§ Motion for Adjournment.
§ MR. DAVITT (Mayo S.)rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The suppression of a public meeting in the county of Mayo, on Sunday last, by a force of armed police, and of an unwarranted interference thereby with the legal right of the people of that country to exercise the privileges of free speech and of public meeting for the purpose of discussing their grievances and of demanding constitutional remedies therefor.but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
§ MR. DAVITTassured the House that he would not have taken this unusual course if the action of which he complained was an isolated instance of police interference with the right of public 945 meeting and free speech in that county. As they had heard from the Chief Secretary that afternoon, this was the fifth instance of the kind in the same county during the last twelve months, and he was called upon, as one of the Members for Mayo, to register the strongest possible protest against a continuance of these most unwarranted proceedings. The explanation given by the Chief Secretary for this latest act of violence by authority was in no way a justification for so extreme a course as that pursued on Sunday. He could not imagine any such a course being taken on this side of the Irish Sea unless the Home Secretary became politically demented, and so long as the fiction of equal laws for both countries was proclaimed in England they must insist upon equal treatment in the matter of the commonest rights of citizenship being accorded to the Irish people. The meeting on Sunday at Breaffy was called for the purpose of furthering the objects of the United Irish League, and he need not go into details as to what those objects were. They were well and widely known to be the general betterment of the land workers in Ireland by means of the enlargement of holdings and of other reforms. Those objects were either legal or illegal. If legal it was a monstrous outrage upon the rights of the people to have their meetings proclaimed and suppressed. If those objects were illegal it was the duty of the right honourable Gentleman to prosecute and bring before the tribunal of the law those who promoted such meetings and who had identifled themselves with the purposes for which they were called. The Chief Secretary could not escape from this position. He must either observe the law himself through his underlings or take steps to put the law in motion in the usual way. To proclaim a meeting on the ground that it would lead to some breach of the law if it was held was virtually to hand over to the police the power of suppressing every meeting which might have a strong political complexion. This was coercion in its most objectionable form. It was simply making the resident magistrate, who was always strong political partisan in Ireland, the arbiter of the rights of the people. He desired to protest against this as an intolerable invasion of popular liberty. His own experience at one of these suppressed meetings would afford the 946 House some idea of the extremes to which the police authorities of the county of Mayo would resort to put down what he contended were legal and constitutional meetings. A few months ago he was going for the first time to a section of his constituency since being elected for the division. What happened? He would ask honourable Members whether a parallel to these proceedings could be found in the whole history of political reform movements in England. He was stopped on the public highway within his constituency, two miles from the place of meeting, by a force of police, some of them armed with batons, and some with rifles. He was not allowed to even proceed along the road within a mile-and-a-half of one of the chief towns in his own constituency. Women and girls were also stopped on the public highway, without a single breach of the peace having been committed by anyone except the police. He had not spoken a word nor done an act that could lend a shadow of justification for this despotic action of the magistrate and his constabulary force, and yet he was stopped on the public highway within the constituency which he represented, and denied the common right of proceeding along the road. He wondered what would be the language of the English Press if conduct of this outrageous kind was carried on by the Boer officials at Johannesburg, and Uitlanders were stopped on a public highway by armed police, and denied the privilege of using a roadway which led to a place where a public meeting was to be held? A feeling of speechless indignation would prevail in this country at such proceedings; and yet they had, on the admission of the Chief Secretary, five instances of this putting down of a public meeting and of interference with individual liberty by a reckless police authority during the past year, no nearer to the Transvaal than the Country of Mayo. The Chief Secretary, in calling for the suppression of these meetings, only succeeded in bringing the law and its administrators into contempt. These meetings were not prevented. Two or three gatherings took place as a rule around the locality where one had been forbidden, time result being that the whole costly proceeding of bringing fifty or a hundred police to one place became the laughing-stock of the whole country. But though it might be a matter for 947 popular amusement to witness these exhibitions of Executive folly, there was a great right involved and menaced in such action as that of Sunday, and he wished to warn the right honourable Gentleman that he would not be permitted to carry on those high-handed proceedings in future without a protest of this kind being made whenever he resorted to the course which had called this protest forth. The United Irish League was a well-known organization and it had held a large number of meetings. Either it was a legal combination or it was not. If it was, they had as much right to propagate their views and principles by the media of public meeting and free speech as the members of the Primrose League had to do the same in a similar manner. If the Irish League was not a legal movement the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland were neglecting their duty in not prosecuting himself and others who were at the head of that movement, and who had resolved to extend it wherever the people wished to join its ranks and further its aims and objects. He would not suggest that Sundays's burlesque proceedings were carried out by the police of Mayo with an eye to influencing a certain trial which was now going on in Dublin, although he thought that the police authorities of that country would be quite capable of acting in such a way. He did say, however, that this latest suppression of a public meeting by the Chief Secretary might have something to do with an important announcement which he made in the House a few days ago with reference to the Dillon estate. The right honourable Gentleman seems to be in a condition of morbid fear lest he should be suspected by his own party of being capable of carrying out good or useful work in Ireland on the suggestion of his political opponents or under the influence of a Nationalist movement. If he would permit him to say so, he was acting very unwisely, and it was childish in the extreme. The purchase of the Dillon estate by the Congested Districts Board was as much due to the existence of the propaganda and organization of the United Irish League in Connaught as the passing of the Land Act of 1881 and of subsequent Purchase Acts was due to the labours of the Land League. At any rate, he insisted, as one of the Members for the County of Mayo, that this policy of putting down public meetings by 948 the batons and rifles of the Royal Irish Constabulary was a violation of one of their most cherished civil rights, and a totally unprecedented proceeding on the part of the Chief Secretary, and in order to register his protest against this recurring resort to Executive violence against the privileges of public meeting and free speech, he begged to move that the House do now adjourn.
§ DR. AMBROSE (Mayo, W.), in seconding the Motion, said that the object of the United Irish League had been to supplement the action of the Chief Secretary in his efforts to do away with the cause of the famine in Ireland. The Chief Secretary declared last Session that as long as he was Chairman of the Congested Districts Board he would use his influence against the purchase of any land where the United Irish League had influence. The Dillon estate of 90,000 acres was situated in the very centre of the locality where this United League was established, and from that it would be seen that this League was quite right in agitating for the purchase of those estates on fair terms. He protested against the suppression of last Sunday's meeting. On the evidence of Mr. Justice Johnson and the County Court Judge, there did not exist at the present time in the whole county of Mayo a single case of serious crime. Mr. Justice Johnson said there was only one case of agrarian outrage for the whole year, and that was of an incendiary character; and that there was ample ground for a sworn investigation as to the cause of that burning. The United Irish League had over and over again challenged the Government to hold a sworn inquiry as to the cause of certain outrages.
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. The honourable Member must confine himself in the question of the action of the administration in suppressing this meeting.
§ DR. AMBROSEsaid he desired to protest in the strongest possible manner against the keeping in prison of a poor woman whose husband had gone over to work in the harvest field in England, and also against the action of the Government in attempting to suppress the United Irish League.
§
Motion made and Question proposed—
That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Davitt.)
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR,) Leeds Centralsaid he had received no sort of notice that this question was going to be raised and he had not got with him the papers relating to this meeting. The honourable Member who moved this motion began by saying that he would not have taken this unusual method of calling attention to what had happened if it had not been that this was the fifth meeting that the Executive had stopped in County Mayo during the last twelve months. Considering the character of the language that had been used at many of the meetings which had taken place, he did not think the Government could be accused of having suppressed five meetings out of a number not much short of two hundred. That did not look as if the sacred right of public meetings in Ireland had been interfered with very largely. During the four years he had held the post of Chief Secretary he had suppressed probably less than half the number of meetings suppressed by his predecessor during the three years in which he was in office, and yet the right honourable Gentleman the member for Montrose—who suppressed no less than 29 meetings—was in the habit of boasting that his administration was one which had the hearty sympathy of the Irish people. The honourable Member appeared to think that he had taken an unusual course in directing an information to be sworn by a police officer. That was a practice that had been followed from time immemorial by the Irish Government. It was no novelty, for it was followed by his predecessor, and no complaints were made during the term of office of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose. Not only this, but it was a reasonable practice. What happened was this. All the information that the Government could obtain from the police or otherwise respecting the effect which any meeting was likely to have was most carefully considered, and if it was deemed that in the interests of public peace or on the ground of the gathering being unlawful, the meeting ought to be proclaimed, instructions were given that the information supplied to the Executive Government should be sworn 950 in accordance with the information. No police officer was asked to swear that which he was not prepared to swear, and the sworn information did not affect the legality or illegality of the meeting. It was open to the Executive to suppress a meeting without any proclamation whatever, but it had always been held fitting and proper that notice should be given when a meeting was to be suppressed, and the usual course was to have a sworn information before a magistrate. In deciding whether this meeting ought to be suppressed or not, the Executive had to take into account all the circumstances of the locality. The honourable Member for South Mayo asked him if he could give any ground for thinking that this meeting would have had the effect of leading to a breach of the peace or intimidation. He would give him from memory one of the circumstances which they had to conclusion. Having regard to an announcement made in a paper that circulated in the district, they were justified in saying that one of the objects of this meeting was to call attention to the case of two particular individuals, and to incite the people attending that meeting to boycott and intimidate those two individuals. The honourable Member argued that if the objects of the United Irish League were legal these meetings to further those objects must he allowed; if they were not legal, under those circumstances he calls upon the Government to prosecute the members of the United Irish League. There was, however, one very obvious fact which he appeared to have lost sight of. Granted that the objects of the League were, in a wider sense, not illegal—and he might acknowledge that he should be glad to see an enlargement of the holdings in the West of Ireland, which was said to be one of the objects of the League, and which be thought was a very desirable object— the Government had to look not merely at the general objects of the League, but they had also to look at the means by which those objects were sought to be attained, and over and over again, in Order to promote the objects of the United Irish League, circumstances pointing to intimidation and boycotting were very frequent. The honourable Member said, "why don't you allow the meetings to be held, take notes of the speeches, and then prosecute the speakers?" No doubt that was a Course which 951 they might adopt, and which had been sometimes adopted in the past; but he was not quite sure that the honourable Member, in giving him that advice, was not really asking him to do what he knew would lead to an abortive prosecution. If he might give an illustration to the House of what the opinion was which was held by the leaders of the United Irish League as to the effect of such prosecutions he should like to quote from a speech made by Mr. William O'Brien in County Mayo, on the 31st of January, 1897, in which he pointed Out that the prosecutions would not take place as of old before two removable magistrates, but before a jury of twelve Mayo men, Whose verdict would be, "More power to you; God be with you."That was the opinion of one of the leaders of the League, and it was an excellent reason why the Government should not take the course which had been recommended that afternoon by the honourable Member for South Mayo. He thought that extract alone was sufficient to convince the House that the methods adopted by the United Irish League Were not always of a legal character, and it frequently happened that the Government might find it necessary to suppress meetings which were likely to lead to such results as he had indicated. The honourable memher went on to say that the suppression of this meeting might have something to do with the purchase of the Dillon estate by the Congested Districts Board, and he was good enough to suggest that he had been reluctant to take this course because it had been advocated by his political opponents, and that he took advantage of this meeting to make a sort of political manifesto. He did not think that that WaS a charge which he needed to take very seriously, because it was not this habit to proclaim meetings to gain political success. He would much rather that the meetings should be held, but it was his duty, under certain circumstances, to proclaim them. As to the Dillon Estate credit had been claimed for its purchase by the honourable mover and seconder of this motion for the United Irish League; but he should like to say in the most emphatic manner that the purchase of that estate halt nothing whatever to do with the action of the United Irish League, for they had merely thrown difficulties in the way, and the reason why they had been able to purchase that 952 estate had been because it was situated in a part of Mayo where this League agitation had not taken a hold. If there had been anything in the shape of agrarian agitation in connection with the Dillon estate, he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Congested Districts Board would have declined to purchase it.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said that if he were to follow the right honourable Gentleman upon the subject of the United Irish League he would no doubt be ruled out of order. He was afraid that they who had sat for years in that House were reminded by diatribes like that to which they had listened of what was always said against the Land League. They Were constantly told that the Land Acts had nothing to do with the agitation, but somehow or other the one always followed the other. This motion for the Adjournment of the House was made in consequence of the action of the Irish Executive in suppressing a meeting last Sunday in the county of Mayo. When the right honourable Gentleman was asked upon what ground the meeting was suppressed, he answered that it was likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and to the disturbance of the tranquility of the district, and to the intimidation of certain individuals. The Chief Secretary was asked who was his information, and who swore the information, and the usual answer was given that the individual who gave the information was a police officer. The House should remember that the police officer was the direct agent of the Chief Secretary, and they were informed that that police officer swore his information at the instance of Dublin Castle. There was a great principle involved in this matter. Was Dublin Castle to be at liberty to direct one of its officials to swear an information, and then upon that information to suppress a meeting which, in the judgment of the Castle, might interfere with the tranquillity of a district? Was the right of public meeting to be entirely at the mercy of the officials in Ireland, and was that right only existent so far as the right honourable Gentleman permitted it?
§ MR. G. W. BALFOURreminded the honourable Member that the action taken 953 by the Irish Executive could be tested in a court of law.
§ MR. DILLONWhat an offer that was to make to the poor people of Mayo, for it would cost £300 to take the matter to a court of law. What happened? A meeting was proclaimed; people went to the place of meeting, and immediately found themselves face to face with an overwhelming force of police, armed with firearms and with batons, and the only way to test the action of the Executive in suppressing these meetings was to resist the police in the first instance. If resistance was offered to the police in England a few broken heads might probably follow, but in Ireland resistance to the police was met with a discharge of firearms. He himself saw instances where, upon the slightest hesitation being shown by the people to disperse, bayonets were immediately fixed and the people, when actually flying, were pursued and charged with fixed bayonets, and in some cases stabbed, and it was rather absurd for the Chief Secretary to inform the House that there was a legal remedy open to the people to test the action of the Government in these matters. That was a mockery, and it was no remedy whatever. There was a remedy if the people were willing to offer their bodies to the batons and bayonets ant bullets of the police. The Chief Secretary's remedy was no remedy whatever, and therefore, if such proclamations of meetings were to be allowed to pass without protest the right of public meeting in Ireland would be at the mercy and good will of the Executive Government in Ireland and the Chief Secretary himself. Whenever he thought it was desirable for "tranquillity and peace" that public meetings should not be held all he had to do was to ask the police to swear an information, and there was no remedy whatever. The Chief Secretary said that out of 200 meetings held during the past twelve months in connection with this movement, he had only proclaimed five. But did not that make their case stronger? There were 200 meetings held, and out of the whole of them no disturbance had taken place. What had been the effects of the agitation from the point of view of public order and tranquillity? Why, they had an admission from the right honourable Gentleman the other day in the debate upon the repeal of the Crimes Act that at 954 no period of Ireland's history was the country in possession of greater peace.
§ MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid he was then alluding to the country as a whole. As a matter of fact crime had not decreased in South Mayo.
§ MR. DILLONsaid he denied that statement absolutely. At the last Assizes in the County of Mayo the judge declared that the place was actually free from crime, and the only crimes reported of a serious character were crimes committed by one policeman and the relation of a policeman—one a crime of attempted murder and the other a crime of a very disgraceful character. The County of Mayo was wholly free from all serious agrarian crime. The only agrarian crime committed was the case of alleged shooting at Stoney, about which there seemed to be a great deal of mystery. In a district spreading over a considerable area, suffering from great grievances calculated to excite the feelings of the people, a popular organisation had existed for two years, and two hundred open-air meetings had been held, and in no instance had there been any disturbance or breach of the peace, nor any serious crime that could be laid at the people's doors as a result of those meetings; and he said the case against the action of the Government in suppressing the Breaffy meeting was thereby enormously strengthened. They were accustomed to hear a great deal about the grievances of the Uitlanders in the Transvaal, and one of those grievances, upon which that House and the newspapers were most frantic and angry, was that the Uitlanders were denied the right of public meeting. They knew that the Government, of the Transvaal had been denounced for denying what was described as an elementary right to the subjects of Her Majesty who lived in Johannesburg, but here they had an instance, only one of very many, where that self-same right, on infinitely less ground of justification, was denied to the poor peasantry of Mayo under the ægis and the protecting wing of this very Parliament. He said it was the height of hypocrisy to denounce the oppression of the Uitlanders of the Transvaal and claim for them the right of free meeting when they denied the same right to the peasantry of Mayo, who had greater grievances to complain of than the Uitlanders, and who had not been recently 955 engaged in attempts to upset the established authority. What was the condition of the country at the present moment? It could be learned from the speeches which were made at an indoor meeting which the people held after being prevented from holding it in public. One of the speakers said it was pitiful every day to witness the scenes which took place at railway stations where parents were bidding farewell to the children whose faces they would never see again. Emigration was very frequent, although the Chief Secretary had denied the fact, and it was to put an end to a terrible condition of things, a purely artificial state of things, which compelled the people to leave a country in which, if proper reforms were carried, they would he able to live and thrive, and increase the wealth of the nation. It was to put an end to such a deplorable state of things that the League existed and carried on its operations. And even if it were true that in the course of the 200 meetings strong language had been used by them the Chief Secretary should deal with the individuals who had used it. It would be the part of a wise and prudent statesman not to be too critical as to the character of the language used at public meetings so long as it was neither accompanied or followed by disorder. What he ought rather to look at was not the language from the platforms, but the consequences from it.
§ MR. G. W. BALFOURHear, hear.
§ MR. DILLONcontended that the consequences of this agitation had been peace, and the country was now at peace. There was nothing in the condition of the country to justify strong repressive measures on the part of the Government. As a matter of fact the right honourable Gentleman had not attempted to lay before the House, upon this or any other occasion when the subject had been discussed, any statement of crime or disorder such as had formerly been made by Chief Secretaries for Ireland when they were justifying or attempting to justify similar strong measures. There was another matter to which the honourable Member, attaching as he did great importance to it, desired to call the attention of the House. He always thought it was the first duty of the Executive—and particularly of an Execu- 956 tive Minister like the Chief Secretary, who practically exercised uncontrolled and irresponsible authority in Ireland—to be above even the suspicion of partiality in administering his great powers. One of the things which he most complained of in connection with this particular suppressed meeting was that he was forced to contrast the action with regard to that meeting with the course which had been adopted recently in Belfast by the right honourable Gentleman in dealing with the Orangemen. There was one way of dealing with the peasantry of Mayo and another for the Orangemen of Belfast. What did he say when his attention was called to recent proceedings of a disgraceful character in that city? A very different thing indeed to what he delivered himself of with regard to the Mayo meeting. In the latter case he said he had grounds for suspecting that the holding of the meeting might disturb the tranquillity of the district and intimidate individuals. But in Belfast meetings had been held for a period of six months, Sunday after Sunday, with the avowed object of disturbing the peace and tranquillity, and of denouncing one single person. That was not a case of mere suspicion, and when again and again honourable Members asked him to take steps for the protection in the exercise of his rights of a person who was there being persecuted, the Chief Secretary had a very different sort of answer to make. The result was that the mob triumphed, the church had been closed, and that clergyman, for all he knew to the contrary, had been driven out of the city of Belfast. That was the law as administered in Belfast; but in Connaught, where a few persons met to protest against iniquitous laws, whose operation kept them in poverty and left them a reproach to England before the whole of the civilised world, their meetings were suppressed on the ground of the suspicion of certain results. The Chief Secretary did not wait for the confirmation of the suspicions by facts. There was licence and leave in Belfast to trample law under foot, and hound down an individual, but in Mayo a legal right dared not be exercised by the people. The right honourable Gentleman did not like to put the law into force in Belfast for fear of bloodshed, but he never hesitated about that in the West of Ireland. What he (Mr. Dillon) denounced most of all in 957 connection with this matter was that this was a glaring instance of the fact that there was one law in Ireland for the peasantry of Connaught, and a totally different law for the Orangemen of Belfast.
§ * MR. WILLIAM MOORE (Antrim, N.)said he rose to utter a few words of protest against the course which was invariably taken up by honourable Members on the Opposition side of the House whenever an Irish question was raised, of assuming that they had a right to speak for what they called "the Irish people." He begged leave to tell the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he had the entire support of more than one-third of the Irish people.
§ MR. DILLONOrangemen!
§ * WILLIAM MOOREsaid he himself was not an Orangeman, and he did not speak for Orangemen alone. The right honourable Gentleman had at his back all people who were interested in the prosperity of the country and the ordinary liberties of the subject, and who respected private rights to carry on business as they thought fit. He cordially agreed with honourable Members on the other side that there was a question of principle involved. He thought there was a very serious question of principle affecting the liberty of the subject involved, and it was this. Had a man in Mayo, who had lived there all his life and got a grass farm from his father, now at the instance of honourable Members opposite and their friends, to be driven "willy nilly" out of his farm? The honourable members and their friends seemed to go and say: "law or no law, you will have to give up possession of it." If that was not the case, then the meetings had failed in their objects. The objects of the meetings were to put down land-grabbing, and to make it impossible to hold those lands, and if those objects were not carried out the meetings were absolutely fruitless and pointless. One honourable Member had asked what happened in Belfast. He would tell him. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland took his own course, and he was bound to say that that course did not meet with universal approval in Belfast. So anxious was the right honourable Gentleman to preserve the right of free speech in Belfast, that 958 last year when the Member for South Mayo went down to speak the right honourable Gentleman refused to proclaim that meeting. The result was that the honourable Gentleman left Belfast within twenty-four hours, leaving behind him the seeds of discontent, riot and confusion, which plunged many homes into misery, and took three months to allay at the public expense, and that was what came of allowing free meetings in certain districts in Ireland, which everyone knew was like going to a powder magazine with a lighted match. Those in Ireland who were interested in trade and private rights, and in putting down disorder, and allowing the country to have a little time to recover from agitation, cordially supported the policy of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Members opposite had said there was to be one law for meetings in the United Kingdom and another for meetings in Ireland. The policy of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary had been in the interests of liberty of the subject and of the right of free speech, to put down intimidation and to check crime and prevent disorder, and where it had done so that policy had been absolutely justified by the circumstances.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)said he was very much surprised to hear the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary deny the statement of the honourable Member for South Mayo, with regard to emigration. His information was that the distressing scenes of young people separating for ever from their parents in many cases, were more frequent in Ireland than they had been for some considerable time. All those who had money to leave with were leaving Ireland, and the only reason why the exodus was not larger was that the people had not the money to pay their passages to America; those who left, the moment they had earned enough money, sent it over to Ireland in order that their relatives might join them. He wanted prosperity in Ireland just as much as the Chief Secretary desired it, but was that prosperity to be gained by driving people out of the country or by retaining the population in the country? He challenged the denial of the right honourable Gentleman. Emigration was rising at this moment, and within the memory of men 959 of middle age the population of Ireland had largely decreased and emigration was still increasing.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The question of emigration is entirely outside the motion.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORadmitted that that was so, but said that he felt that that was the question which lay at the root of the motion they were discussing. He maintained that the whole vice of the present Government of Ireland as conducted by the right honouralde Gentleman the Chief Secretary and his pre-
| AYES | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhonda) | Hayne,Rt.Hon. Charles Seale- | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Allan, William (Gateshead) | Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Allen,Wm.(Newc.under Lyme | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) | Holden, Sir Angus | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Austin, M (Limerick,W.) | Horniman, Frederick John | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Bainbridge, Emerson | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C.B. | Johnson-Freguson,Jabez Edw. | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) |
| Blake, Edward | Jones, David Brynmor(Swnsea. | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. | Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh) |
| Burns, John | Kitson, Sir James | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Bart, Thomas | Labouchere, Henry | Souttar, Robinson |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Lambert, George | Spicer, Albert |
| Caldwell, James | Lawson,Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd. | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow | Lewis, John Herbert | Steadman, William Charles |
| Cameron, Robert (Durham) | Lloyd-George, David | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lough, Thomas | Stuart, James (Shoreditch) |
| Clark, Dr.G.B.(Caithness-sh.) | Lyell, Sir Leonard | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Colville,John | Macaleese, Daniel | Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E. |
| Crombie,John William | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall | Thomas,Alfred(Glamorgan,E.) |
| Curran,Thomas (Sligo, S.) | M'Ewan, William | Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr |
| Dillon,John | M'Leod, John | Travelyan, Charles, Philips |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Mendl,Sigismmund Ferdinand | Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) |
| Doogan,P.C. | Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel | Wallace, Robert (Perth) |
| Dunn, Sir William | Morgan, W.Pritchard(Merthyr | Walton,John Lawson(Leeds,S |
| Edwards,Owen Morgan | Moulton, John Fletcher | Walton, Joseph (Barusley) |
| Farquharson, Dr Robert | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Warner, Thomas Courtenay |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nussey, Thomas Williams | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Fox,Dr. Joseph Francis | O'Brien, James F.X.(Cork) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Hrbrt.John | O'Conner,James (Wicklow,. W. | Williams, John Carvell Notts |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Connor, T.P. (Liverpool) | Wison, Henry J. York,W.R. |
| Gold,Charles | O'Kelly, James | Wilson, John (Govan) |
| Gourley,SirEdward Temperley | Oldroyd, Mark | Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Huddrsfd. |
| Griffth, Ellis J. | Palmer,Sir Chas.M.(Durham) | Yoxall,James Henry |
| Gurdon, Sir William Brampton | Paulton, James Mellor | TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.Davill and Dr. Ambrose |
| Harwood, George | Pease,Alfred E, (Cleveland) |
| NOES. | ||
| Aird, John | Barry, Rt.Hn.A.Smith-(Hunts | Bowles, Capt.H.F.(Middlesex |
| Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden | Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor | Bowles, T. Gibson(Lynn Regis) |
| Alsopp, Hon. George | Bartley, George C.T. | Brassey, Albert |
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Brodrick, Rt. Hon.St. John |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Beach,Rt. Hn.Sir M.H. (Bristol | Bullard, Sir Harry |
| Atkinson, Rt.Hon John | Beach,W.W.Bramston (Hants | Campbell,Rt.Hn J.A.(Glasgow |
| Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Bentinck,Lord Henry C. | Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh. |
| Bailey,James (Walworth) | Bethell, Commander | Cayzer, Sir Charles William |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Bhownaggree, Sir M.M. | Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) |
| Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J.(Manch'r | Biddulph, Michael | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) |
| Balfour,RtHnGerald W (Leeds | Blundell,Colonel Henry | Chaloner, Captain R.G.W. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J. (Birm. |
| Barnes, Frederick Gorell | Boulnois,Edmund | Chamberlain, J.Austen (Worc'r |
§ decessors was that they were not able to obtain reforms until, after a long period of agitation, some strong movement arose. He congratulated Mr. William O'Brien and the United Irish League on the many victories they had already won over the right honourable Gentleman, and he prophesied a great many more victories before many months had elapsed.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—For the adjournment 107; Against 212.—(Division List No. 156.)
961| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Halsey, Thomas Frederick | Morrell, George Herbert |
| Charrington Spencer | Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld George | Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford |
| Chelsea, Viscount | Hanbury,Rt. Hon. Robert W. | Mount, William George |
| Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth | Hanson. Sir Reginald | Muntz, Philip A. |
| Cochrane, Hon.Thos.H.A.E. | Hardy, Laurence | Murray, Rt. Hn A. G (Bute) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Heath, James | Newdigate, Francis Alexander |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Helder, Augustus | Nicol, Donald Ninian |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Hermon-Hodge, Robt.Trotter | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlngtn |
| Colston, Chas. Edw.H. Athole | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Pender, Sir James |
| Cook,Fred.Lucas (Lambeth)M | Hill, Rt. Hn.A.Staveley (Staffs. | Penn, John |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow | Hill, Arthur (Down, West) | Percy, Earl |
| Courtney, Rt.Hon. Leonard H. | Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol) | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur |
| Cox,Irwin Elward B. (Harrow) | Hoare,Samuel (Norwich) | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Carborne, Viscount | Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Cross, Herb.Shepard (Bolton) | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Cubitt, Hon. Henry | Howell,William Tudor | Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hrtlp'l) |
| Currie, Sir Donald | Hozier,Hon. James HenryCecil | Ritchie,Rt. Hn.Chas Thomson |
| Curzon, Viscount | Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Robertson, Herbert(Hackney) |
| Dalbiac,Colonel Philip Hugh | Hughes, Colonel Edwin | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hutchinson,Capt.G W.Grice- | Round, James |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Davies,Sir HoratioD (Chatham | Jenkins, Sir John Jones | Russell, T.W. (Tyrone) |
| Denny, Colonel | Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) | Ryder, John Herbert Dudley |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Jolliffe, Hon. H. George | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Dorington, Sir John Edward | Kemp, George | Savory, Sir Joseph |
| Doughty, George | Kimber, Henry | Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lamie, Lieut.-General | Seely, Charles Hilton |
| Doxford, William Theodore | Lawrence, Wm.F. (Liverpool) | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) | Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew) |
| Egerton, Hon.A.de Tatton | Leighton, Stanley | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Elbott, Hon.A.Ralph Douglas | Llewelyn,SirDillwyn-(Sw'nsea | Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (strand) |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Spencer, Ernest |
| Fellowes, Hn, Ailwyn Edward | Long,Col.Chas. W.(Evesham) | Stanley, Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk |
| Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) | Lorne, Marquess of | Stanley, Lord (Lancs. |
| Finch, George H. | Lowe, Francis William | Stephens, Henry Charles |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Lowles, John | Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Lucas-Shadwell, William | Sturt,Hon. Humphrey Napier |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Fitz Gerald,Sir Robert Penrose- | Macartney, W.G. Ellison | Talbot,Rt.Hn J.G.(Ox.Univ. |
| Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. | Macdona, John Cumming | Thorburn, Walter |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | M'Calmont, H.L.B. (Cambs. | Tomlinson,Wm.Edw. Murray |
| Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) | M'IverSirLewis(Edinburgh, W | Valentia, Viscount |
| Galloway, William Johnson | M'Killop, James | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard |
| Garfit, William | Malcolm, Ian | Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe) |
| Giles, Charles Tyrrell | Manners, Lord Edward Wm.J. | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Gilliat, John Saunders | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Welby, Lieut-Col.A.C.E. |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. | Marks, Henry Hananel | whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L. |
| Goldsworthy, Major-General | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.F. | Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.) |
| Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) | Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk) |
| Goschen, RtHnG.J.(StGeorge's | Meysey-Thomson, Sir H.M. | Wilson-Todd, Wm.H.(Yorks) |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Middlemore,Jhn. Throgmorton | Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.,(Bath) |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Milner,Sir Frederick George | Wyndham, George |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Milward, Colonel Victor | Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H. |
| Green, Walford D. (Wdnsbury. | Monk, Charles James | Young, Commander(Berks, E.) |
| Gretton, John | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Gull, Sir Cameron | Moore, William (Antrim, N.) | Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Hall, Rt Hon. Sir Charles | More,Robt.Jasper (Shropshire |