Skip to main content

Adjournment Of The House (Easter)

Volume 92: debated on Tuesday 2 April 1901

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House at its rising this day do adjourn till Thursday 18th April." ( Mr. A. J. Balfour.)


I rise at the request of my hon. friends to move the Amendment which stands in their names on the Paper, namely, that the House should reassemble on Monday, the 15th inst. Of course, I know it is cheap heroism to propose anything in the nature of a sug- gestion for shortening the holidays, because we were aware that we are in a hopeless minority, and that the First Lord has absolute power to impose his own view and that of the majority upon the House. But there are one or two matters which I should like to lay before the House, because I believe them to be material to the issues we have to decide. For instance, on the Wednesday which, under the resolution of the Leader of the House, was to be the last day of the holidays, the first Order of the Day is a Bill with regard to the hours of young persons in mines, which I am convinced would lead, not only to a practical debate, but also to a practical issue, and would afford an example of the utility of discussions on private Members' Bills. The hon. Member for Derby, who has charge of the Bill, has every reason to believe that the Bill would lead to that practical result, and I can only say that it was intentionally put down for that particular day, because, from information which was available at the time, it was quite understood that the Easter holidays would have been completed by then. It therefore cannot be suggested that the position in which the Bill now stands is due to any act of carelessness on the part of its backers. From the late meeting of Parliament we all anticipated that the holidays would have been less long than of recent years. Undoubtedly, until very lately, the House never took a longer vacation than from Good Friday until the following Monday week. It never took more, than that, without proportionately lessening the Whitsuntide recess. In the face of the great pressure of public business, and in the belief that the Easter holidays would be shorter, we thought that my hon. friend would have been able to bring on his Bill on April 17th. Now, the great pressure hitherto alleged to the House as the reason for entirely taking away from private Members Tuesdays and Wednesdays, is not likely to be relaxed after Easter; indeed it appears that it will be greater than in ordinary years. We have not only the whole programme of Government legislation still remaining, including the Irish Land Purchase Bill and the Factories and Workshops Bill, but after Easter we shall have three unusual demands on our time. We did not complete before 31st March the business which is usually taken in the first financial period of the Session, and have still the Army resolution to overtake. Then there is the business of the Civil List, which must be brought before the House. Again, through the great strain on the finances of the country we are likely to have a Budget which will make abnormal demands on the time of the House. This pressure on the second part of the Session will intensify that process of entirely destroying private Members' time which it appears the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House hopes to accomplish. We have been told that the Government do not propose to meet on the Monday because they would have but one day out of the three—two being given to private Members. It is not my business to protect the right hon. Gentleman's time, but the first day after Easter holidays is often the most useful of the whole Session to the Government. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman himself say that by putting down, on the first day after the Easter recess, Votes which are not controversial, the House got through, in a reasonable and businesslike fashion, a very large amount of business. I am not going to detain the House with reference to the motion which stands in my own name for the Tuesday, in regard to labour legislation. I never anticipated that it would take much time; but since it has been placed on the Paper the Government have introduced the Factories and Workshops Bill, and if they intend to give one day to the Second Reading of that Bill, and to pass it this session, they will have done the greater portion of what was expected of them in regard to labour legislation this session. The country undoubtedly expects an Amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act. They have been leading up to that Amendment by their circulars to the county court judges, so that we need not expect the amending Bill until next year. There are other Bills which have been waiting for a long time to be brought forward, the Coal Mines Bill and the Bill in regard to metalliferous mines which has been ready since 1888 and which is urgently needed. I do not, however, rest my Amendment on my own Tuesday's resolution, for the pressing nature of the latter disappears with the promise of the Government to pass the Factories and Workshops Bill. But there remains the motion which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Derby for the Second Reading of the Coal Mines (Employment) Bill—a Bill of real practical interest, and one which we had every reason to expect would have come on as the first order of the day on Wednesday, 17th April. I never like to use exaggerated language, and I never before to day have, in any way, joined in accusing the First Lord of the Treasury of desiring to diminish the importance of the House of Commons; but I confess that the incidental effect of the constant pressure on the House, the constant demand to put all power in the hands of the Government inconsequence of that pressure, must be to diminish the importance of the House of Commons in the Constitution. I read a humorous sketch the other day of how the House of Commons became a cycling school. As we never abolish institutions in this country, the House of Commons was, in the skit, not abolished, but only remained in the form of the Terrace, with its usual attractions, while the seats of this Chamber wore removed, and the floor turned into a cycling school. I do not say that we are travelling very fast in that direction; but I do begin to see a decrease in the natural functions of the House of Commons in the Constitution caused by the constant demands and pressure on unofficial Members to give up all part in its deliberations. As a protest against that course I shall press my Amendment to a division.


I beg to second the Amendment, and I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the arguments raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean. I feel considerable interest in the Coal Mines (Employment) Bill, as my name is on the back of it. I remember being consulted at the time when the Bill was placed upon the Paper, it having got a good place in the ballot, as to whether it should be put down for April 17th or on a later day. After discussion, it was understood that the House would be in session on 17th April, on account of the pressure of public business and the few opportunities private Members have had up to the present time for debating important subjects or Bills which they wished to bring forward. The promoters of this Bill were consequently justified in putting the Bill down for the 17th April. I do feel that, in spite of the arduous duties that have fallen on the officials of the House as well as upon ourselves, we might do with two or three days less holiday, and if we met on the 15th instead of the 18th April we should have not only sufficient leisure to recruit our energies, but to carefully consider subjects of deep interest to private Members. Monday would be a useful day for Supply and other Government business; Tuesday might be taken up with the resolution of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean; and then on Wednesday there would have been this Bill which relates to the employment of young persons in coal mines. I would urge upon the Government to earnestly consider the appeal we make in the interest of tens of thousands of the industrial classes of this country, as well as in the interest of the physical and moral development of generations of the workers to come, to give us an opportunity of discussing this Bill on Second Reading. I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Thursday, 18th," in order to add the words "Monday, 15th."—( Sir Charles Dilke.)

Question proposed. "That the words 'Thursday, 18th,' stand part of the Question."

said that in the ordinary course if the Amendment had been such as had been put to the House on other occasions he should have advocated the Government resisting to the utmost in their power the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the member for the Forest of Dean, because it was idle to say that the Bill was not put down for the 17th April without some inquiries being made. He drew attention to the fact because he thought the House ought to watch very closely the practice, which had a tendency to grow, of hon. Members putting down Bills in which they wore interested on days when there was not much chance of their coming on, and then making claim for a further day. He thought such claims ought to be strenuously resisted. The present case was, however, different. He did not know what course the Government were going to take with regard to the motion, but what he felt was that if the holidays of the House as a whole were going to be shortened in the interest of particular Members interested in particular groups of Bills, the country as a whole ought to get some value for the concession in the shape of a guarantee that progress would be made with Government business on the Monday.

said that such a suggestion was simply huckstering. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that hon. Members were to restrain themselves from urging their views on Government business in order that certain Bills should be given a preference. He hoped the Government would resist any such bargain. He did not blame the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean for attempting to make a bargain for a measure in which he took a personal interest. The proposal that the House should meet on the 18th of April had met with general approval, and although the hon. Gentlemen who would speak a few words in support of the measure of the right hon. baronet, and would be eulogised in the local press, were willing to give up their leisure in order to pass the Bill, it should not be allowed to go forth that the Government had entered into such an arrangement.

joined in the appeal that had been made to the Government by the right hon. the Member for Forest of Dean. The length of the Easter holidays was unprecedented, at any rate except so far as the last three or four years were concerned, and the precedents of the last few years should not be taken into consideration, because during that period the Opposition had not been up to what might be termed normal strength, whilst the Government had an enormous majority. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would not follow the bad precedents of the last three or four years. There had been late sittings, and large and repeated doses of closure, which ought not to be given in too great doses without great pressure of business of the State, and then the House was told that the Easter recess was to be sixteen days. When an appeal was made to the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the recess to thirteen days he said he would only gain one day. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that there were such creatures as private Members, who however humble, were still Members of the House. What would be gained by sitting on these extra days? In the first place, on the 17th there was the Coal Mines Employment Bill, a Bill in which three-quarters of a million workers of the country took a deep interest. The second motion down for Tuesday, 16th of April, dealt with the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. That was a matter which above all others interested the people of Wales; it was in fact the question upon which the last six General Elections had been fought in the Principality.


said he hoped that the Employment in Mines Bill would not be brought forward until it would be possible to get a fair expression of opinion on the subject. A few days ago the question of an eight hours day for miners came before the House suddenly on a Wednesday afternoon, and the subject was not sufficiently discussed.

said he wished to say one or two words with reference to what fell from the right hon. Member for the Hallam Division. The Employment in Mines Bill was one to which there was no real opposition in principle. The promoters of the Bill having obtained a favourable position, had been taken by surprise on finding that there was to be an undue prolongation of the Easter holidays. The right hon. Member for the Hallam Division has suggested that if the Government were able to assent to the proposal now made to them they would expect some quid Pro quo in regard to Government business. None of them were able to make any definite bargain with reference to the matter. If the Government were able to see their way now, as a matter of course, to meet the views of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, and of others on their own side who were interested in the Bill, he believed there would be a general disposition to assist the Government in regard to the proposals they meant to make if the proposals were not of a very contentious character. There had been up to Easter very excessive pressure on the time of the House, and it seemed to some Members, in view of that fact, that they should not have an extended holiday. The business of the House ought not to have been so arranged that they would have undue pressure at one time and too long holidays at another. This particular Bill was one which many Members believed would settle a most difficult question with reference to labour in mines, and looking to the fact that they did not desire to have undue pressure on the House, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way even now to agree to the motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean.

If I were to accede to the appeals made to me I can hardly picture to myself the dismay which would be displayed on both sides of the House. There would be much weeping and gnashing of teeth. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, I rather think so. But the majority of the House, I mean quite irrespective of party, need be under no alarm. I do not think it would be possible for the Government to accede to the proposition advanced, I must say with extreme moderation, by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean. It is not that I am a purist of the school of my right hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet. I have not that Spartan virtue which would prevent me under any circumstances from making a bargain in regard to the progress of Government business with gentlemen on the other side of the House who have the power and occasionally the will to assist the Government; but, after all, whatever arrangements we come to, no business of a controversial character or of even first-rate importance could be thought of on the first Monday after the Easter holidays. The practice and convenience of the House are against it, and there would be a universal protest from all sides of the House were we to take any controversial business, or even small measures which excite any great feeling on the other side. The truth is, hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken have oscillated between two different lines of argument in dealing with this question. Their real motive is to have certain discussions upon private Members' resolutions or Bills, which I am sure would be of an interesting charracter; but the argument they advance is that if the House does not meet until Thursday, the 18th instant, there will be a congestion of public business after Easter as there has been before Easter. The congestion before Easter was due to the exigencies of Supply, that is to say, hon. Members insisted upon their right to discuss the Estimates at great length, and that produced, as it must produce, a congestion of business; and the result is that not only has the Government not been able to have a first-class discussion upon any stage of the larger Bills of the session, but the House has been obliged to sit up night after night to very inordinate hours, to the great fatigue of the officers of the House and of those hon. Members who supported the Government in carrying through the work necessary for the country. I do not know whether the hon. Members who appeal to me were among those who sat up and helped the Government to get through the Estimates. The officers of the House had to do so, and I must say that I do not think an Easter holiday was ever better earned than the not unduly prolonged Easter holiday which we have appointed for the present year. And supposing we were to curtail the holidays as suggested, we would do very little in the way of diminishing congestion of business, inasmuch as the Government would have but one day out of the three. In other words, we should curtail these well-earned holidays by three days; but so far as congestion is concerned, we should only diminish it by one day, and although there might be a great deal of business got through on that occasion, it would be business of a non-controversial kind, and not the kind that produces congestion at the end of the session. From that point of view the loss to the holidays would be great, but the gain in respect of the congestion of business would be small. I come now to the real motive. It is a perfectly legitimate motive on the part of hon. Members who have pressed us to meet on Monday instead of Thursday. Their motive is to have debates on certain industrial questions and the question of Disestablishment. The right hon. Baronet seemed almost to suggest that the industrial Bill in which be is interested was of such a character that it would pass practically sub silentio, or in the ordinary course. It must be borne in mind that there are too many private Bills before the Bill of the right hon. Baronet for it to be passed this session. As to the question of Welsh disestablishment, I do not think it is of very great importance whether that discussion comes on or not, because it is a subject which has formerly been before the House in the form of an abstract resolution, and in the form of a Government Bill brought forward by a responsible administration. [An HON. MEMBER: Not in this Parliament.] The right hon. Gentleman was, I think unintentionally, rather unfair in the observation which he made. He seemed to think that the interests of debate in this House were to be found in a great increase of time given to abstract discussions on Tuesday evenings, or the almost equally abstract discussions on Wednesdays after Easter. I do not deny that occasionally matters of very great importance may come up on those days, and that in the past we have had—and in the future I hope we shall have—debates in which both sides of the House take part, and of great interest to the House and the country. But my observations of the use to which Tuesdays have been put in the past does not lead me to believe that there is that burning desire in the House for these Tuesday discussions. I believe I am one of the most earnest upholders of these discussions, but private Members themselves, by their presence here at the critical hour of dinner time, do not seem to be very fond of sacrificing their leisure in order to carry on what is very often an aca- demic debate. The truth is that if the interest in the debates in this House is in peril at the present time it is due, not to the arrangement of Government business, or to the taking of private Members' time to carry out the necessary work of the Government, but to the character of the debate which the House insists upon having in Committee of Supply. If hon. Members use the opportunity which they undoubtedly possess in Committee of Supply for the purpose of discussing small and frivolous points, it is impossible to interest the House. But perhaps I shall be travelling beyond the limits of the Amendment if I pursue that topic, upon which, however, I am very ready to dilate when the proper occasion comes. I venture to say that the House might now bring this part of our afternoon's debate to a conclusion. The reason I make that appeal is that complaint is constantly being brought against the Government that we do not give sufficient opportunities for raising important general issues. We had so arranged the time this afternoon that there was an opportunity, if this motion had not been started immediately after questions, of discussing until seven o'clock any topic which excites great interest. I am sorry that we have already spent an hour and a half of that time, and I hope the House will not stultify itself further by making an appeal to the Government to give time which hon. Members cannot be given for these abstract discussions, and in the very act of making that appeal fritter away the opportunity which they have. I venture to hope that the Amendment may now be divided upon.

I desire to explain why my friends and I intend to vote in favour of the Amendment. I candidly confess that it is not that we think that the devoting of Tuesday and Wednesday to private Members' business will materially advance the important subjects down for those days. I am very much inclined to agree with the Leader of the House that very little practical result would be likely to accrue from the discussion, but at the same time I should be very sorry to stand in the way of the consideration of those important matters affecting such a large section of the people of Great Britain. The ground upon which we intend to vote for the curtailment of the holidays is clear and specific. The Government are depriving themselves of one Government day. In the King's Speech the Government announced their intention of introducing a Bill dealing with the land purchase question in Ireland. The importance of that question has been admitted by every English politician who has spoken on the subject, no matter on which side of the House he sits. This afternoon I asked the Leader of the House whether he could give us some assurance that the Government really intended this session to fulfil the pledge in the King's Speech, and to introduce a Land Purchase Bill for Ireland. The answer I got was of such a character that I am sure everybody who heard it came to the definite conclusion that the Government had no hope whatever of being able to proceed seriously with such a Bill this session. The answer given supplied the reason. The Leader of the House said he could not speak of the programme of legislation until he saw how the business of the House progressed. That was but another way of intimating that he feared there would not be sufficient time at the disposal of the Government to deal with the question. If the question is really one of such far-reaching importance, as the Government themselves have admitted it to be, I say it is a serious scandal if the House of Commons decides to prolong the holidays and to out out the one opportunity which perhaps remains to the Government to redeem the pledge. I admit there never was a holiday more thoroughly earned by the House than this Easter recess. The Leader of the House speaks of the exertions and labours of those Members who have remained night after night to support the Government, but I think probably he will admit that the labours of those Members who, in the discharge of what they considered to be their duty, have remained in the House to oppose the Government and Government business were quite as exhausting. But the holiday from to-day until Monday week would be ample, and quite as long as the House of Commons has been in the habit of indulging in at Easter, even in sessions when the House assembled at the usual time, and it must be remembered that the work of this session did not commence until about a fortnight later than usual. The Government admit that their work is in arrears, and that they are afraid they will be forced, for want of time, to throw over some of their most important business. Why, therefore, this year should be selected for an unusually long Easter holiday passes my comprehension. The House will probably admit that Irishmen are as fond of a holiday as any other people, but all I have to say to-day on behalf of Irish Members here is that, anxious as we are to get home to our own country and to enjoy a well-earned rest, at the same time we feel that this holiday is being unduly prolonged, and that we ought to press upon the Government to devote the extra day which with a light heart they are throwing away to the consideration of their Land Purchase Bill for Ireland.

After the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. friend the Member for Waterford to-day, the Nationalist Members will have to go and tell their constituents that, notwithstanding the promise in the King's Speech, the Government are trying to shirk their duty in regard to bringing in an Irish Land Purchase Bill this session. The fact is that Ireland has been in such a state of calm during the last few months that the Government have almost forgotten her existence. It is only when there is a fierce agitation in Ireland that she is remembered by His Majesty's Government. I, however, promise the right hon. Gentleman that Nationalists will utilise this long recess to inform their people of the treatment of the Government, and to point out to them the old lesson that if they want Parliament to attend to them they must stir themselves. The House is told that there is no time for Irish business. For the last five years a little measure has been coming before the House. Why could not a day be given for passing the Catholic Disabilities Bill into law?


intimated that the hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Amendment, and not refer to other matters on the Paper.

Very well, Sir. I will conclude by again stating that the Irish Members will use the recess to tell their constituents that they have no right to place any faith or confidence in the promises of the Government.

desired to call attention to the unfair treatment Members of the House had


Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. FFletcher, Sir HenryMoon, Edward Robert Pacy
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. EdenFlower, ErnestMorgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Anson, Sir William ReynellGodson, Sir Augustus Fred.Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.
Archdale, Edward MervynGordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & NairnMorrison, James Archibald
Arkwright, John StanhopeGorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John EldonMorton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Atkinson Rt. Hon. JohnGreen, Walford D (WednesburyMurray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz RoyGreene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)
Balfou-, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'rGreville, Hon. RonaldMurray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (LeedsGroves, James GrimbleNicholson, William Graham
Bartley, George C. T.Hain, EdwardNicol, Donald Ninian
Bathurst, Hon. Allen BenjaminHamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'xO'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Bignold, ArthurHanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.Pilkington, Richard
Bigwood, JamesHare, Thomas LeighPlatt-Higgins, Frederick
Bill, CharlesHarris, Frederick LevertonPowell, Sir Francis Sharp
Blundell, Colonel HenryHaslett, Sir James HornerPretyman, Ernest George
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-Hay, Hon. Claude GeorgePurvis, Robert
Boulnois, EdmundHeath, James (Staffords, N. W.Ratcliffe, R. F.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. JohnHermon-Hodge, Robert TrotterRentoul, James Alexander
Brookfield, Colonel MontaguHigginbottom, S W.Richards, Henry Charles
Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.Hoare, Edw Brodie (HampsteadRidley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Bull, William JamesHope, J. F (Sheffield, BrightsideRitchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.
Bullard, Sir HarryHornby, Sir William HenryRolleston, Sir John F. L.
Carlile, William WalterHorner, Frederick WilliamRollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.Houldsworth, Sir Wm. HenryRound, James
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.Royds, Clement Molyneux
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.Hozier, Hon. James Henry CecilSackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cawley, FrederickJeffreys, Arthur FrederickSamuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)Kenyon, Hn. Geo T. (DenbighSeely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (SalopSkewes-Cox, Thomas
Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'rKnowles, LeesSmith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Chapman, EdwardLawrence, William F.Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.Lawson, John GrantSpear, John Ward
Cohen, Benjamin L.Lee, Arthur H (Hants, FarehamStanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Collings, Rt. Hon. JesseLegge, Col. Hon. HeneageStroyan, John
Colomb, Sir John Chas. ReadyLeighton, StanleySturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. AtholeLeveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cook, Sir Frederick LucasLlewellyn, Evan HenryThornton, Percy M.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)Lonsdale, John BrownleeValentia, Viscount
Cox, Irwin Edward BainbridgeLowe, Francis WilliamVincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield
Cranborne, ViscountLowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)Warde, Col. C. E.
Cubitt, Hon. HenryLoyd, Archie KirkmanWelby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Ta'nt'n
Dalrymple, Sir CharlesLucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'thWhitmore, Charles Algernon
Dickinson, Robert EdmondMacdona, John CummingWilliams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Dickson, Charles ScottMacIver, David (Liverpool)Willox, Sir John Archibald
Dimsdale, Sir Joseph CockfieldMaconochie, A. W.Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Dorington, Sir John EdwardM'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-Malcolm, IanWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Duke, Henry EdwardManners, Lord CecilWyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn EdwardMaple, Sir John BlundellYerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Fielden, Edward BrocklehurstMiddlemore, John T.Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Finlay, Sir Robert BannatyneMolesworth, Sir LewisTELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher.
Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward AlgernonMontagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)


Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.Bell, Richard
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., StroudBayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)Boland, John
Ashton, Thomas GairBeaumont, Wentworth C. B.Broadhurst, Henry

received in respect of the Education Code' but—


ruled that that question could not be raised on the Amendment under discussion.

Question put.

The House divided:—Aves, 156; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 122.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. JamesHorniman, Frederick JohnReddy, M.
Burke, E. Haviland-Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Buxton, Sydney CharlesJoyce, MichaelRedmond, William (Clare)
Caine, William SprostonLayland-Barratt, FrancisRigg, Richard
Caldwell, JamesLeamy, EdmundRoe, Sir Thomas
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)Levy, MauriceShaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)
Condon, Thomas JosephLloyd-George, DavidShipman, Dr. John G.
Cullinan, J.Lundon, W.Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Delany, WilliamMappin, Sir Frederick ThorpeSoames, Arthur Wellesley
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir CharlesMarkham, Arthur BasilSpencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants
Dogan, P. C.Mooney, John J.Strachey, Edward
Duffy, William J.Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)Sullivan, Donal
Dunn, Sir WilliamMurphy, J.Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Emmott, AlfredNannetti, Joseph P.Thomas, Davis Alfred (Merth'r)
Efrench, PeterNolan, Joseph (Louth, South)Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Flavin, Michael JosephNorman, HenryUre, Alexander
Flynn, James ChristopherNorton, Capt. Cecil WilliamWarner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Gilhooly, JamesO'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry MidWhiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Goddard, Daniel FordO'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Grant, CorrieO'Dowd, JohnYoxall, James Henry
Harwood, GeorgeO'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Hayden, John PatrickO'Malley, WilliamTELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Lewis and Mr. Jacoby.
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-Pirie, Duncan V.
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)Power, Patrick Joseph
Holland, William HenryRea, Russell

Main Question again proposed.