many hon. Members that already more than an hour should have been wasted in the discussion of this matter. He did not himself intend to take up much time, but he would like to point out that, during the present session, the House of Commons had done many things which had not tended to raise it in the estimation of the nation. They were like the ostrich who buried its head in the sand and thought it thus cancealed it

self from observation. It was pretty apparent why this debate was being prolonged. There were two items on the Order Paper, and the discussion on the first need not take very long.


Order, order! It is not competent for the hon. Member to discuss the Orders of the Day which are to come on after this motion.


said he did not propose to discuss them, but he thought it would be most unfortunate if the Government allowed the impression to get abroad that they had encouraged long speeches on the part of their sup-porters in order to avoid a certain Bill being debated, and to prevent discussions upon a matter in which the outside public were deeply concerned.

MR. H. C. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)

I do not intend to make a long speech, but I rise to correct an observation which fell from the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire with regard to the practice of Scotland. I find, from a volume which I hold in my hands, that the arguments now being poured forth against the observance of Ascension Day were urged with still greater violence in 1877 against the observance of Good Friday in London. I find it stated also that the closing of shops on Good Friday in London was brought about by a Scotch Bishop—


Order, order!

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 100. (Division List No. 134.)

Aird, John Bullard, Sir Harry Fletcher, Sir Henry
Arnold, Alfred Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin) Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Arrol, Sir William Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Galloway, William Johnson
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire) Gedge, Sydney
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Cecil, Evelyn (Hereford, East) Gibbons, J. Lloyd
Balcarres, Lord Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gibney, James
Baldwin, Alfred Coghill, Douglas Harry Goldsworthy, Major-General
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r.) Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd) Graham, Henry Robert
Harry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Crilly, Daniel Green, Walford D.(Wednesb'ry)
Bartley, George C. T. Curzon, Viscount Haslett, Sir James Horner
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Bill, Charles Drage, Geoffrey Hornby, Sir William Henry
Bond, Edward Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart Howard, Joseph
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Ffrench, peter Jebb, Richard Claverhouse
Boulnois, Edmund Firbank, Joseph Thomas Kennaway. Rt. Hon Sir John H.
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Fisher, William Hayes Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.
Knowles, Lees Myers, William Henry Stock, James Henry
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Newdigate, Francis Alexander Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans. Nicol, Donald Ninian Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Univ.
Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Thornton, Percy M.
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Parkes, Ebenezer Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Penn, John Tritton, Charles Ernest
Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. (Kent) Percy, Earl Warr, Augustus Frederick
Lucas-Shadwell, William Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Tauntn)
Macaleese, Daniel Power, Patrick Joseph Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Macartney, W. E. Ellison Purvis, Robert Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)
Maclure, Sir John William Remnant, James Farquharson Willox, Sir John Archibald
MacIver, Sir L. (Edinbu'gh, W.) Richards, Henry Charles Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
M'Killop, James Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Maple, Sir John Blundell Robinson, Brooke Wylie, Alexander
Marks, Henry Hananel Round, James Wyndham, George
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Sandon, Viscount Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J no. Sharpe, William Edward T.
More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Morris, Samuel Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Staylyb) Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr.
Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptfrd) Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset) William Johnston.
Muntz, Philip A. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F Flynn, James Christopher Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Allan, William (Gateshead) Fry, Lewis Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Anstruther, H. T. Goddard, Daniel Ford Pilkington, R.(Lanes, Newton)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Gold, Charles Pilkington, Sir G.A. (Lancs, S. W.)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Gourley, Sir E. Temperley Pinkerton, John
Baird, John George Alexander Harrington, Timothy Randell, David
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bethell, Commander Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Rentoul, James Alexander
Billson, Alfred Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Blake, Edward Holland, William Henry Royds, Clement Molyneux
Brigg, John Horniman, Frederick John Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Burns, John Hudson, George Bickersteth Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Burt, Thomas Hughes, Colonel Edwin Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Butcher, John George Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jacoby, James Alfred Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Spicer, Albert
Cameron Robert (Durham) Kitson, Sir James Steadman, William Charles
Causton, Richard Knight Labouchere, Henry Stone, Sir Benjamin
Crawley, Frederick Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn) Strachey, Edward
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Commins, Andrew Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Leng, Sir John Tennant, Harold John
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Lough, Thomas Wason, Eugene
Denny, Colonel MacIver, David (Liverpool) Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Dillon, John M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Donelan, Captain A. M'Cartan, Michael Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.)
Doogan, P. C. M'Kenna, Reginald Woods, Samuel
Duckworth, James Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Ellis, John Edward Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Emmott, Alfred Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Murnaghan, George Mr. Lambert and Mr. Maddison.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Nussey, Thomas Willans
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Oldroyd, Mark