HC Deb 29 July 1881 vol 264 cc177-94

Debate resumed.


, on rising, was greeted with loud cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Question!" After comparative silence had been restored, he said, that as hon. Members had now finished exercising their lungs, he might, perhaps, be permitted to observe that he did not intend to pursue his remarks any further. He only rose to appeal to his noble Friend below the Gangway (Lord Elcho) not to proceed to a division. It would be impossible for the noble Lord to get adequate support, and if he challenged a division he could not expect it to have any effect on the future of the Bill.


said, that, as the noble Lord (Viscount Folkestone) had brought them down to the House at 9 o'clock, he hoped he would give them the advantage of a division. At the same time, he was gratified to find that the idea of dividing upon this measure did not proceed from an Irish Member. The noble Lord had given them a pleasant history of the disintegration of the Conservative Party, and had incidentally alluded to a Commission of which he was not a Member. If the noble Lord had been a Member of it, he would have learnt something which would have prevented him from making his speech. As it was, the noble Lord, like the Bourbons, had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. For his own part, he had since the year 1852 pursued an even and a continuous course in regard to that subject. ["Divide!"] The House was evidently impatient to go to a division, and he would, therefore, content himself by expressing his satisfaction that the principles which he and others who had been made the objects of unmitigated vituperation had consistently advocated by vote and voice were now triumphant.


said, it was true there were but few Members on those (the Opposition) Benches; but he should be proud hereafter, when, perhaps, a measure of a more radical character would be introduced, to recollect that he was one of the few who joined in this final protest against a Bill which they so strongly disapproved.


maintained that the course taken by the noble Lord opposite the Member for Wiltshire (Viscount Folkestone) reflected the greatest discredit on the House. Instead of delivering a speech, the noble Lord made some excuse and sat down. The noble Lord had simply been put up to talk the Bill out at 7 o'clock. He saw the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) go up to the noble Lord the Member for Wiltshire—["Question!"]


I must call upon the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Bill before the House.


would not say a word about the Bill. He was happy to say that he had throughout recorded his vote in favour of the measure.


wished, before the Bill passed from that House, to make one thing clear. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: Divide!] He might inform the hon. Member for Mayo that he was in the habit of speaking there despite English Members, and certainly he was not to be cowed by Irish Members. He would not occupy the House more than two minutes, and what he had to say was in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) on this Bill. The hon. Member seemed to have considerable faith in the measure, and he made certain prophecies with regard to its action in Ireland, and then went on to refer to what course the Land League would take on the measure. He (Mr. Healy) would venture to remind the hon. Member for Cork County, and those especially interested in this matter in Ireland, that the men who had brought this measure about—the men whose determination, whose resolution, and whose persistence had produced this measure—were not those who were now sitting on the Treasury Bench, but the men who were in penal servitude in Dartmoor and in the prison cells at Kilmainham. To those men they owed whatever was good in this Bill, and he begged to return them his most sincere thanks. It was to such men, and to their persistent efforts, that they owed this measure. He gave no thanks to the Government. He had none to give to those Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench. They in Ireland had been accustomed to see every measure that they desired refused them by that House until they were able, in despite of the House or in despite of its opinions, to wring a measure out of the Government of England. They had found the same with regard to this Land Law (Ireland) Bill. They had compelled the Prime Minister of England, who brought about the rejection of much more mild measures 10 years ago and six years ago, which might then have satisfied the people of Ireland—and he, in those days, got up and refused the principle of the measure—they had compelled the Prime Minister of England to swallow his declaration, and to pass in the measure which was now before the House practically the same principles which four or five years ago he had no language strong enough to condemn. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I never said a word upon them.] There was in existence a pamphlet by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), giving extracts and quotations from speeches and writings of the Prime Minister, and it was to his speeches and votes he referred. However, be that as it might, all he had to say on the measure to-night was that they thanked, not the present Government, but they thanked the men whose persistency and resolution had driven the Government into bringing the measure before the House. They were told by the hon. Member for Cork County that that Bill would do a great deal of good in Ireland. Well, there were many sore hearts in Ireland that night, because there were now lying in the prison ceils of the Chief Secretary for Ireland 200 of the best and most honest men of the country; and he would say that while those men lay in prison there would be no peace in Ireland. He would say, furthermore, that until that policy of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was discontinued—until they were prepared to pluck from the memory of the Irish people "that rooted sorrow "—no peace or prosperity would return to Ireland, let them pass what measures they pleased.


said, he could not allow the Bill to leave the House without challenging the declarations of the last speaker. He did not wish to say anything irritating; but he would say this, that he did not believe the Irish people endorsed the sentiments they had just heard expressed. He had opposed the policy of coercion as strongly as the hon. Member opposite—["No!"]—strongly as any hon. Member in that House; but he was convinced that had it not been for the policy pursued by certain persons, that Bill would have been the law of the land months and months ago, and the prisoners referred to by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)—some of whom he looked upon as the victims of bad advice, and some as the bad advisers—would never have been arrested. He believed the Irish people were deeply grateful to the Prime Minister for that Bill. They knew with what sorrow of heart he had violated those principles of liberty which he had maintained at all times, not only at home, but in foreign countries, where men were imprisoned for political offences. He had been driven to that course by the conduct of those who, had they been actuated by a true spirit of patriotism, leavened by a little common sense, would have spared their country the bitter herbs with which the dish of the Land Bill had been seasoned. MR. M'COAN said, that but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) he would have been content to give a silent vote; but he should be sorry if it went forth that the words of the hon. Gentleman represented the opinion of the Irish Representatives on that side of the House, or the feelings of the Irish people, on the Bill now about to be read a third time. He at once confessed what he had always felt—that the measure was largely owing to the agitation which had been initiated and carried on by the Land League, and, so far, much of the credit for it was due to that organization. But, at the same time, neither his conscience nor his sense of fair play would permit him to ignore the fact that its magnificent comprehensiveness was mainly owing to the generosity and justice of Her Majesty's present Government. He acknowledged the concessions which the Prime Minister, step by step, had made; and he believed that the general sentiment of the Irish people would similarly recognize its claims on their grateful ac- ceptance. He sympathized with the men imprisoned in Ireland; but he was not then called upon to express an opinion as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the action that led to their arrest. But he would express an earnest hope that Her Majesty's Government would be able, concurrently with the passing of this Bill, to make some large concession of mercy to these men. If this were done, his conviction was strong that, accompanied by such a measure of mercy, the Bill, when passed, would strike an effectual blow at the root of agitation in Ireland, as all just excuse for it would be removed. At the risk of some unpopularity among his Colleagues, he had voted for the second reading of the Bill; and, as his opinion of it was unchanged, he should vote for its final stage to-night.


said, he was reluctant to interpose in that long drawn out discussion, to which it was difficult for imagination to contribute a new thought, or ingenuity to suggest a fresh proposal. But he pleaded, in extenuation of his intrusion at that stage of the Bill, the fact that he had been one of the Members of the Commission whose Report the Prime Minister had more than once declared was the basis of the measure—a Commission which had been inquiring into the causes and extent of agricultural depression, and how far these could be remedied by legislation. He might further say that at no stage of the Bill had he delayed its progress by a single remark or a solitary Amendment. He was told that the first duty of a patriot was silence, and in the wordy warfare of the last few weeks he had the negative merit of having held his tongue. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill, indulged the hope that it would close a painful chapter of Irish grievances, and transform a poor and disaffected into a prosperous and contented population. That wish had been re-echoed by nearly every succeeding speaker; but it was more a wish than an expectation. The problem dealt with by the Bill was the oldest, most complete, and far-reaching that came within the range of British politics. It embraced agricultural, political, legal, and economic changes, which would go far to re-model the basis of social life in Ireland. It had exercised the ingenuity of successive statesmen. Interest and prejudice, passion and patriotism, rebellion and remedial measures had all, in their turn, been tried; but they had failed to find a cure for the chronic disorder. It had been the occasion of more inquiries and more legislative failures than any Parliamentary question of the time. During the last 40 years five Royal Commissions and 15 Select Committees had investigated the subject. In the same space of time there had been 13 Bills proposed by different Governments, and three times 13 by independent Members. Out of this long list of abortive projects only two had passed into law; and, of those two, one had been an entire and one a partial failure. It was too much to expect that in a field which was so thickly strewn with the wrecks of carefully-devised projects that this measure should be completely successful. It was not within the compass of human wisdom to devise a scheme of constructive statesmanship that would change the organic relations of classes without exciting some prejudices and disappointing many hopes. No settlement, however comprehensive, could at once undo the demoralizing and disintegrating effects of ages of injustice and misrule. The inherited tendencies of generations could not be cured off-hand. All they could anticipate from the Bill was that it would help forward the long deferred work of reconciliation and regeneration, and hasten the end of Ireland's long agony. Some had spoken of the Bill as original. He did not think it could be so described. The question had been dealt with so often—by such different persons, in such different interests, under such conflicting conditions—that strict originality of treatment was impossible. Every single proposal in the Bill had, in one form or other, been made before. But its chief merit consisted in the skill and the dexterity with which old suggestions had been woven into a concrete whole. The materials were not original; but the product evolved by these discussions might be so described. The Prime Minister had exhibited, in conducting it, the very highest faculties of statesmanship. He had been both philosophical and practical—comprehensive enough to grasp great principles, and close enough to apply them. By his patience under delay—inevitable, perhaps necessary, but still troublesome delay—his persever- ance in the face of difficulties—some of them unexpected, some of them unnecessary—and by his steady energy and ever ready resource throughout, he had revived the highest and happiest memories of Parliamentary Leadership. However men might differ with the principles of the Bill, however they might question the results it produced, it would be ungenerous and ungracious in the last degree not to acknowledge these powers ungrudgingly. But, while according to the Government the merit of having introduced the Bill, the credit of having initiated it belonged to another. That man was not a Member of the House, but was, unhappily, an inmate of a convict prison. The agitation—which originated in the West of Ireland two years ago, and which in a short time embraced in its ranks the whole of the peasantry of the country—had compelled the Government to submit the Bill, and would compel Parliament to pass it. ["Oh, oh!" and "No, no!"] Hon. Members might object as they liked, but that was the fact; and in politics the first condition of success was to recognize facts, however unpleasant they might be. The Legislature was the machine, the Ministers were the drivers and the engine-men, but the fuel was supplied, and the steam that moved it was generated, by the derided and denounced land agitators. ["Oh, oh!" and "No, no!"] The unwillingness of hon. Gentlemen to listen to these statements would not alter the facts. Agrarian reform in Ireland was not a portion of the programme of the Liberal Party when they took Office 16 months ago. It was added subsequently. During the prolonged and active agitation that preceded the General Election, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Ministry published a list of questions that he deemed pressing. He censured the last Government for supine-ness, and the last Parliament for its indifference in not grappling with them. In these 22 questions there was a reference to the Irish suffrage and Irish University Education, but nothing about Irish land. ["No, no!"] Cries of "No, no!" did not interfere with facts, and it was a fact he was stating. Out of 800 addresses issued by Liberal candidates in England and Scotland, not an allusion was made to the subject.


rose to Order. He wished to know whether, if the hon. Member was in Order in his remarks, the interruptions of hon. Members sitting immediately behind the Treasury Bench were not disorderly?

MR. J. COWEN, continuing, said, some of those Gentlemen in their addresses denounced Irish obstruction; others coquetted with Irish Home Rule; some of them promised that they would oppose Irish coercion, which promise they had not fulfilled. None of them spoke of Irish tenant right. They dilated on the insanity of the Turkish Convention, on the insincerity of the war in Afghanistan, on the immorality of the struggle in South Africa; but they said nothing of the "three F's." Indeed, he questioned if many of the constituents, or even the candidates, knew the meaning at the time of these cabalistic letters. Yet, notwithstanding this, the half of last Session and the whole of the present one had been occupied in discussing this Irish Question. He was not blaming the Government. They were simply acting according to precedent. It was the usual course under such circumstances. They legislated for Ireland under threats and from fear; and all Parties did it—both those opposite and those on that side of the House. Catholic Emancipation was granted as a result of the agitation by the Catholic Association. The Queen's Colleges and the endowment of Maynooth came as a means of buying off the Repeal agitation. The Church was disestablished, according to the declaration of the Prime Minister himself, in consequence of the determination and desperation of the Fenians. And the Land Bill, in like manner, was a consequence of the agitation that had moved Ireland during the last two years. The lesson he drew from these facts was that the general English public were ill informed of, and indifferent to, what was proceeding in Ireland; for, while they never referred to the question of land reform at the last Election, the same subject was the chief topic on every Irish hustings. The practice that both Parties in the State followed was, in his judgment, cowardly and politically immoral. They refused to deal with the question on its merits, or from a sense of justice or right; but they dealt with it when an agitation made the denial of the demand dangerous to the public peace. If land reform in Ireland was necessary, it was necessary years ago. But the demand made by Mr. Butt and others was treated with indifference, and voted down by the very Party and the very men who were now applauding the passages of the Bill. They did not judge it upon its merits. They judged it from Party exigencies. The agitation had forced it to be a practical measure. For his part, he held that land legislalation in Ireland was necessary years since. What he complained of was the delay. But he could not see either the consistency or the wisdom of men supporting projects that they disapproved of, and whose efficacy they denied, merely from compulsion. If a measure was right and just, it ought to be conceded. If it was not right and just, it ought to be resisted, and the men who resisted should courageously face the consequences of their resistance. He did not wish to detain the House or to prolong his observations; but he thought, in justice to the much-denounced Members on the Opposition side, that their share in passing the measure ought fairly to be recognized. He cheerfully and cordially accorded to the Prime Minister and the Government all honour for what they had done; but he repeated that the initiative and the popular force requisite to carry the Bill into law had sprung from the agitation.


said, that he should not have wished to interfere in the discussion which had arisen had it not been for some remarks made by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan). The hon. Member had appealed to the Government to show mercy to the men now imprisoned in Kilmainham Gaol. He fearlessly stated that not one of those men now in prison would come out to-morrow on the terms proposed by the hon. Member for Wicklow. If the Government doubted his word, they could easily afford them the opportunity, and he ventured to say that they had courage and manhood enough to refuse to march out of the prisons into which they had been cast by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Those men had gone to prison believing that they had conducted themselves aright. ["Question!"] Hon. Members cried "Question!" because he was a little too close to the question. It was a question of 200 men being incarcerated in the prisons of Ireland. They could not refer him to a single instance where a Liberal Government had on a previous occasion imprisoned 200 British subjects in Ireland; and the Government dare not bring them to trial in Ireland. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had stated truly enough that the Bill was the result of agitation. It was really the Land League and not the Government which passed the Land Bill of 1881. He would remind the House of the statement made by the Prime Minister at the explosion at Olerkenwell—an explosion which he (Mr. R. Power) condemned in the strongest terms, but which brought about the disestablishment of the Irish Church. Would the right hon. Gentleman venture to deny that? Those agitations taught the Irish people that they need no longer supplicate, but might demand as of right the redress of their grievances. For many years Irish Members had in that House asked for the redress of grievances. But until the most powerful organization that had ever been known in the world was formed, it was all in vain. In consequence of that agitation, the present Bill came into existence. Why had not the right hon. Gentleman supported the Land Bill which had been brought in by the late Mr. Butt—a Land Bill much milder than the one upon which the House was about to divide? Mr. Butt had no organization. He had eloquence and determination, but of what use were they? It was not until his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Par-nell) started the organization in Ireland, until he showed to the people the real strength which organization gave them, that the Liberal Government thought it would be a very wise thing to take up the Land Question in Ireland. The First Lord of the Treasury had often taunted the Irish Party for not supporting him in connection with many of the Amendments to the Bill. Well, he did not know that they owed much gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman. He had yet to learn that a people owed gratitude for justice, and this Bill was one of mere justice. If there were any faults in it, the right hon. Gentleman must be blamed for them. When certain Irish Members organized a deputation to wait upon the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of laying before him what they believed to be the opinions of the Irish people, how did the Government act? They sent word that no Irish Member sitting below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House should go with the deputation.


Who did that?


said, he would inform the right hon. Gentleman in one minute. Both the hon. Members for Louth asked to be admitted with the deputation, and were told that no Member sitting in the part of the House which he had already designated would be allowed to accompany the deputation.


By whom? Name, name!


said, that two hon. Members would get up and give the names. They were told so by the Whips of the Liberal Party. ["Oh!" and "Name, name!"] He knew that he for one was most anxious to attend the meeting; but he was refused admittance. [Cries of "By whom?" and "Name, name!"] The Prime Minister asked him to name. They on that side of the House did not get much information from the Treasury Bench; but his hon. Friend the Member for Louth would be quite prepared to state their names. [Cries of" Name, name!"]


I shall presently be prepared to name them. ["Order!" and "Name!"]


I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary is in Order in interrupting by persistent cries of "Name, name?"


I rise to Order. [Loud cries of" Order!" and continued interruption.]


The right hon. and learned Gentleman having risen to Order, is in possession of the House.


The hon. and learned Member opposite has risen to Order. He has challenged what I have done, and I rise to Order to appeal to you, Sir, upon the Question which the hon. and learned Member has put. The hon. Member who was addressing the House stated that he and other people had gone personally to the Government—[Cries of"No!"] Allow me to appeal to the recollection of the House. The hon. Member, first of all, vouched—[Mr. GORST: Hear, hear!]— I ask whether the hon. and learned Member for Chatham is in Order in interrupting me? The hon. Member who was addressing the House first of all vouched the Members for Louth, and being called upon to give the names said, "I myself." [Cries of"No!"] The hon. Member having thus vouched himself as having gone to the room with the deputation—[Cries of "No, no!"]


The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in possession of the House, and he is entitled to proceed to the end of his address without interruption, so long as he speaks to the point of Order.


If I have misunderstood the hon. Member who was addressing the House—if he says he made no such statement, I shall, of course, accept his denial; but at present all I can say is that it was my impression that he did make such a statement, and it was under that impression that I called upon him as having vouched that he went to the room.


said, he was very sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had misunderstood him. He bad not said that he went himself to the deputation room. He did not believe in accompanying deputations to Englishmen. The facts of the case were that he asked the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) about the deputation, and that hon. Member told him that he was informed by a Gentleman who they could well suppose possessed the confidence of the Government—one of the Commissioners under the Bill—namely, Mr. Litton, that no Irish Gentleman sitting upon his side of the House could accompany the deputation. He then observed to the hon. Member for Louth that Mr. Litton, though a thick-and-thin supporter of the Government, was perhaps not entitled to say as much as he did say. To that the hon. Member for Louth replied that Lord Richard Grosvenor had informed Mr. Litton that no Irish Member sitting below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House would be allowed to go with the deputation. He would now return to the question of the Land Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had made one or two observations which he could not refrain from noticing. The noble Lord appealed to the Government on behalf of the landlord class, saying—"The landlords have always supported you in Ireland, and yet now at the eleventh hour you throw them over." Well, he agreed with the noble Lord in every word which he had spoken. The landlords had been the support of the Government and the House. They had supported them in connection with every miserable, petty, or tyrannical Act which had been passed in reference to Ireland, and they had carried out the laws passed by Englishmen in every particular, on the Bench and in other Offices. He was not sorry that the landlords seemed now to be inclined to refuse to act any longer as a buffer between the Government and the people of Ireland. He was not, however, so prejudiced as to say that the Bill now before the House contained nothing good. He admitted frankly that it was the best which the English Government could pass at the present time. But it had always been the misfortune of Ireland to suffer on account of the Party tactics of English politicians. If the Government were anxious to do justice to Ireland, as he believed the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was, they could not carry with them the great phalanx behind them, consisting of the Independent Liberals. The worst point of all was that there was no real Radical Party in the House. The one thing capable of destroying the Radical Party in this country was the Birmingham caucus. [Cries of "Question!"] He knew very well that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite would cry "Question!" at that statement, for to them this was a very disagreeable subject to talk about. His opposition to the Land Bill originated in the views which he entertained with regard to the 26th clause. He had seen in that clause a fixed purpose to depopulate Ireland—["No, no!"]—and though hon. Members opposite cried "No!" they would find that the people of Ireland had viewed the clause in the same light. But his Colleagues had virtually killed that clause, and had forced the Government to reduce their original estimate of the expenditure under its provisions to the comparatively small sum of £200,000. He should not speak his honest convictions if he did not declare that this Bill could not be regarded as a final settlement.


said, he regretted that his name had been introduced, but he must detain the House a few minutes while he offered a personal explanation. The conversation that had been referred to took place six months ago, and it had been accurately reproduced by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power). He (Mr. Callan) came into this present Parliament belonging to the same Party that he had acted with for 12 years, and it was not until he heard from the reading of the Queen's Speech that coercion was to precede land reform, that he tore up the card securing his place on the Liberal side, and changed to the other side of the House.


reminded the hon. Member that he was travelling beyond the limits of personal explanation, and that the Question before the House had nothing to do with the tearing up of his card.


proceeded to say that he was in 1870 the secretary of a meeting of the Irish Members to consider the Land Bill of that year, and when he heard that the Land Question was again to be dealt with, he thought a similar meeting of Irish Members would be held. Upon learning, however, that arrangements had been made for a deputation, he said to Mr. Litton, who appeared to have the matter in charge, that he should like to accompany the deputation, and Mr. Litton told him that it was the express wish of the Prime Minister that no Members from the opposite side should go, that the right hon. Gentleman entertained a strong personal objection to any Member sitting in Opposition going with the deputation upon this matter. He (Mr. Callan) expressed doubt as to that, and Mr. Litton said they were so careful about those who were to go on the deputation, that a list had to be submitted to the chief Government Whip (Lord Richard Grosvenor). He was told by his Colleague that a similar intimation had been conveyed to him.


said, he rose to request the favour of being allowed to make a personal explanation, as his name had been introduced. He could promise it should not be one-twentieth part of the length of that of the hon. Member. So far as he was concerned—he could not say anything about Mr. Litton - there was not the slightest shadow of foundation for any portion of the statement which had been made.


said, he was sorry to be obliged to trouble the House for a few moments with what seemed to be required from him—namely, a personal explanation of his course in this matter. He could assure the House that this was the first time he had heard anything of the strongly expressed opinion and wish of the Prime Minister. He did not believe that he ever expressed such a wish on the part of the Prime Minister to Mr. Litton, and he very much regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) was not then present. He could assure the House that this was the first he had heard of it; and he was perfectly certain that the House would believe him that he could not possibly have invented such a statement, as it would not have been the perfect truth.


said, he was unwilling to intervene in this conversation; but he considered it only fair and just to those who were involved in this accusation to state the facts in reference to the deputation in question. He was a member of the deputation. It originated from a meeting, not of the Irish Members, but of the Liberal Party interested in the passing of a Land Bill for Ireland.


After the personal explanations that have been made, I think I ought to point out to the House that the Question before it is the third reading of the Land Bill.


said, he should be sorry if the closing words on this Bill on the part of Irish Members should appear to be those of ungraciousness towards the Prime Minister, to whom the Irish people owed so much for his efforts to benefit them by this measure. While he (Mr. Blake) believed that no man had the interest and welfare of Ireland more at heart than the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he thought that on the present occasion the hon. Member had shown more indiscretion than, he was sure, the hon. Member on reflection would wish to show. The hon. Member for Wexford was young, earnest, and impulsive, and the latter quality, as on the present occasion, sometimes led him into not making due allowance for the difficulties of the Government in not ac- complishing all he deemed desirable in the interests of the country. He (Mr. Blake) spoke with perfect independence when he said that the Bill did not go as far as he could wish; and he agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. E. Power) that it would not be considered a final settlement of the Irish Land Question, as it was not unlikely that after a trial some defects would have to be remedied, and therefore it would be premature to declare the Bill, good as it undoubtedly was, a finality. In its present form it would confer much benefit on the Irish people if properly carried out. But he believed that the Prime Minister had gone as far as he could, and, as an Irish Member, he offered the right hon. Gentleman his most sincere and grateful thanks.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 14: Majority 206.

Acland, Sir T. D. Chambers, Sir T.
Agar-Robartes, hn. T. C. Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.
Agnew, W. Chitty, J. W.
Ainsworth, D. Clarke, J. C.
Allen, H. G. Cohen, A.
Allen, W. S. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Allman, R. L. Collings, J.
Anderson, G. Collins, E.
Archdale, W. H. Colman, J. J.
Armitage, B. Colthurst, Col. D. la T.
Armitstead, G. Corbet, W. J.
Arnold, A. Corbett, J.
Asher, A. Corry, J. P.
Balfour, Sir G. Cotes, C. C.
Balfour, J. B. Courtney, L. H.
Barran, J. Cowan, J.
Beaumont, W. B. Cowen, J.
Blake, J. A. Cowper, hon. H. F.
Blennerhassett, Sir R. Craig, W. Y.
Blennerhassett, R. P. Creyke, R.
Bolton, J. C. Cross, J. K.
Brassey, Sir T. Cunliffe, Sir R. A.
Bright, rt. hon. J. Daly, J.
Brinton, J. Davey, H.
Broadhurst, H. Davies, D.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C. Dawson, C.
Bryce, J. Dilke, Sir C. W.
Butt, C. P. Dillwyn, L. L.
Buxton, F. W. Dodson, rt. hn. J. G.
Caine, W. S. Duckham, T.
Callan, P. Earp, T.
Cameron, C. Edwards, H.
Campbell, Lord C. Errington, G.
Campbell - Bannerman, H. Evans, T. W.
Fairbairn, Sir A.
Carbutt, E. H. Farquharson, Dr. R.
Carington, hn. Colonel W. H. P. Fay, C. J.
Ferguson, R.
Causton, R. K. Findlater, W.
Cavendish, Lord F. C. Fitzmaurice, Lord E.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J. Fitzwilliam, hn, H. W.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E. Molloy, B. C.
Fort, R. Monk, C. J.
Fowler, W. Moore, A.
Fry, L. Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.
Gabbett, D. F. Morley, A.
Gill, H. J. Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.
Givan, J. Noel, B.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Nolan, Major J. P.
Gladstone, H. J. O'Beirne, Major F.
Gladstone, W. H. O'Brien, Sir P.
Gordon, Sir A. O'Conor, D. M.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. O'Donoghue, The
Gourley, E. T. O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The
Grant, A.
Gurdon, R. T. O'Kelly, J.
Hamilton, J. G. C. O'Shaughnessy, R.
Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V. Otway, A.
Paget, T. T.
Hardcastle, J. A. Palmer, C. M.
Hartington, Marq. of Palmer, G.
Hastings, G. W. Palmer, J. H.
Hayter, Sir A. D. Parker, C. S.
Henderson, F. Pease, A.
Henry, M. Peddie, J. D.
Herschell, Sir F. Playfair, rt. hon. L.
Hollond, J. R. Powell, W. R. H.
Holms, J. Power, J. O'C.
Holms, W. Power, R.
Hopwood, C. H. Price, Sir R. G.
Howard, G. J. Pugh, L. P.
Hughes, W. B. Ralli, P.
Hutchinson, J. D. Ramsay, J.
Illingworth, A. Reid, R. T.
Inderwick, F. A. Richardson, T.
James, C. Rogers, J. E. T.
James, W. H. Russell, G. W. E.
James, Sir H. Rylands, P.
Jenkins, D. J. Samuelson, H.
Johnson, E. Seely, C. (Nottingham)
Johnson, W. M. Shaw, W.
Kinnear, J. Slagg, J.
Labouchere, H. Smithwick, J. F.
Laing, S. Smyth, P. J.
Law, rt. hon. H. Spencer, hon. C. R.
Lawrence, W. Stanley, hon. E. L.
Lawson Sir W. Stewart, J.
Lea, T. Stuart, H. V.
Lee, H. Sullivan A. M.
Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S. Sullivan, T. D.
Leigh, hon. G. H. C. Summers, W.
Leighton, Sir B. Synan, E. J.
Lever, J. O. Talbot, C. R. M.
Lubbock, Sir J. Tennant, C.
Macfarlane, D. H. Thomasson, J. P.
Mackie, R. B. Tillett, J.H.
Macliver, P. S. Trevelyan, G. O.
Macnaghten, E. Vivian, A. P.
M'Carthy, J. Walter, J.
M'Clure, Sir T. Waugh, E.
M'Coan, J. C. Webster, J.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N. Wedderburn, Sir D.
M'Lagan, P. Whitbread, S.
M'Laren, C. B. B. Wiggin, H.
M'Laren, J. Williams, S. C. E.
M'Minnies, J. G. Williamson, S.
Mappin, F. T. Willis, W.
Marjoribanks, Sir D. Wilson, Sir M.
Marriott, W. T. Wodehouse, E. R.
Martin, R. B. Woodall, W.
Marum, E. M.
Mason, H. TELLERS.
Meldon, C. H. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Milbank, F. A. Kensington, Lord
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Scott, M. D.
Bective, Earl of Tyler, Sir H. W.
Dixon-Hartland, F. D. Warton, C. N.
Folkestone, Viscount Whitley, E.
Gorst, J. E.
Holland, Sir H. T. TELLERS.
Hubbard, rt. hn. J. G. Elcho, Lord
Onslow, D. Hay, rt. hon. Admiral
Ross, C. C. Sir J. C. D.
Schreiber, C.

Bill passed.