HC Deb 01 March 1905 vol 142 cc101-39

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [14th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—

"Most Gracious Sovereign, —

"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. "—(Mr. Mount.)

Question again proposed.


said in moving the Amendment standing in his name he desired briefly to explain the reason this question was raised in this way rather than by way of a Bill. In the first place no Bill could deal accurately with this question unless it contained a financial provision which owing to the rule private Members could not insert, and in the second, previous experience of attempting to deal with this matter by way of Bill did not encourage the Irish Party to make further attempts in that direction. The Irish Labourers Bill brought in by the hon. Member for North Longford was a very moderate Bill making no demands on the Imperial Exchequer, but nevertheless it was bitterly opposed by the Government on Second Reading and thrown out. When the Land Act of 1903 was before the House, the Irish Members insisted that the claims of Irish labourers should be thoroughly dealt with. They failed in that, but succeeded in obtaining a promise that the claims of the Irish labourers should be dealt with in a separate Bill during the following session, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary undertook to furnish himself, in the recess, with all the details necessary for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman carried out that pledge according to the usual Dublin Castle methods, but the other pledge was not redeemed, for no attempt had been made to redeem it. A Bill was indicated in the King's Speech in the previous year, but it turned out to be a very bad Bill. It was introduced under the ten-minute rule and the Second Reading was deferred to the second week in June. It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, where it was kept until the last week in July. It then came back to the House, when owing to the fact that certain Amendments had been carried in Committee, against the Government, the Chief Secretary refused to proceed further with it. From that day to this not the slightest indication had been given by the Government of their intention to take any steps whatever to redeem the pledge they gave. There could not be a more striking illustration of the callous indifference of the British Parliament to the needs of the Irish people or of its incapacity to legislate for Ireland. This Bill urgently needed was shamelessly abandoned, because in the course of a long session the Government would not grant a few sittings for its consideration. The situation in Ireland was truly deplorable. Day by day the flower of the population was flying from the shores of Ireland, and although the remedies lay at the hand of the Government it obstinately refused to apply them. Of course, Home Rule was the only real remedy, but still much might be done to mitigate this great evil by improving the condition of the working classes and keeping them on the soil. The Irish were accused of disloyalty, but how could people be loyal to a Government which looked calmly on while their country bled to death without making the slightest attempt to bind up its wounds. If it was desired to preserve the remnant of the Irish race there was no time to spare. Money would, of course be necessary, but there ought to be no difficulty with regard to that, because in common fairness, as the British Government was the cause of all this, the British Treasury should bear the burden. The trouble would never have arisen except for the ill-fated Act of Union for, under an Irish Parliament, Irish industries would have prospered and the Irish labourer have been given a foothold in the land of his birth. He begged to move.

MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.),

in seconding the Motion, said it was because of the magnitude of the question and the fact that thousands of the best people were leaving Ireland, that the Nationalist Members took this matter up. These labourers were wanted at home to develop the country, but in order that they might do that it was necessary that they should be paid a wage equivalent to that which they could earn elsewhere. It was also necessary to give them comfortable homes and plots of land on reasonable terms. It was impossible to pay the wages given in other countries and give them better accommodation without assistance, and therefore they asked that the Government should come to the assistance of Ireland by making a grant which would assist her in keeping these people, whose services she required, at home. Money was required in this matter. The Government charged £4 16s. 10d. for £100 under the Labourers Act, and £3 5s. under the Land Act. If there was to be any distinction drawn between the two one would have thought that the poor man would have had the benefit of it. But the explanation was that the landlords had no interest in the labourers question. Had they been interested the rate of interest would have been reduced and a bonus added. Year after year in this House Irish Members had experience of shattered hopes and broken pledges, but never had they had a more shocking experience of broken pledges than the Labourers Bill of the previous year. In 1903 the Irish Members accepted the pledge given by the Chief Secretary to deal with this matter in the forthcoming session, because they thought the right hon. Gentleman was sincere; they went to Ireland and pacified the labourers there, whom they found discontented, and made them hopeful, and what had been the result? Betrayal again. The Chief Secretary sent his inspectors round to get the information, but although they had asked for the inspectors' reports to be laid upon the Table their request had been refused. Like the Land Bill of the previous year, the Labourers Bill was held over to the last days of the session. It was then sent upstairs, where the Amendments proposed by the Nationalist Members were carried by majorities of seven to one. Those majorities were composed of Nationalists, Unionists, Liberals, and Tories, but in spite of the unanimity with which those Amendments were carried the Chief Secretary refused to go on with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said before the Land Bill was passed that unless all were agreed upon it the land question could not be settled. The right hon. Gentleman made use of the same words almost on the question of education, but in regard to the Labourers Bill the right hon. Gentleman had no occasion to say it. Everybody voted one way, in favour of the Amendments moved by Nationalist Members. All Parties were united in the desire to see justice done to the Irish labourer except the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and the result was the Bill was withdrawn. No reason was given. So far as could be gathered, the Treasury had stepped in and said it was not prepared to give money at a cheap rate of interest. It was perfectly shameful that a small concession could not have been made to benefit the Irish labourers. The hon. Member for East Waterford tried to impress on the Government that the clauses were not sufficient, and the Nationalist Members proposed Amendments, which were scouted.

From a Return issued on December 31st last, it appeared that the applications for loans in Ireland under the Land Purchase Act was 31,651, the amount of money required being £13,058,043. The number of applications granted was 8,791, and the loans sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners amounted to £4,408,829. Two days ago he asked the Chief Secretary whether the Land Commissioners in the purchase of estates had brought into operation the statutory powers which enabled them to make provision for the labourers on the estates. What had happened in this matter showed how incompetent any English Government was to manage the affairs of Ireland when they would not attend to the advice of hon. Members who did understand them. While there were 31,651 applications for loans by tenant farmers there were only thirty-six labourers recommended. He could not get a better example of the stupidity of the men who sat on the bench opposite in dealing with Irish affairs. Experience of the Labourers Act showed that it had been cumbersome, costly, and tedious. He knew from his own experience in connection with the working of the Act that there was a great deal of red tape practised by the Local Government Board, and it took about five years to complete a scheme. In these matters they had generally to encounter the opposition of the landlords. The local boards had to provide the expenses of the inspectors who were sent down, although they were not allowed any voice in their selection. The result was that landlords' solicitors volunteered to appear when the inquiries were held and they opposed the erection of cottages. And why? For the simple reason that they knew that their expenses would have to be paid. An overwhelming majority of the men who held inquiries were in sympathy with the landlords, and for the slightest reason the applicant was turned out of Court. Some of the tenant farmers had not been so generous as they might have been, but he thought the majority had done very well. What they wanted principally in these cases was to get loans at cheap rates. They claimed that the Irish labourer had as good a right as, if not more right, than the bloated landlords to get money at 3¼ per cent. They wanted also—and this was very important—to get a simplification of the methods of procedure, and to get the red tape done away with. His belief was that while this matter was in the hands of the Local Government Board in Dublin they might as well think of turning the tide by blowing their breath as to think that they were going to get rid of the official red tape with which they were so much bound up.

The representatives of Ulster last year were enthusiastic for the Labourers Bill, and they were anxious now that a measure should be introduced. A few figures in regard to the position of Ulster in this matter as compared with other parts of Ireland might be interesting to the House. The number of cottages authorised to be built in Munster was 11,435, while the number authorised to be built in Ulster was 1,239. He might mention that in county Tipperary alone the number of cottages built was 1,169. In that county they had done their part at any rate. They expected that when the Labourers Bill fell through last year a Bill would have been introduced this year on the same subject. Here they were, a fortnight after the opening of Parliament, and what had been the experience? Ireland blocked the way once more, and it would continue to do so until they got their rights conceded. Much as the Nationalist Members might have cause to complain of the conduct of the Chief Secretary on this question and on other great Irish questions, they must admit that he approached them in a very different manner from the Irish Attorney-General. During his experience in that House he had never heard the Attorney-General utter a kind or sympathetic sentence in connection with any question which they had brought up. While they could make allowances for the prejudices which they believed to be due to ignorance of Irish sentiment and affairs, there was no person more distasteful to Irishmen than an anti-Irishman. The Irish representatives were firmly resolved to force a solution of this great labour problem. Whoever might be the occupants of the Government front bench they were resolved on fighting it out. The position of the Irish labourers differed very much from that of the English labourers. They or their fathers had been the victims of the tyrannical and ruthless landlord system of Ireland, a system which the Prime Minister had declared to be the very worst in the world. The Irish labourers were as entitled to good treatment as any section of the Irish community, and the Irish Members were determined to do all in their power to help them.

Amendment proposed— At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that this House expresses regret that no promise has been made to deal during the present Session with the pressing need for the improvement of the condition of the labourers in Ireland, notwithstanding the complete unanimity which exists upon the Question amongst all sections of the Irish representation. '"—(Captain Donelan.)

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

MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

said there was very little to quarrel with in the terms of the Amendment, or with the speeches in which it had been moved and seconded. He did not agree with the closing sentences of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment. He could state on behalf of his Unionist colleagues, who represented Irish constituencies, that they had very great sympathy with this Amendment. They must all admit the hard case of the labourers in Ireland, and he believed that in all parts of the House they were anxious for an opportunity of remedying the existing condition of things. He thought it was on the Government side of the House that sympathy was first practically expressed with the condition of the Irish labourers. [NATIONALIST laughter.] He would not quarrel with hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to that. He did know that they were united on both sides of the House on the question of the farm labourers in Ireland. When the Chief Secretary introduced his Land Bill a great number of appeals were made to him to do something practical and definite for the labourers as well as the tenant farmers. The result was that the Chief Secretary promised in the most definite way a large and generous measure for dealing with the labourers. Last session a Bill was actually produced, but it was utterly and totally inadequate to fulfil either the promise which was made by the Government or the pledges which were given by Members who represented Irish agricultural constituencies. It was condemned in every quarter of the House, but it had, at all events, this merit, that it created for perhaps the first time in Irish history a united Irish Party. It emerged from the Committee in such a shattered and battered condition that it was rapidly withdrawn by the Chief Secretary on behalf of the Government. This session, unfortunately, there had been no attempt whatever to deal with this great question, but the urgent need for something being done speedily remained. He was afraid that there was no attempt made to deal with this matter during the recess, because the Chief Secretary was engaged in other schemes not perhaps so fruitful of good for Ireland as this one would have been. Hon. Members from Ireland, to whatever part they belonged, were bound to try to get pledges fulfilled in as near a future as they could achieve that result.

If this Amendment had been moved in the form of a Resolution the Irish Unionists, much as they naturally disliked any Resolution coming from the benches opposite, would have felt compelled to vote for it, but as the form of the Resolution had been altered and as it now came in the form of an Amendment to the Address they could not vote for it. If carried it would turn out the Government. He was not sure that that particular result would break the hearts of hon. Members sitting opposite, but it would put somebody else in office. He and his hon. friends could not forget that lately a very definite statement and a very definite pledge was given by the Leader of the Opposition that he still adhered to the old form of Home Rule introduced by Mr. Gladstone. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that? The present condition of things was bad and trying enough, but the Unionist Members from Ulster felt that there might be something worse. The right hon. Gentleman declared in clear and definite terms that he intended, if he got into power, to hand them over to the domination of Home Rule. Therefore they felt that they could not vote for the Amendment. What they knew of the history and aims of hon. Members opposite made them feel that they could not go into the lobby with them in support of the Amendment. While, however, they could not vote with hon. Members opposite, they felt that until some more definite pledge of repentance was given by the Unionist Government to the Unionist Party they could not vote with it. Therefore on this occasion, as they had generally done of late on Irish affairs, Ulster Members as a Party would abstain.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said the speech to which they had just listened was a delightful example of that illogical and inconsistent but highly patriotic spirit in which some hon. Gentlemen approached the consideration of anything relating to the welfare of Ireland, and especially the misery, degradation and poverty in which the unfortunate Irish labourer was sunk. They acknowledged that the condition of the labourer in Ulster was more deplorable than in any other part of Ireland, yet because the Leader of the Opposition, who might or might not come into power, made an observation last week in regard to Home Rule, the representatives of Ulster could not vote for the Amendment which was intended to advance the cause of the labourers. There was something melancholy in having to bring forward an Amendment of this kind. The grievance of the Irish labourers was a fact that stood out beyond all controversy, and all Parties, irrespective of race, politics and religion, recognised that the demand now made for a remedy was urgent, and yet the Government did not dare to come forward last year or this year with an adequate remedy. The young manhood and the young womanhood of Ireland were leaving the country on account of the want of employment, and the Government would not provide a remedy for the deplorable state of things which they themselves recognised as existing. In the King's Speech last year a Labourers Bill was promised, and it was introduced on March 9th, under the ten-minutes rule which limited discussion, but even then the defects of the measure were pointed out by the Leader of the Irish Party. The Second Reading was fixed for March 21st, but it was not taken till June 24th. Notwithstanding urgent entreaties from both sides of the House, the Government kept the Bill locked up for four months, when the most valuable moments of the session were passing by. Irish Members of all sections were anxious to facilitate the measure in every possible way, but facilities were not given, and on the last day of the session the Government withdrew the Bill which had been amended by the Irish representatives with the help of their English allies. It was a sad and striking commentary on the ability of an Imperial Parliament to legislate properly and satisfactorily for Ireland. The Chief Secretary very often professed great sympathy with Ireland and for Irish measures. He was not inclined to speak lightly of the sympathy of anyone, but sympathy which found expression in such a poor practical manner was not of much use to the Irish labourers. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had been anxious to see the position of the labourers improved and when the Bill was sent upstairs it was all very well to say nice things about them. But why was the Bill dropped? It was not a pleasant thing to speak a bad word about one's own fellow-countryman, but from bitter experience he was bound to do so in regard to the general attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland. He had been many years in the House, and on no matter concerning Ireland, were it great or small, had he ever heard the right hon. Gentleman say one word of sympathy towards any class of the working population of Ireland. He would conclude by quoting an observation made by a distinguished man in regard to the appalling and distressing emigration from Ireland— Every strong and energetic Irishman who leaves these shores—and it is the strongest and most energetic who are leaving them—is a valuable asset substracted from our national wealth. For the chief wealth of every nation is to be found not in its native products, but in the living brains and muscles, without which no native products, however valuable, can be turned to good account. Is this a process that we can view with equanimity? There can be no doubt as to the answer, and if there was a policy which could justly be described as 'penny wise and pound foolish' it is the policy which would withhold from Ireland the funds that may be required to enable her sons to find remunerative employment at home. These words were uttered in regard to emigration by Lord Dudley, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.


said that the question of the state of the labourers in Ireland was as important and pressing to-day as it was two or even five years ago. As the present Government which held power in this country was visibly drawing to an end of its career, it might almost appear at first sight not worth while at that time to draw attention to the woes and misfortunes of the labourers. There were men on the opposite side of the House who would soon be in power, and although his remarks might not have great effect upon them they might be of some use. At any rate he hoped that when they came into power they would look to Ireland and see what was required to alleviate the condition of the agricultural labourers there. The present Chief Secretary had dealt with this matter in very much the same way as he had dealt with another matter lately before the House, viz., with a considerable amount of reserve and a minimum amount of straightforwardness. In 1903, during the debates on the Land Bill, the Chief Secretary told them that, owing to the exigencies of time and the state of public business, he could not deal fully with the labourers' question in that measure, but he promised to bring in a Bill in the following session. Although the Irish Members were disappointed they accepted the Chief Secretary's word, as they were all anxious to secure the passage of the Land Bill, and at the end of the session they returned to their constituencies and did their best to lighten the disappointment of the labourers by telling them, on the strength of the promise of the Chief Secretary, that the whole question would be dealt with exhaustively in the following session. However, the Chief Secretary only kept his promise to the letter and not in the spirit. The right hon. Gentleman introduced a Bill which everybody knew was absolutely worthless, containing a number of provisions which nobody asked for, and leaving out most important amendments in the law which had been demanded for years; and bad as the Bill was, it contained in Section 13 a provision which was nothing more nor less. than a covert invitation to hon. Gentlemen opposite to do a little barefaced robbery. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh, oh!"] That was the only good point in the Bill from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Bill was so skilfully drawn that it could be wrecked by the Chief Secretary at any moment and the blame laid on hon. Gentlemen opposite, or on himself and his colleagues. The loss that would have been incurred by the operation of Clause 13 would have fallen to the greatest extent on the counties of Antrim, Down, and Armagh, and the representatives of these counties would have been very foolish indeed if they had allowed that provision to go through. Clause 13 was withdrawn, and then there was a perfect avalanche of Amendments of hon. Members opposite which would have reduced the Bill to a shapeless mass.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

said that the Amendments of the Irish Party had all been put down before that change was announced; and the Bill was withdrawn by the Government because an Amendment was carried which was supported by the hon. Gentleman.


said he could only repeat that the Bill was so cleverly drawn that it was bound to be killed by one side or the other. In fact, it ought to have been killed at the outset, it was so bad. He supposed the Chief Secretary thought he had fulfilled his pledge by introducing the Bill, but Irishmen of all shades of opinion knew that they had been trifled with and humbugged. Whatever praises of landlords and tenants the right hon. Gentleman carried away with him when he left Ireland, he would only carry from Irish labourers a record of disappointed hopes. For no class of his fellow-countrymen had less been done, and it was a class little able to make its voice felt. He trusted that, by the introduction of labourers' associations and their better organisation, the time would shortly come when it would be impossible for any Government any longer to disregard the claims and demands of the Irish labourers.

MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)

Or of any supposed friends of theirs.


said that he might be permitted to say what were, in his opinion, the chief respects in which the labourers' code ought to be amended. In the first place, there must be cheaper money; then the simplification of procedure; next the provision of guarantees that the Acts should be properly administered; and lastly, on which he laid particular stress, that provision should be made by which deserving labourers would be able to become the owners of their houses and their plots of land. The labourers' question was part and parcel of the land question, and until that had been fully settled it would be impossible to say that the Irish land question had been definitely set at rest. As to cheaper money, in counties where the Exchequer Grant had been exhausted, and consequently where the expense of administering the Labourers Acts had to be borne by the rates, the existing rate of interest for advances was so high that it involved a very heavy burden upon the ratepayers which District Councils were reluctant to impose. He did not pretend that a labourer's cottage and plot of land was as good a security as a large farm, but the present rate of interest was altogether too high compared with that charged under the Land Purchase Act of 1903. There was no reason why the labourers should not have the benefit of a portion of the bonus. Again, everyone who had had to do with the Labourers Acts had been appalled by the number of superfluous and useless proceedings necessary to put them into operation. No fewer than nineteen different processes had to be gone through for the provision of a cottage and plot costing from £70 to £100, and the expense of these frequently amounted to £30 or £40. There was very great room for improvement there. He admitted that the policy of allowing labourers to become the owners of their own houses and plots of land was a controversial question, but he himself saw no reason in the world why they should not. It would be a great inducement to them to stay on the land, especially in the South and West of Ireland. He knew it would be his duty to oppose on many points the Government which would succeed the present one, but he hoped that when they succeeded to power they would introduce a labourers' measure with which he could agree; and if they adopted the numerous suggestions which had been made from different parts of the House it would give him great pleasure to assist them in passing it into law.

*MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.)

said he desired to congratulate his hon. friend on the manner in which he had moved the Amendment. He was of opinion that the labour question in Ireland was just as important as the land question. The two appeared to him to be bound up in each other; and one could not be finally settled without settling the other also. He regarded the labour question just as he regarded the land question as of national concern; and he firmly believed that until the labourers got decent houses with suitable plots attached to enable them to live in comfort, emigration would continue to the great loss of the nation. It was with view to checking this deadly plague of emigration that he hoped the labourers question would be settled by some Government in the near future. Indeed, he thought the Government ought to have spared them the necessity of bringing forward this Amendment; because, as his hon. friend had said, when the Land Act of 1903 was passing through the House the Chief Secretary led them to believe that the Government would tackle the question in the following session and deal with it in a drastic manner. He himself left the House at the end of that session under the impression that the Government would bring in a comprehensive Labourers Bill the following year. They all knew what happened; and they knew how the Government acted, how they disappointed and betrayed the labourers by introducing a worthless Bill, the only saving clause in which—Clause 13—was withdrawn at the instance of Members from the North of Ireland. After that the Bill was worthless. It would not have reduced the enormous expenditure in connection with the administration of the Acts; it would not have simplified the procedure; and it would not have provided cheap money for the working of the Acts. When his colleagues and himself tried to make something of that Bill by improving its financial clauses the Chief Secretary withdrew it altogether. He characterised that act then, and would repeat it now, as shabby and contemptible. It was a strong reminder to him that they should not rely on the promises of British Ministers, but should work for themselves. They were told that the Government could not get the money for the Labourers Acts on Land Act terms; but the Chief Secretary, when the Land Bill was in Committee, did not inform them of that when he induced them to postpone the labourers' question. He should like to know from the Attorney-General what there was to prevent the Government from getting money for the labourers on Land Act terms? One was as great a public question as the other. The Government could get plenty of money for other purposes, but when it was a question of improving the position of the working man in Ireland, so that he might live in comfort, no money was to be forthcoming. Last year hope was held out because the question was mentioned in the King's Speech; but this year not a word was said about it. How shabby all that appeared to be on the part of the Government. He mentioned these facts to show how necessary it was to bring forward this Amendment. He regretted that the rules of the House prevented private Members from introducing Bills containing financial proposals; otherwise his hon. friend would have brought in a Bill.

As for the merits of the Amendment, he himself had attended many labour meetings in the South of Ireland, especially in his own constituency, and had spoken to resolutions proposed at them; and he might safely say that he knew what the labourers wanted in the South of Ireland. In the first place, they wanted the Labourers Acts simplified, and the cost of administration reduced; they also wanted an extension of power under local and public control. Everyone knew that there was too much red tape about the Labourers Acts. Sixteen different steps had to be taken before a scheme could be completed, and after that the time taken for carrying out the scheme was altogether too long, occupying as it did, three, four, or even five years. Then, again, too much of the ratepayers' money was wasted in official expenses. The cost of proving title was very great; indeed, sometimes as great as the value of the plot. He believed that the same routine had to be observed to prove title to an acre or half acre as to prove title to an estate. All that enormous expense had to be borne by the ratepayers. The labourers wanted to have these matters rectified, together with other defects in the Acts. Further, the labourers in his constituency wanted, after the claims of the evicted tenants had been satisfied, to see the grass lands purchased by the Estates Commissioners divided up into plots and given to them. They wanted the land at a fair price and at the same interest as under the Act of 1903. Anyone who had studied the question fairly and impartially would admit that these demands were not extravagant. He Advocated them because he believed them to be just. He considered the question to be most pressing. Everyone knew that Irish workers, especially agricultural labourers, were flying from the shores of Ireland like wild geese, to seek a livelihood in foreign lands which they could not get at home. It was their duty to try and help those who could not help themselves, and it was in the interests of Ireland that something should be done in this direction. If Ireland had a Parliament of her own the question would not be delayed twenty-four hours, because everyone was agreed that it was a matter which should be dealt with at once. The remedy for this state of affairs was not very far to find. Let them give the labourers plots of land at a fair price on Land Act terms, and he ventured to say that the problem would be solved. In that way they would be doing a great national work by raising the status of the working man from a condition of squalor and want to that of happiness and comfort, which would instil into his mind the principles of thrift, self-respect, and sobriety. They would make him something more than a hewer of wood and a drawer of water. They would revive in him the old Celtic spirit, a love of home and country; thus the spirit of discontent which now exists would pass away, and Ireland would keep her sons at home, to work for her prosperity and regeneration.

MR. LUNDON (Limerick, E.)

said that many speakers had referred to the present methods of procedure, but in his own constituency they had built a thousand cottages, whereas comparatively few cottages had been built in Antrim and other counties in the North, although the procedure was exactly the same. There was too much of the ex-officio element in the North; but they in the South were sound, honest farmers and carried out the law. They had been told that a great amount of expense had to be incurred in proving title; but an inspector could be brought down for 150 cases just as well as for one, and the cost would be the same. Last year they endeavoured to improve the Labourers Bill in Committee, but the Chief Secretary whittled it away and at last withdrew it body and bones. They pleaded that the Bill should be carried through, as did also the hon. Member for South Belfast, but the Chief Secretary was not to be cajoled by the hon. Member for South Belfast or the eloquence of the Irish Members. What they wanted mainly was cheap money to carry out the Acts on the same terms as the Land Act. There had never been a failure on the part of the labourers to discharge their liabilities, although the Acts had been in operation for twenty-two years. He did not see why money should not be obtained as cheaply under the Labourers Acts as under the Land Act. At present his constituency was at a standstill with regard to all the Acts; they were in a position in which they could neither lead nor drive. There was not a word in the King's Speech about Ireland, although there was a covert insinuation that her representation would be lowered; but if there was any attempt in that direction, they would know the reason why. Although the Acts had been halting and lame, still they conferred considerable benefits on the labourers.

He remembered the time when a man with a decent suit of clothes would not have been safe in entering a labourer's cottage, as soot was always dropping from the roof. During his travels in America he had seen in the Southern States the slaves described in "Uncle Tom's Cabin"; he saw them herded together, but they were well-clothed and well-fed. He had seen labourers in Ireland with their wives and children huddled together in one little room; he knew of cases of that sort to-day; and yet the great English nation had not one word of sympathy for them; no money could be found for them, although millions could be found to deprive a small country in South Africa of its liberty. Money could be found for every man but the Irishman. The Celts were still going with a vengeance, as in 1847, but they would return with a vengeance also. The Irish Members would continue to press this question to the front. They had plenty of land in Ireland if they could only get fair play. They had ranches miles in extent on the eleven months system with one herd tending perhaps 500 cattle. Five hundred labourers could be employed on that ranch. In his own constituency seventy-three acres of land was to be disposed of, and there were seventy- three labourers to be provided with homes. He suggested to the landlord that each labourer should be given one acre; but he refused. The land was put up for sale, but not a perch of it was sold. Now there were thirty-five labourers on that land on fair terms. That was how he managed that landlord. All they really wanted was the loan of a few pounds to be paid back by instalments. Under the Land Act there was not a farthing in every £100 lent due to the Government; and in like manner the labourers would also pay back. He wished that the North of Ireland was acting with the South in this matter. They could not ride two horses at the same time, especially when one was trotting to the sound of the Orange drum and the other was facing towards the sunny South.

MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)

heartily associated himself with the timely demand that had been made upon the Government on behalf of a very needful class. The circumstances under which the Amendment had to be discussed were to be regretted, because the hopes and prospects of the labourers had been blighted by the promises made by the Government when the Land Bill was before the House. The Land Act would never have had its passage facilitated by all Parties had it not been for the definite promise of a large and comprehensive measure dealing with the labourers' question. The speeches that had been made by both Irish Parties really pledged them to support any Motion or effort made to better the condition of the labourers. They were honourably bound, from what they knew of the real facts, not to close their eyes to the legitimacy of their claims. When the Bill went up to the Standing Committee the Government must have understood that no Labourers Bill would be acceptable that did not contain reasonable financial clauses. The absence of these clauses was evidence to him that the promises were hypocritical. No other conclusion could be drawn. The labourers were a very industrious class and certainly deserved great credit for the manner in which they had organised themselves and the modesty with which they had put forward their demands. As to the sympathy of the Chief Secretary, that sympathy had been repudiated because it had not been carried into practice. Where there was sympathy there should be practice.


Then vote for this Motion.


With all respect to the hon. and learned Member, I am not aware that he is my leader.


Who is your leader?


My own conscience, and that is more than many hon. Gentlemen opposite can say. Continuing, the hon. Member submitted that the Attorney-General had shown no tinge of sympathy whatever in this matter. So far as he himself was concerned, there was no man on those benches more desirous to solve the problem, because he knew the life these poor fellows led and the hovels they inhabited, which were not only uncomfortable but insanitary, and certainly held out no inducement for any young man who could find better employment elsewhere to stay in Ireland. No doubt many young fellows emigrated because of these very undesirable conditions. The Bill of last session was wilfully obstructed. [NATIONALIST cries of "No. "] The hon. Member for Waterford said he would not take the responsibility of rejecting the Second Reading and prevent it going into Grand Committee, but every Member agreed that the efforts of the Government to give them a measure acceptable to the labourers were futile, and, as a consequence, they obstructed the Bill. The whole crux of the question was reached when they came to the financial proposals. Members from both sides of the House then put their heads together to see if they could make the Government favourable towards the financial difficulties. It was then that they carried an Amendment by an overwhelming majority, and the Chief Secretary withdrew the Bill on behalf of the Government. That was in the face of a distinct pledge, and it placed every Irish Member in a very false position before his constituents. Surely it ought not to be impossible for the Government to make some amends whereby simplification of pro- cedure could be attained. If the Government lasted another session he did not believe they would pass a Bill. They had broken their promise, and they were humiliated as much as they could be. It was a scandal that Irish Members should have to tell their constituents that they had cried in the ears of the Government, that they had knocked at their door, and that when it was opened there was no one in. He urged the Government to make a clear and straightforward statement as to whether it was their intention seriously to grapple with this question, and whether the labourers were to have any hope in this matter from a Unionist Government.


regretted the unavoidable absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland for several reasons—first, because if he were present he could himself answer for the promises he had made; and, secondly, because he would have had an opportunity of appreciating at their true value former expressions of sympathy and gratitude from hon. Members opposite, who now almost accused him of stooping to introduce a Bill which he never meant to pass. As for himself, he had been accused of having no sympathy with any Irish object or class; but those who knew him knew that that was false, and he should never go out of his way to win the approval of those who made such accusations. From the course of the discussion it was obvious that the Gentlemen who had spoken had two different objects in view. Some of them apparently desired that a scheme should be framed, which should be embodied in an Act and passed, providing better accommodation for labourers according to the requirements of the district, in the words of the Act of 1883. Others would not be satisfied unless some provision were made under which the grazing lands of Ireland should be divided up into small uneconomical holdings and sold to the tenants.


said what they wanted was that, after the claims of the evicted tenants had been satisfied, the untenanted grazing land should be purchased by the Estates Commissioners, broken up into small holdings, and the labourers given as much land as would feed a cow and provide corn and vegetables in them.


said possibly he had done the hon. Member an injustice then in saying uneconomical holdings, the test being that a man should keep a cow, though possibly not extending to the historic three acres. He only referred to the matter to point out that his right hon. friend's promise, made at the passing of the Act of 1903, only applied to the first class of questions—namely, the provision of adequate accommodation for the housing of the labourers in each particular district. It was undoubtedly true that his right hon. friend did make a promise to bring in a comprehensive measure. He brought in a measure, and, although his right hon. friend never concealed from the House that he was unable to get money at a cheap rate, so far as the other portions of the scheme were concerned, he confidently submitted that that measure, as brought in, was a great improvement on all the previous Labourers Acts, and did a great deal to cheapen and simplify procedure. The first thing the Bill proposed was to place the county councils in the position of the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board in the position occupied in recent legislation by the Committee of the Privy Council. He was, therefore, astonished when the gentlemen who clamoured most loudly for popular right proved to be the most strenuous objectors to the placing of the administration of that measure in the hands of the local authorities. In addition to that, Amendments were put down which would have had the effect of considerably cheapening and expediting procedure. But what was the fate of the Bill? There was no opposition to the Second Reading.


We divided the House against it.


Said that, at any rate, there was no real opposition. The Bill then went upstairs, and when only the ninth line had been reached it was arranged that a new financial clause proposing to enable local authorities to borrow in the open market for a term of sixty years should be brought up and discussed in priority to the other Amendments. On the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for North Down, an Amendment was carried substituting eighty years for sixty years, and that at once put an end to the Bill, as it was obviously impossible to get money for such a term on the security offered. He did not think his right hon. friend had been fairly treated in this master. Hon. Members opposite asked why, if money could be obtained for the purchase of the land, it could not be obtained for the labourers? He thoroughly sympathised with the labourers, but the vehemence with which Irish Nationalist Members were now pressing the claims of the labourers was in strange contrast with the silence which was observed on the labourers' claims so long as they were working for the tenant farmers. [Cries of "No, no!"] His right hon. friend never promised in 1903 that he would introduce a Bill which would enable them to get money at the same rate as it was got for the Land Purchase Bill. Hon. Members asked why they could not get money for the Labourers Bill at the same rate as for the Land Bill, but they seemed to forget that the rate on the Land Bill had turned out much more expensive than there was reason to expect. His right hon. friend had used all the pressure on the Treasury that was possible, but the Treasury had refused to give money at a rate at all corresponding to the rate given on the Land Bill. The money could not now be obtained except at an enormous sacrifice and outlay to the British taxpayer. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: And the Irish taxpayer.] He thought that was an adequate reason why the Treasury had refused to grant money. which could not be obtained even at a rate at all corresponding to the rate at which they were willing to advance money for the purchase of land, to effect a settlement of the land question in Ireland.

The hon. Member who moved this Motion said that there was a pressing need for dealing with this question, and it ought to be met this year by legislation. He wished to call the attention of the House to the progress which had been made up to the present moment. Notwithstanding the fact that the Bill of last year fell through, the number of cottages authorised during twenty-two years up to January 31st,1905, was 23,118, and since then provisional orders had been made for 1,628 more. The interesting thing about this was that the progress since January 31st was at a greatly increased rate. Besides this, within the last ten months 2,431 cottages had been authorised, at an expense of £200,000, and gratuities to the amount of £323,000 had been granted.


What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by gratuities?


said these gratuities were advances made out of the Local Taxation Account. He thought it was satisfactory to know that notwithstanding the fact that the Bill had fallen through, some progress had been made, and it had been made at a much more rapid rate than at any period since the year 1883. Although it was most desirable that this question should be settled, the falling-through of last year's Bill had not deterred local bodies from taking advantage of the Acts now in operation. He still thought that the measure introduced last year could have been made a good measure, although it fell short of providing money at a cheap rate of interest.

He had been asked to give them some assurance in regard to a Bill to be introduced this year. He could give the assurance that the Government would be willing to bring in their last Bill amended in such a way as to expedite still further the carrying out of the scheme; but he could not give an assurance that money would be provided at a cheaper rate. To that project the Treasury were opposed. He wished that he were able to give a more satisfactory response to the appeals that had been made. The hon. Member opposite had stated that he was forced to bring forward this Motion because he could not bring in a Bill dealing with financial matters. He did not see what there was to prevent his hon. friend bringing in a Bill, and he should be very pleased if he would do so. He thought those who talked so flippantly about the ease with which the procedure in regard to labourers' cottages could be cheapened and expedited would find that the task was not so easy if they endeavoured to approach it in practice. In the first place they must have the district council as the local authority to work the scheme, and there must be some authority above them to approve of what they did. They must also have some means of ascertaining what compensation was to be paid to those persons whose land was taken. This was not such a simple thing as some hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House seemed to think. In many cases he thought the compensation given for land was extravagant, but he thought a great advance could be made in cheapening the process if they provided a model cottage which could be followed without the necessity of having separate plans in each particular case. In regard to the charge that the Unionist Party were not anxious to promote this reform he wished to point out that most important Acts dealing with this very question were passed by the present Government in 1891,1892, and 1896; and in the Land Act of last year clauses were inserted to secure the more effectual housing of agricultural labourers. He was sorry that he was not able to give them any further assurances in regard to the introduction of a measure dealing with this question.


said that it was to be regretted that the debate had taken place in the absence of the Chief Secretary, who had given the pledges which they complained had not been fulfilled. Those pledges were followed up by the introduction of a useless Bill. For his own part, he did not intend occupying the time of the House in making an attack, especially under existing circumstances, upon an absent man. He would, however, speak of the Government as a whole. He congratulated the Attorney-General for Ireland on the way in which he had conducted his portion of the debate. He had more than once, on similar occasions, had to complain of the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman and the amount of irritation he was in the habit of importing into Irish debates. On the whole he thought on this occasion that, for him, he had been fairly successful. As far as he could remember the right hon. Gentleman had only made one irritating and somewhat insulting challenge across the floor of the House. He had said that the vehemence with which the Irish Members were pressing the claims of the labourers was in strange contrast with the silence which was observed on the labourers' claims so long as they were working for the tenant farmers. That was an irritating and a most offensive insinuation, and one which had not one particle of foundation. If the right hon. Gentleman were a new Member this insinuation might be excusable, but he had sat in the House for many years, and had witnessed the Irish Party introducing Labourers Bills for the last twenty years, and he (the Attorney-General) had taken a very prominent part in opposing and securing the rejection of those Bills. Therefore, he thought the taunt which he had flung across the floor of the House was quite unmerited. These Irish questions were, no doubt, irritating to English Members, but this was chiefly owing to the fact that they did not understand them. They were so vehement on the labourers' question, first because the labourers of Ireland, an industrious and hard-working class of men, had been inhabiting squalid cabins, and they desired to remove that reproach from their country and to give decent habitations to this deserving class; and, secondly, because of the great part which the labourers had played in the political history of their country.

The right hon. Gentleman gave an erroneous account of the claims of the labourers. He said there was apparently one section of Irish Members who were asking merely for the amelioration of the conditions of the labourers, and another section who were asking to have the labourers turned into occupiers of small uneconomic holdings. He did not believe that in any part of Ireland there was any feeling in favour of the second coarse suggested. What was desired was that labourers, as a class, should not be shut out from any access to the land and from any possibility of rising to the position of farmers. In the Labourers Bill of last year that opportunity was provided, and it was one of the few clauses in the Bill that were worth having. The Bill of last year was a worthless Bill. Irish opinion was united on that point. He was told there were 250,000 labourers in Ireland, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked them to congratulate themselves on the fact that 23,000 of them had obtained cottages in the course of twenty-three years! That was an absurd claim to put forward. What they desired was to amend the Labourers Acts so as to make the procedure rapid and cheap. At present, for every labourer's cottage built, the ratepayers of a district had to pay an annual fine of between £5 and £6 a year, because, although they could get money for land purchase at 2¾ per cent., they could not get money under 4 per cent, for building labourers' cottages. He did not know what the hon. Member for Belfast was going to do in regard to this Amendment, whether or not he was going to walk out when the division was called. He had listened with great interest to the speech he had made in which he denounced men who had nothing but words of sympathy for the Irish labourers, and would not take any sympathetic action. The words of the hon. Member for South Belfast were sympathetic, but was he going to take any sympathetic action. It was moonshine and nonsense to pretend that by voting for this Amendment they would be installing a Home Rule Government in office. He trusted that the labourers of Ireland would appraise that kind of sympathy at its proper value, and refuse to give their support to those Gentlemen who got up in the House of Commons and denounced the Chief Secretary for not taking sympathetic action in regard to the labourers, yet were afraid to back their opinions by their votes, and who walked ignominiously out of the House when the division came on.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes,184; Noes,228. (Division List No. 12.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Nussey, Thomas Willans
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Gilhooly, James O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Allen, Charles P. Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Ambrose, Robert Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Griffith, Ellis J. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Dowd, John
Barlow, John Emmott Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Barran, Rowland Hirst Hammond, John O'Malley, William
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Harcourt, Lewis O'Mara, James
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bell, Richard Harrington, Timothy O'Shee, James John
Benn, John Williams Harwood, George Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)
Black, Alexander William Hayden, John Patrick Pirie, Duncan V.
Blake, Edward Helme, Norval Watson Power, Patrick Joseph
Boland, John Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Rea, Russell
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Higham, John Sharpe Reckitt, Harold James
Brigg, John Holland, Sir William Henry Reddy, M.
Bright, Allan Heywood Horniman, Frederick John Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Johnson, John Rickett, J. Compton
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Joicey, Sir James Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Burke, E. Haviland Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Burns, John Joyce, Michael Roche, John
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kearley, Hudson E. Rose, Charles Day
Caldwell, James Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W Runciman, Walter
Cameron, Robert Kilbride, Denis Schwann, Charles E.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Kitson, Sir James Shackleton, David James
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Labouchere, Henry Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Causton, Richard Knight Lambert, George Sheehy, David
Cawley, Frederick Langley, Batty Shipman, Dr. John G
Channing, Francis Allston Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Cheetham, John Frederick Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) Slack, John Bamford
Churchill, Winston Spencer Layland-Barratt, Francis Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Cogan, Denis J. Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington Soares, Ernest J.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Leigh, Sir Joseph Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Crean, Eugene Levy, Maurice Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Cremer, William Randal Lewis, John Herbert Stevenson, Francis S.
Crooks, William Lloyd-George, David Sullivan, Donal
Cullinan, J. Lundon, W. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Dalziel, James Henry Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Delany, William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Toulmin, George
Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y MacVeagh, Jeremiah Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Doogan, P. C. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Crae, George Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Duffy, William J. M'Fadden, Edward Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Duncan, J. Hastings M'Hugh, Patrick A. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Edwards, Frank M'Kean, John Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Ellice, Capt. E. C. (S Andrw's Bghs M'Kenna, Reginald Weir, James Galloway
Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Emmott, Alfred M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Whitley, George (York, W. R.)
Evans, Sir Francia II (Maidstone Mooney, John J. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Farrell, James Patrick Moulton, John Fletcher Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Murnaghan, George Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Ffrench, Peter Murphy, John Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Field, William Nannetti, Joseph P. Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Newnes, Sir George Young, Samuel
Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N E Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Flavin, Michael Joseph Norman, Henry Sir Thomas Esmonde and
Flynn, James Christopher Norton, Capt. Cecil William Captain Donelan.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Forster, Henry William Majendie, James A. H.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W Malcolm, Ian
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Galloway, William Johnson Manners, Lord Cecil
Allsopp, Hon. George Gardner, Ernest Marks, Harry Hananel
Anson, Sir William Reynell Garfit, William Martin, Richard Biddulph
Arkwright, John Stanhope Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)
Balcarres, Lord Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Graham, Henry Robert Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morpeth, Viscount
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Greene, Henry D. Shrewsbury) Morrell, George Herbert
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Grenfell, William Henry Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Banner, John S. Harmood- Gretton, John Mount, William Arthur
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Greville, Hon. Ronald Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Hain, Edward Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Bigwood, James Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Myers, William Henry
Bill, Charles Hambro, Charles Eric Nicholson, William Graham
Bingham, Lord Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Bond, Edward Hare, Thomas Leigh Percy, Earl
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Pierpoint, Robert
Bousfield, William Robert Hay, Hon. Claude George Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bowles, Lt-Col. H. F. (Middlesex Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Heaton, John Henniker Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Brotherton, Edward Allen Helder, Augustus Pretyman, Ernest George
Bull, William James Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Purvis, Robert
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Pym, C. Guy
Butcher, John George Hickman, Sir Alfred Rankin, Sir James
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Hoare, Sir Samuel Ratcliff, R. F.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hogg, Lindsay Reid, James (Greenock)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Hope J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside Remnant, James Farquharson
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hoult, Joseph Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Houston, Robert Paterson Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc. Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm Robinson, Brooke
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Chapman, Edward Hunt, Rowland Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Coates, Edward Feetham Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Jameson, Major J. Eustace Round, Rt. Hon. James
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R. Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Kenyon, Hn. Geo T. (Denbigh) Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Keswick, William Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cust, Henry John C. Kimber, Sir Henry Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)
Dalkeith, Earl of King, Sir Henry Seymour Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Knowles, Sir Lees Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Davenport, William Bromley Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside
Dickson, Charles Scott Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C. Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End Spear, John Ward
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R. Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Loe, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stock, James Henry
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Stroyan, John
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Llewellyn, Evan Henry Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W. Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Thorburn, Sir Walter
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lowe, Francis William Thornton, Percy M.
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Tollemache, Henry James
Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M
Fisher, William Hayes Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Tuff, Charles
Fison, Frederick William Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Tuke, Sir John Batty
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Macdona, John Cumming Turnour, Viscount
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Maconochie, A. W. Valentia, Viscount
Flower, Sir Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Warde, Colonel C. E. Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Welby, Lt-Col. A. G. E. (Taunton Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath Sir Alexander Acland
Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson Hood and Mr. Ailwyn
Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne Wortley, Rt. Hn. G. B. Stuart Fellowes.
Whitmore, Charles Algernon Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) Wylie, Alexander

Main Question again proposed.

And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, Mr. Speaker proceeded to interrupt the Business.

Whereupon Mr. Balfour rose in his

place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put. "

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

The House divided:—Ayes,235; Noes,180. (Division List No. 13.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dalkeith, Earl of Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Davenport, William Bromley Hickman, Sir Alfred
Allsopp, Hon. George Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chath'm Hoare, Sir Samuel
Anson, Sir William Reynell Dickson, Charles Scott Hogg, Lindsay
Arkwright, John Stanhope Disracli, Coningsby Ralph Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O. Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hoult, Joseph
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Dorington, Rt. Hon Sir John E Houston, Robert Paterson
Bain, Colonel James Robert Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Howard, John(Kent Faversh'm
Balcarres, Lord Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil
Balfour, Rt Hn. A J (Manch'r Dyke, Rt Hon Sir WilliamHart Hunt, Rowland
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)
Balfour, Kenneth R(Christch. Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r Jeffreys, Rt. Hon Arthur Fred.
Banner, John S. Harmood- Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Kennaway, Rt Hn Sir John H.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs Kenyon, Hon Geo T (Denbigh)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Fisher, William Hayes Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hon. Col. W.
Bigwood, James Fison, Frederick William Keswick, William
Bill, Charles Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon Kimber, Sir Henry
Bingham, Lord Flannery, Sir Fortescue King, Sir Henry Seymour
Blundell, Colonel Henry Flower, Sir Ernest Knowles, Sir Lees
Bond, Edward Forster, Henry William Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S W Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th
Bousfield, William Robert Galloway, William Johnson Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Bowles, Lt-Col H F (Middlesex Gardner, Ernest Lawson, Hn H L W (Mile End)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Garfit, William Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R
Brotherton, Edward Allen Godson, Sir Augustus Frederic Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham
Bull, William James Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin&Nairn Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Butcher, John George Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'ml'ts Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Llewellyn, Evan Henry
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.
Cavendish, V. C. W Derbyshire Graham, Henry Robert Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Grenfell, William Henry Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A(Wore. Gretton, John Lowe, Francis William
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Greville, Hon. Ronald Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)
Chapman, Edward Hain, Edward Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft
Coates, Edward Feetham Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hambro Charles Eric Lytteltoa, Rt. Hon. Alfred
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nd'rry Macdona, John Cumming
Colston, Chas. Edw H Athole Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd Maconochie, A. W.
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Hare, Thomas Leigh M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Haslam, Sir Alfred S. M'Calmont, Colonel James
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hay, Hon. Claude George Majendie, James A. H.
Craig, Charles Curtis Antrim, S Heath, Sir James(Staffords N W Malcolm, Ian
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Heaton, John Henniker Manners, Lord Cecil
Cust, Henry John C. Helder, Augustus Marks, Harry Hananel
Martin, Richard Biddulph Remnant, James Farquharson Thornton, Percy M.
Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Tollemache, Henry James
Milner, Rt Hn Sir Frederick G Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Robinson, Brooke Tuff, Charles
Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Tuke, Sir John Batty
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Turnour, Viscount
Moore, William Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter Valentia, Viscount
Morgan, David J (Walthamstow Round, Rt. Hon. James Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Morpeth, Viscount Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.
Morrell, George Herbert Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Welby, Lt. -Col A C E (Taunton
Mount, William Arthur Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Welby, Sir Charles G E (Notts.)
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Sharpe, William Edward T. Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne
Myers, William Henry Shaw-Stewart, Sir H(Renfrew) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Nicholson, William Graham Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Skewes-Cox, Thomas Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesl'y Sloan, Thomas Henry Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Percy, Earl Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)
Pierpoint, Robert Smith, H C (North'mb Tyn's'de Wodehouse, Rt Hn E R (Bath)
Pilkington, Colonel Richard Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Platt-Higgins, Frederick Spear, John Ward Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Plummer, Sir Walter R. Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Stanley, Rt Hon Lord (Lancs.) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Pretyman, Ernest George Stewart, Sir Mark J M 'Taggart Wylie, Alexander
Purvis, Robert Stock, James Henry Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Pym, C. Guy Stroyan, John
Rankin, Sir James Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Alexander Acland-Hood and
Ratcliffe, R. F. Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Reid, James (Greenock) Thorburn, Sir Walter
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Cremer, William Randal Harrington, Timothy
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cullinan, J. Harwood, George
Ainsworth, John Stirling Dalziel, James Henry Hayden, John Patrick
Allen, Charles P. Delany, William Helme, Norval Watson
Ambrose, Robert Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Donelan, Captain A. Higham, Johe Sharpe
Asquith, Rt Hn Herbert Henry Doogan, P. C. Holland, Sir William Henry
Atherley-Jones, L. Douglas, Charles M (Lanark) Horniman, Frederick John
Barlow, John Emmott Duffy, William J. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Barran, Rowland Hirst Duncan, J. Hastings Johnson, John
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Edwards, Frank Joicey, Sir James
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Ellice, Capt E C (S Andr'ws Bghs Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Bell, Richard Ellis, John Edward (Notts) Joyce, Michael
Benn, John Williams Emmott, Alfred Kearley, Hudson E.
Black, Alexander William Esmonde, Sir Thomas Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.
Blake, Edward Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone Kilbride, Denis
Boland, John Eve, Harry Trelawney Kitson, Sir James
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Farrell, James Patrick Labouchere, Henry
Brigg, John Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Lambert, George
Bright, Allan Heywood Ffrench, Peter Langley, Batty
Brown, George M (Edinburgh) Field, William Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Findlay, Alexander(Lanark N E Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Layland-Barratt, Francis
Burke, E. Haviland- Flavin, Michael Joseph Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Buxton, Sydney Charles Flynn, James Christopher Leigh, Sir Joseph
Caldwell, James Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Levy, Maurice
Cameron, Robert Gilhooly, James Lewis, John Herbert
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Goddard, Daniel Ford Lundon, W.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Causton, Richard Knight Grey, Rt Hon Sir E (Berwick) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Cawley, Frederick Griffith, Ellis J. M'Crae, George
Channing, Francis Allston Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill M'Fadden, Edward
Cheetham, John Frederick Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Haldane, Rt Hon. Richard B. M'Kean, John
Cogan, Denis J. Hammond, John M'Kenna, Reginald
Condon, Thomas Joseph Harcourt, Lewis M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Crean, Eugene Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil M'Laren Sir Charles Benjamin
Mooney, John J. Power, Patrick Joseph Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Rea, Russell Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Moulton, John Fletcher Reckitt, Harold James Toulmin, George
Murnaghan, George Reddy, M. Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Murphy, John Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Nannetti, Joseph P. Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Newnes, Sir George Rickett, J. Compton Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Norman, Henry Roche, John Weir, James Galloway
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Rose, Charles Day White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Runciman, Walter Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid Schwann, Charles E. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenuy) Shackleton, David James Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Sheehy, David Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Shipman, Dr. John G. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
O'Dowdl John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Slack, John Bamford Young, Samuel
O'Malley, William Soames, Arthur Wellesley
O'Mara, James Soares, Ernest J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
O'Shee, James John Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Mr. William M'Arthur.
Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham) Stevenson, Francis S.
Pirie, Duncan V. Sullivan, Donal

Main Question p it accordingly.

The House divided:—Ayes,235; Noes,175. (Division List No. 14.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Coates, Edward Feetham Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-
Allsopp, Hon. George Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Graham, Henry Robert
Arkwright, John Stanhope Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Grenfell, William Henry
Bain, Colonel James Robert Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Gretton, John
Balcarres, Lord Cust, Henry John C. Greville, Hon. Ronald
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Dalkeith, Earl of Hain, Edward
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds Dalrymple, Sir Charles Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Davenport, W. Bromley Hambro, Charles Eric
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry
Banner, John S. Harmood- Dickson, Charles Scott Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Disraeli, Conings by Ralph Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Heath, Sir James (Staffords N. W
Bigwood, James Douglas, Rt. Hn, A. Akers- Heaton, John Henniker
Bill, Charles Doxford, Sir William Theodore Helder, Augustus
Bingham, Lord Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Bond, Edward Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Hickman, Sir Alfred
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Hoare, Sir Samuel
Bousfield, William Robert Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Hogg, Lindsay
Bowles, Lt. -Col. H. F. (Middlesex Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Finlay, Sir R. B. (Invrn'ssB'ghs) Hoult, Joseph
Brotherton, Edward Allen Fisher, William Hayes Houston, Robert Paterson
Bull, William James Fison, Frederick William Howard, John (Kent Faversham
Burdett-Coutts, W. Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Butcher, John George Flannery, Sir Fortescue Hunt, Rowland
Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. Flower, Sir Ernest Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Forster, Henry William Jameson, Major J Eustace
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. Jeffreys, Rt Hon. Arthur Fred
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Galloway, William Johnson Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gardner, Ernest Kennaway, Rt Hn Sir John H
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore. Garfit, William Kenyon, Hn. Geo T (Denbigh)
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Kenyon-Slaney Rt Hn Col W.
Chapman, Edward Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn Keswick, William
Kimber, Sir Henry Mount, William Arthur Spear, John Ward
King, Sir Henry Seymour Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Knowles, Sir Lees Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Myers, William Henry Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Nicholson, William Graham Stock, James Henry
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Stroyan, John
Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End) Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R Percy, Earl Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham Pierpoint, Robert Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Pilkington, Colonel Richard Thorburn, Sir Walter
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Platt-Higgins, Frederick Thornton, Percy M.
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Plummer, Sir Walter R. Tollemache, Henry James
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Pretyman, Ernest George Tuff, Charles
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Purvis, Robert Tuke, Sir John Batty
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Pym, C. Guy Turnour, Viscount
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Rankin, Sir James Valentia, Viscount
Lowe, Francis William Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Ratcliff, R. F. Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Reid, James (Greenock) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Remnant, James Farquharson Welby, Lt. -Col. A. C. E (Taunton
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.
Macdona, John Cumming Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Maconochie, A. W. Robinson, Brooke Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Whitmore, Charles Algernon
M'Calmont, Colonel James Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Majendie, James A. H. Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Malcolm, Ian Round, Rt. Hon. James Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Manners, Lord Cecil Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Marks, Harry Hananel Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)
Martin, Richard Biddulph Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Sharpe, William Edward T. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.) Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew) Wylie, Alexander
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Moore, William Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Morgan, David J (Walthamstow Sloan, Thomas Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Morpeth, Viscount Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Sir Alexander Acland-
Morrell, George Herbert Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside Hood and Mr. Ailwyn
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Fellowes.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Causton, Richard Knight Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N E
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cawley, Frederick Flavin, Michael Joseph
Ainsworth, John Stirling Channing, Francis Allston Flynn, James Christopher
Allen, Charles P. Cheetham, John Frederick Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)
Ambrose, Robert Churchill, Winston Spencer Gilhooly, James
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cogan, Denis J. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Condon, Thomas Joseph Goddard, Daniel Ford
Atherley-Jones, L. Crean, Eugene Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)
Barlow, John Emmott Cremer, William Randal Griffith, Ellis J.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Cullinan, J. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Dalziel, James Henry Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Delany, William Hammond, John
Bell, Richard Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Harcourt, Lewis
Benn, John Williams Doogan, P. C. Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil
Black, Alexander William Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Harrington, Timothy
Blake, Edward Duffy, William J. Harwood, George
Boland, John Duncan, J. Hastings Hayden, John Patrick
Brigg, John Edwards, Frank Helme, Norval Watson
Bright, Allan Heywood Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw's Bghs Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Higham, John Sharpe
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Emmott, Alfred Holland, Sir William Henry
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone Horniman, Frederick John
Burke, E. Haviland Eve, Harry Trelawney Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Caldwell, James Farrell, James Patrick Johnson, John
Cameron, Robert Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Joicey, Sir James
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Ffrench, Peter Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Field, William Joyce, Michael
Kearley, Hudson E. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W. Norman, Henry Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Kilbride, Denis Norton, Capt. Cecil William Slack, John Bamford
Kitson, Sir James Nussey, Thomas Willans Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Labouchere, Henry O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Soares, Ernest J.
Lambert, George O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants
Langley, Batty O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Stevenson, Francis S.
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Sullivan, Donal
Layland-Barratt, Francis O'Dowd, John Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Leigh, Sir Joseph O'Malley, William Toulmin, George
Levy, Maurice O'Mara, James Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lewis, John Herbert O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Lundon, W. O'Shee, James John Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Pirie, Duncan V. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Power, Patrick Joseph Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
M'Crae, George Rea, Russell Weir, James Galloway
M'Fadden, Edward Reckitt, Harold James White, Luke (York, E. R.)
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Reddy, M. Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
M'Kean, John Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
M'Kenna, Reginald Richards, Thomas(W Monm'th Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Rickett, J. Compton Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset
M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk Mid.)
Mooney, John J. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Roche, John Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsfd
Moulton, John Fletcher Rose, Charles Day Young, Samuel
Murnaghan, George Runciman, Walter
Murphy, John Schwann, Charles E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Nannetti, Joseph p. Shackleton, David James Sir Thomas Esmonde and
Newnes, Sir George Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Captain Donelan.
Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Sheehy, David

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:— Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

Forward to