HC Deb 01 August 1900 vol 87 cc349-63

Considered in Committee.

(In the committee.)

[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.


MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland) moved the omission of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act. He said that he protested on the previous night against this proposal, and ho was probably out of order in raising the general question as to whether this was the kind of Bill which should be introduced in an expiring laws measure. As he understood the object of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it was to prolong and continue Acts which, when passed, were intended to be of a temporary character. Accordingly they assumed that only Acts of a non-contentious character were mainly concerned. But supposing there was a very contentious Land Act passed for Ireland of a temporary character, would the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary be within his rights, or would the House tolerate for a moment the right hon. Gentleman including such an Act in the Expiring Laws Bill? His contention was that the right hon. Gentleman was departing in this case from the whole scope, object, and purpose of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and that he was passing by a side wind into law an Act which ought to be brought in as a separate measure. That observation applied with particular force to an Act of this kind. On every single occasion until within the last two or three years when an Act of this character had been introduced the Government of the day had made an essential feature of their measure that it was to be of a temporary character. The reason was very obvious. To this Act he objected not only on principle, but because it abrogated the fundamental rights and liberties of the nation. Under this Act in Ireland the right of bearing arms, which was the fundamental right of the citizens of any free nation, was practically, if not entirely destroyed, or surrounded with conditions which, amounted practically to a destruction. Whenever an Act of this kind had been introduced into the House on previous, occasions it had generally been described as a Coercion Act. He remembered when this Act was introduced in 1880, at least some three months were occupied in passing it, and now an Act which took three months in 1881 was to be stuck at the end of this Act just as if it was an unimportant measure instead of being an Act of first class magnitude. In England every man could practically bear arms, which was a right given to every citizen by the Constitution. So much was this the case that, at a time when a large number of accidents and crimes were attributed to the indiscriminate bearing of arms and the purchase of revolvers, a Bill which was brought into this House to interfere with the sale of revolvers was scouted out as an infringement of the rights of British subjects. Could it lie said with any pretence to decency or common sense that an Act which abrogated this constitutional light was a non-contentious Act which ought to be placed at the end of this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill? Under this measure the police in Ireland had the right to enter the house of any citizen from sunrise to sunset. The House of Commons had so far mitigated the severity of this Act as to give the right to a man in Ireland to bear arms, provided he could satisfy the magistrates that he was fit to exercise that right. There were only two justices of the peace who had that right to give this certificate of immunity and good citizenship, and they wore both the employees and dependents of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the Irish Government. It was rather too late for him to renew the old controversy about resident magistrates, but they were officials depending for their appointment, dismissal, and pension on the goodwill of the Government which they served. Outside Ireland there was no civilised country which had such a mixture of judicial functions and official dependents as Ireland. In 1881 the reason given for the passing of this Act was that there I was a considerable state of disturbance in Ireland. No doubt that was so at the time, although ho felt that those disturbances were largely augmented and aggravated by the coercion measures which had been previously passed by Parliament. But that state of disturbance had disappeared, for Ireland was now one of the most peaceable, tranquil, and law-abiding countries in the world. When the Coercion Act was renewed in 1881, there wore a number of meetings taking place in the north of Ireland, where the speakers were of the same political conduction as the Attorney General and the Chief Secretary. People appeared at those meetings armed with revolvers, and he read in the newspapers that the Orangemen and loyalists at those meetings had a favourite method of signifying their assent and approval by firing a regular shower of revolver shots.


No, no.


said the lion. Gentleman negatived that statement, but he did not think the hon. Member was present at the meeting to which he referred. If he was present, evidently certain features were kept from his knowledge. At several meetings revolvers were fired off just as if the people were dealing with property owned by the Boers.


What I wish to correct is that I do not admit that it was an Orange meeting. I admit that revolvers were fired at some meetings.


said that what he had in his mind was a meeting at which Lord Rossmore was present. Whether that could be called an Orange meeting or not he did not know. But whether they were Conservative or Orange meetings, the fact remained that at those meetings a large number of revolver shots were fired.


Both at those meetings and at Nationalist meetings the same system of revolver firing was practised.


replied that he was glad his hon. friend had made that correction. As a matter of fact, the reason given in the debate which took place when this measure was renewed was that there had been a large amount of revolver firing, and it was the loyalists' meetings which were mainly mentioned. He denied the proposition that revolver firing took place at Nationalist meetings. What were the facts with regard to the north of Ireland? The judicial bench was practically in the hands of one political party, which had the power, to a large extent, of dealing with this question of bearing arms. Therefore, a bench packed by Orange magistrates took good care that only good, sound loyalists and Orangemen had the right of bearing arms. The north of Ireland appeared to an ordinary southern Irishman something like a foreign country, because no Orangeman attended political meetings without his revolver in his pocket to use as an argument against such a small matter as a discussion upon the franchise. He had been at meetings in the north of Ireland to discuss a reduction of the franchise, and the question was considered so horrible that the market square was cleared by armed Orangemen, with the countenance of the authorities. These were the arguments used in former years, but they did not apply now, for even Orangemen were getting civilised and educated. The revolver was no longer considered—except in the city of Belfast—as a necessary, useful, and effective political argument. Was this Bill intended to disarm the Orangemen of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman would not have the courage to declare that this Act was impartially administered to all sections of the population of Ireland.


I have no evidence to the contrary.


said that the right hon. Gentleman had learned that a judicious fit of blindness and a judicious attack of deafness were most valuable occasionally. This Act had always been unfairly and partially administered between the two sections of the people in Ireland. He had seen in the papers that among many of the proposals for the settlement of the South African question one was that there should be a general disarmament. Even in the most jingo quarters the proposal that the Boers, after the war, should be disarmed was received with doubt and hesitation. But there was no doubt in the matter in Ireland. Lord Salisbury had recently drawn a terrible picture of Europe united in hatred and anger against this country, and had declared that the country's salvation lay in the establishment of rifle I clubs. Was it not ridiculous and absurd to talk about the establishment of rifle clubs when the people of Ireland were denied the right of carrying arms? Even in South Africa after a bloody and costly and terrible war the policy of disarmament against the men who had been in arms against this country was regarded with doubt and dislike. At a time when they were talking about establishing trifle clubs in England, Scotland, and Wales, they were asking the House to pass a Bill to deprive every citizen of Ireland of the right of bearing arms at all. What answer could the right hon. Gentleman give? If rifle clubs were the salvation of England, why should they be the destruction of Ireland? The Under Secretary for War was asked by the hon. Member for Kilkenny whether the additional facilities for the arming, drilling, and enrolment of Volunteers were to be extended to Ireland as well as to other parts of the country, and, not having had a Dublin Castle training, the Under Secretary answered with damaging frankness that there were certain formal and technical difficulties in the way of extending to the people of Ireland those blessed rifle clubs and those sanctified Volunteer facilities which were to be given to England, Scotland, and Wales. The real answer was that they were afraid of extending to the people of Ireland any of those personal liberties which they so freely bestowed and which they never dared to take away from the people of this country. If it was necessary now for them to carry out the disarming of the Irish people by this Bill, it must mean that the right hon. Gentleman had failed in his policy, and that they believed that the hatred and contempt for the present administration of Ireland was just as strong now as at any other former period. He wished the Chief Secretary God-speed on his approaching election campaign, coupled with the expression of a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would inform his constituents at Leeds that he was still afraid to give Ireland, after five years of his rule, the right of bearing arms.

Amendment proposed— In page 4, to leave out lines 25 and 26."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."


said the hon. Member for' the Scotland Division of Liverpool commenced his speech by laying down the broad principle that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill only contained Acts which were not of a contentious character. What were the facts of the case? The hon. Member spoke as if this Act had been continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill for the first time during the present year.


I distinctly said the opposite.


replied that he did not catch that expression. The hon. Member had argued that he was departing from a well-recognised and established custom in placing this measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.


But I alluded to the fact that it had been before the House several times.


said he would tell the House how many times this House had set up as a precedent the inclusion of this particular Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and that precedent had not been set by a Unionist Government, for it was set up in 1894 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs. It was included in the year 1894 arid 1895. He had had to defend this Bill ever since. He had defended it in 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899, and he had to do it again this year. How under those circumstances could it reasonably be maintained that by including an Act which had been included for the last six or seven years they were doing an outrageous thing? The hon. Gentleman went on to use very strong language, and he said that this Act was an abrogation of the fundamental rights of a nation. He thought the hon. Member himself was hardly aware how very easy it was in Ireland to obtain a licence for the carrying of arms. He would give the number of licences which had been applied for and the number which had been refused during the last year—1899. The licences granted amounted to 5,033, the licences refused to 230, and licences revoked ten. The searches only amounted to seven. It was perfectly easy for any person to get arms for a legitimate purpose. When the hon. Gentleman objected to the Act being administered by resident magistrates, he must have forgotten the circumstances under which that provision was introduced, otherwise ho would have felt that his argument was destroyed. In 1886, when the right hon. Gentleman who at present represented Montrose introduced a Bill to continue the Police Preservation Act of 1881, an Amendment was introduced to provide that the court of summary jurisdiction under the fifth section should consist of two or more resident magistrates. That Amendment, which was moved by an Irish Member, the hon. Member for the City of Cork, was agreed to by the whole House. The hon. Gentleman, in support of that motion, urged that local justices could not be depended upon to act impartially, and the hon. Member for East Mayo pointed out that it would be bettor to have the Act administered by skilled officials, whose action could be reviewed by the House of Commons. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool would see, therefore, that his contention was not correct. Had it been so the Amendment would not have been moved by the hon. Member for Cork, nor would it have been supported by the hon. Member for East Mayo.


admitted that he was not aware of the facts which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to, but at the same time he asked to be allowed to point out that the Bill of 1886 was brought in at a time when there were disturbances in the north of Ireland. He quite agreed with the hon. Members for Cork and East Mayo that it was safer to have these powers vested in the resident magistrates than the local justices.


said the hon. Member had gone on to deal with the reasons given for the passing of this Act, and reasons for it appearing upon the Statute-book. In 1881 the Bill was introduced because of the disturbed condition of Ireland. It was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, who was at that time the Home Secretary. It was perfectly true that Ireland to-day was not in so disturbed a condition as it was then, but only a year ago the hon. Member for East Mayo gave the same advice to the people of Mayo as ho did on that occasion in the speech which had just been referred to. Only recently Mr. Michael Davitt had said that there were hundreds of thousands of rebels in Ireland who only wanted rifles to assert their rights to self-government. He did not think there was any serious danger of insurrection in Ireland at the present time, but he had merely quoted those speeches to show that there was a difference between the conditions of England and Ireland which justified the restriction placed upon carrying arms in Ireland. Although the danger of an armed insurrection in Ireland was not one which need be considered at the present time, he thought police protection was necessary to be continued. Anyone who had studied events in Ireland must know of the dangers arising out of a collision I between hostile crowds in the north of Ireland. These dangers were almost all due to collisions between the crowd and the police, and if they were armed with firearms the results might be most grave. It was eminently desirable that the Government should prevent anything of that kind, and he believed that, if it were not for the fact of this Act, a great many people in Ireland who were not qualified to carry arms would possess thorn. He had nothing further to add in defence of the policy of continuing this Act upon the Statute-book. It was the fourth or fifth time he had had to defend it, and all his predecessors in office since 1881 had found it necessary to retain it. He did not see in the present condition of things in Ireland any circumstance which should lead to a change in the policy, and he hoped that the House would consent to renew the Act.


said such a speech as the House had just listened to from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made Irishmen despair of obtaining any remedy from the present Parliament. The Act of 1881 was passed in the face of most serious party opposition, and with many all night sittings and scenes of violence between the Nationalist Members and the Government. But there was one feature in that debate upon which much reliance was placed. The House was told that the Act was a temporary measure brought in owing to the supreme exigencies of the time. It was passed in the same way as a temporary suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. It was passed in a most insidious way by what might be called a party confidence trick. The right hon. Gentleman had been able to make considerable capital out of the fact that when the Act expired in 1886 it was renewed by the hon. Member for Montrose, lint under what circumstances was that done? Under circumstances in which every Irish Member would be bound to vote for its continuance; at a time when Belfast had been made by the supporters of the Union a bath of blood, when armed mobs marched through the streets and terrorised the city. Then came the time when it was said that Belfast magistrates should not administer the Act, and the Amendment was introduced and carried providing that it should be administered by two resident magistrates. The circumstances of its renewal by the Liberal Government in 1894 had no analogy. The Irish Members were then supporting the Government, and they passed it as a mere measure of policy. There was not the slightest desire upon their part for a renewal of the Act, but they wore not governing the country, and would not do so until it was put plainly into their hands. The present Government were not acting the part of a conductor of the Irish party to Home Rule; according to themselves they were killing Home Rule with kindness. They affected, with expressions which would be insulting if they wore not amusing, to know better what was good for Ireland than the representatives of the Irish people. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was, in some respects, a happy one, but in others quite the reverse, and he regretted ho had not the means and the power of getting it printed and posted up in every town of the Transvaal and bringing it to the knowledge of the Boers who were so soon to come under the beneficent rule of England, The Irish soldiers were great fighters and wore always put in the front. They were the "soldiers of the Queen," and were allowed by her gracious permission to wear the shamrock. Why were they allowed to carry arms in South Africa and not in their own native land? They were very good when they were put in the front rank of the battle to preserve English lives from Boer Mausers, but in Ireland it was quite another thing. The government of Ireland by England was an infamous pretence, and was only affected by force and fraud. The loyalists who were armed were only loyal to the extent of the cheque which they hoped to get shortly from the Castle. The right hon. Gentleman said, and said justly, that the disability to bear arms could lie removed by an application to the resident magistrates, and that anyone could apply who liked; but the Irish people had a great dislike to have anything to say to the loathsome tools of a foul and corrupt Government. They did not wish to acknowledge a system which it had always been their wish to repudiate in every possible way. It was a very great outrage that every person who desired to carry a gun, to shoot birds, or for his own purposes, should have to apply to an official at Dublin Castle. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the statistics of Dublin Castle wore always made for the occasion, and could no more be relied on than a Spion Kop despatch after it had passed through the War Office.

MR. LABOUCHEBE (Northampton)

assumed that it was admitted that this was a Coercion Act, and in the very nature of things a Coercion Act was a temporary measure brought in to meet a particular state of things. The Chief Secretary for Ireland argued in support of its renewal that it had been renewed year after year, and that it was perfectly monstrous that Irishmen should now object to a further renewal. If the argument was sound it would be strengthened for another renewal when the right hon. Gentleman brought it in next year.


said that he only referred to the fact that the Act had been introduced for seven or eight years in succession to show that his action on this occasion had not been furtive. He had stated that in reply to an hon. Member who had described his action in the matter as furtive.


contended that the action of the right hon. Gentleman was furtive in one respect. If the right hon. Gentleman believed that a Coercion Act was necessary for Ireland, he ought to have come boldly forward and admitted it; but, as he understood the matter, the right hon. Gentleman slipped it in quietly, and if the Irish Members were not very sharp they had no opportunity of exposing the matter. But the right hon. Gentleman did not pretend that it was necessary at the present moment—his argument was that Ireland was quiet at the present moment—but if this Act was not continued the people would begin to drill. For the last year England had been asked to drill, and suggestions had been made that school children—infants of six years of age—should be drilled at the public expense. If the Government went to Ireland for soldiers, obviously it would be an advantage to have the youth of Ireland acquainted with rudimentary drill. Another argument in support of its continuation was that if this Act was abrogated, there would be great fear that the peace would be broken. He did not believe that that was the case, because if a man were determined to fire into the windows of a house he could always supply himself with the means whether the Act were abrogated or not. The fundamental right of men in England and the Empire was to bear arms, and it was an attack upon the fundamental right of British subjects to say that in one part of the British dominions men should not be allowed to bear arms. It had been argued that this was not so, because Irish Members could go to the magistrates and obtain a licence; but what would be the result in England if that were the practice? What was wanted was that there should be an equality under the law between England and Ireland. The great argument of the Unionist party was that they did not wish anything to be clone in Ireland that was not done in England, yet the Irish people in Ireland in this respect were put upon the same level of equality as some of the African subjects of the Empire. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, and should support him if he went to a division.

MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)

said that the Act drew an invidious distinction between men who had to live under one law and placed a badge of inferiority upon the Irish people. He failed to see why Irishmen in their own country should be restricted in this matter when in England, Scotland, and other parts of the British Empire they had the right to bear arms in common with every other man. When this right was denied to British subjects in the Transvaal at the time when the Boers ruled in Johannesburg, it was considered a very great grievance and injustice, and it was one of the incidents that led to the war. The refusal on the part of England to allow the Irish to bear arms was a tribute to the militarism of the nation. He did not suppose if the Act were repealed there would be one in a hundred of the people in Ireland who would desire to carry arms, and at the same time, those who wished to commit outrages could always obtain arms for then-purpose, in spite of the Act. He did not believe if the Act were repealed there would be the general rush for firearms that was feared. In England, even when invasion was apprehended, the people could not be got to possess themselves of firearms, although there was every opportunity given, and grants for rifle ranges, and other matters. It was absurd, because men held a different political opinion to those of the Government, to say that they must humiliate themselves I before the magistrates in Ireland, in order that they might be allowed to bear arms for legitimate purposes. He again renewed his protest against the continuance of this measure, and he sincerely hoped that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool would go to a division, so that the Irish party might once more record their disapproval of an Act which placed a mark of inferiority upon the Irish race.


I propose certainly to go to a division on this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman made the quotation he read to the House from the speech of Mr. Davitt, he must have had in his mind the feeling that if Mr. Davitt said these things they were true. What did that mean? It meant that after five years administration in Ireland the right hon. Gentleman had to go down to the constituencies of this country and declare that the hatred of his rule and the principles he represented was just as keen, strong, and widespread in Ireland as at the commencement of that period—in other

words, that the right hon. Gentleman had; to mark in very large letters over his own administration the word "failure." The right hon. Gentleman now had declared that the policy of disarming was the policy by which he stood in Ireland. He has, given no indication that it was a policy he; ever intended to abandon. It had become a necessary and enduring part of British government in Ireland. If that were so, he wanted to know how the right hon. Gentleman was able to sit there without a blush as a member of a Government that had spent £60,000,000 of the money of this country on a war which had involved the loss of many most, precious lives—one of the pretences and, declarations put forward to justify the-war being that the Uitlanders, or Englishmen in the Transvaal, were subjected to that very disarming he advocated for the people of Ireland. He did not think it would be possible even for the dialectical skill of the right hon. Gentleman to justify on the one hand a war against disarming in the Transvaal, and on the other hand a policy of disarming for the people of Ireland.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 68. (Division List No, 261.)

Allsopp, Hon. George Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampste'd
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)
Arrol, Sir William Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D. Hornby, Sir William Henry
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Howard, Joseph
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Curzon, Viscount Hudson, George Bickersteth
Balcarres, Lord Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice-
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Donkin, Richard Sim Hutton, John (Yorks., N.R.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jessel, Captain Herbert M.
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Doxford, Sir William Theodore Kenyon, James
Bartley, George C. T. Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Kimber, Henry
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manch'r Laurie, Lieut.-General
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool),
Blundell, Colonel Henry Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Bond, Edward Fisher, William Hayes Llewellyn Evan H. (Somerset)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn) FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(S'wns'a
Brassey, Albert Flannery, Sir Fortescue Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham.)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Flower, Ernest Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Brown, Alexander H. Fry, Lewis Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Bullard, Sir Harry Garfit, William Lowe, Francis William
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gibbons, J. Lloyd Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.) Godson, Sir Augustus Fred. Lucas-Shadwell, William
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St George's Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Macdona, John Cumming
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Green, Walford D (Wednesbury M'Killop, James
Charrington, Spencer Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Mellor, (Colonel (Lancashire)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Halsey, Thomas Frederick Melville, Beresford Valentine
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George Middlemore, John Thr'gmorton
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm. Monckton, Edward Philip
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Haslett, Sir James Horner Monk, Charles James
Moore, William (Antrim, N.) Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
More, B. Jasper (Shropshire) Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford) Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Ta'nt'n
Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute Savory, Sir Joseph Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) Whiteley, H (Ashton-under-L.
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Nicol, Donald Ninian Simeon, Sir Barrington Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Penn, John Skewes-Cox, Thomas Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk Wylie, Alexander
Pierpoint, Robert Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset) Wyndham, George
Pollock, Harry Frederick Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Purvis, Robert Stone, Sir Benjamin TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Strauss, Arthur Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Remnant, James Farquharson Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Richards, Henry Charles Thornton, Percy M.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Emmott, Alfred O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Fenwick, Charles O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Asher, Alexander Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. O'Malley, William
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Gourley, Sir E. Temperley Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham
Billson, Alfred Griffith, Ellis J. Paulton, James Mellor
Blake, Edward Harwood, George Priestley, Briggs
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Reid, Sir Robert Threshie
Brigg, John Hazell, Walter Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Broadhurst, Henry Healy, Maurice (Cork) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Bryce, Rt. Hn. James Joicey, Sir James Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Burns, John Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Spicer, Albert
Burt, Thomas Labouchere, Henry Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Lewis, John Herbert Tanner, Charles Kearns
Caldwell, James Macaleese, Daniel Tennant, Harold John
Cameron, Robert (Durham) MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'ns C. Tully, Jasper
Channing, Francis Allston MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Colville, John M'Ewan, William Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Crilly, Daniel M'Kenna, Reginald Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Yoxall, James Henry
Dewar, Arthur Molloy, Bernard Charles
Doogan, P. C. Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Moss, Samuel Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Duckworth, James Moulton, John Fletcher

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.