§ Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI beg to oppose the motion. My reason for doing so can be stated very clearly and briefly. We have now reached half-past 10 o'clock, and an hour and a half remains for the transaction of business. In the early part of to-day's sitting a very large amount of Government business has been transacted. No obstruction has been thrown in the way of the Government, and, having obtained all they desired, they now propose that the House should adjourn, although there remains on the Order Paper one Order of very great importance which has the support of the overwhelming majority of the House. It is a Bill entitled "Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill." It would be improper for me to attempt to go in detail into the provisions of this Bill, but I may be permitted to point out that the Bill deals with a very important question, and that it has practically the unanimous support of the House. It was introduced by a private Member, and of course the opportunities of private Members in promoting legislation are very few It has been the fate of this 301 Bill year after year to be defeated by the opposition of one or two Members. The opportunity has arisen for dealing with the Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal Bill now. We have an hour and a half before us, and I respectfully submit to the House that it would be a monstrous thing if, after we have helped the Government business to be transacted quickly at the earlier part of the sitting, the Government should intervene with a motion for the adjournment of the House. This matter which we desire to bring before the House is one which excites the keenest possible interest, not only in Ireland, but among large classes of the people of this country and in other parts of the Empire, Perhaps you will allow me to mention in one sentence what the object of the Bill is.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI think the House understands the object of it. I do not think you can discuss the details of the Bill now. The object is plain from the title.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIt is quite true that the object is clear on the title, but I am afraid that in these days of toleration in this country hon. Members in this House are apt to forget that there remain on the Statute Book some relics of the old Penal days.
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid if he allowed the hon. Member to argue the question he must allow other Members to reply.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI never had any intention of arguing the matter at all, and I will not go further than to say that the Bill proposes to remove certain religious disabilities attaching to a large class of the citizens of the Empire—disabilities which, I believe, not one per cent. of the Members of this House desire to see continued. In fact, I think I am right when I mention that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has already stated that so far as he understands the Bill, he does not see any objection to it. I do not know anybody who has any objection, with the exception of two Members of the House, and I do put it in all seriousness, if it is not monstrously hard, after 302 sitting up night after night since the commencement of the session helping the Government in the passage of its business—bringing to bear on the business of the Government keen interest and intelligence—that we, are to be prevented now from spending ten minutes or a quarter of an hour in passing the Second Reading of a Bill of this nature. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh. Of course they think that if the House has been sitting late it has been the fault of the Irish Members. I will not argue the question. Possibly they think that it would have been better for the interests of the Empire if hundreds of millions of money had been voted without any discussion at all. Possibly they think that the function of the House of Commons is discussing—
§ * MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was travelling beyond the question of the adjournment.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI quite understand that, Mr. Speaker, but what I desire to point out is that we, having been necessarily engaged night after night for prolonged hours in discussing the business of the Government, would feel it very hard to be prevented from taking advantage of this happy opportunity to-night to push forward a Bill about which there is practically no difference of opinion at all. The right hon. Gentleman pleads that there is some understanding that on Friday nights nothing but Supply should he taken. I respectfully submit to him and to the House that I think that would be an unfortunate understanding to have translated into an unwritten rule of the House. It that were so, it would be placing a, direct premium, as one of my honourable friends said, upon loquacity, and upon prolonging discussion, and where you have an occasion like tonight, where large sums of money have been voted with meagre discussion, it would be hard indeed to deprive us, who have abstained from discussing these matters, of our reward when we want to bring forward this Bill. I say that it would be a monstrous scandal if the House adjourned at half-past ten when a question of this kind remains to be discussed. If this House is to retain 303 the respect of the nation it must conduct its business in a business-like manner, and I ask seriously is it a business-like transaction, having fulfilled the particular Government business to-night, that you should adjourn at half-past ten? This is an urgent matter, upon which we are all agreed, waiting to be discussed, and which could be dealt with in a quarter of an hour. If the light hon Gentleman had not moved the adjournment of the House we might now have disposed of it to the satisfaction of the entire House, and we might have removed what is an intolerable grievance and insult to citizens of the country. Under these circumstances. I appeal to the House to take a reasonable, businesslike and conciliatory attitude on this matter, and give us the few moments that are necessary out of the hour and a half that remains. This question is of the utmost importance in Ireland, and millions of people in other parts of the Empire take a keen interest in it. I cannot conceive that anybody out of sheer malice or revenge, because they thought we had prolonged discussion on other occasions, could desire to deprive the Irish Members of this opportunity of discussing this matter. That indeed would be a very ungenerous thing for the House to do. I do not believe that that feeling is animating hon. Members opposite at all. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, as we have economised time during this silting of the House, at any rate to give us the advantage of the Few moments we ask for discussing this urgent matter, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in his motion for adjournment, and will enable us in proceed to the discussion of this matter.
§ MR. FLYNNsaid the laws of the House were surely not like the laws of the Medes and Persians. The business of Supply ordinarily ran to 12 o'clock, but were they to throw away an hour, or an hour and a half, of valuable time when Supply finished earlier, simply for the purpose of carrying out some cast-iron rule? The session had now lasted six weeks, and it was a remarkable fact that although the Irish party had some Bills they desired to bring forward only one had come before the House. Here was a chance of dealing with a grievance not only of 304 Ireland, but of Great Britain. The sense of the House could be taken upon it in half an hour, and yet the Government seemed inclined to sit tight and stick to this stupid idea about taking no other business on Friday after Supply. This could not be quoted as a precedent, because it very rarely happened that Supply was finished before midnight. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion for the adjournment, turn round and smile on his followers, and say "Let us go to a Second Reading." So far as he could see there would be no other opportunity of bringing forward the Bill this session.
§ MR. CREAN (Cork, S.E.)said the British Government were supposed to govern Catholics and Protestants with equal laws, but it appeared to him that Jews and heathen had a better chance in the empire than Catholics. They could never be governed with equal laws so long as there was a ban on their faith. So confident were the supporters of this Bill in the justice of their claim, that they were prepared to accept the decision of the House upon it without discussion. They were satisfied that every honest-minded man would vote for the Bill. He acknowledged that there were a few cranks who objected to it, but they were very few. Earlier in the evening the Irish Members abstained from discussing the Votes of money, because they wished to have the opportunity of bringing this Bill before the House.
§ * MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)I hope the House will not set up any cast-iron rule on this occasion about allowing nothing but Supply to be taken on a Friday night, but will enable us to discuss this very important Bill. I speak as a member of the Protestant faith, and it is we, the members of that faith, who ought to be the most eager to wipe out the disgrace which this Bill proposes to remove. The disgrace does not reflect upon those who ask for this opportunity of discussing this Bill. It is upon the Protestants of this country that it rests. It is an unfortunate thing—it is a shameful thing—that in this Parliament for several years earnest and assiduous efforts to get an opportunity of wiping 305 out this disgrace have been thwarted. Those who made those efforts have been deprived of the opportunity in the past, and they are again being deprived of it now. I say it would be more for the honour and credit of this House that this Bill should be allowed to-night to receive a Second Reading; and I therefore implore the Leader of the House not to be inexorable, but to allow this disgrace to be wiped out by allowing the Bill to be read a second time. If this opportunity is refused, the feeling of insult and wrong will be continued among the Catholics of the Empire.
MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)said it appeared to him that the time available for private Members' Bills was inevitably curtailed year by year. It was not unreasonable to ask that, when the Government business had been transacted, any available time should now be devoted to this Bill. It should then be left to the opposers of the Bill, irrespective of party, to move the adjournment of the House. That was the practical test to put the Bill to.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURMy hon. friend who has just spoken has not, I think, fully appreciated the exact circumstances of the case. Why was it that after Supply to-night the next Order of the day was a Bill in the hands of a private Member? The reason was that the Government bad laid down as a rule and practice of the House that Friday should be devoted to Supply. The House may like or dislike that. If they dislike that rule, let them say so, and the immediate result will be that I shall put down a Government Bill as the second Order of the day, and no private Bill would ever have a chance. The whole difficulty which we are now suffering from would be obviated it I were to put down a Government measure at the end of Supply, and announce beforehand that I would not take it, but move the adjournment of the House. If the adjournment was not carried, the Government Bill would be taken. That is the course that would be adopted, and which was adopted for some time before the new Supply rule was introduced. In those days Friday was devoted first to Supply and then to 306 Government business, but remonstrances were made to me as Leader of the House. I was told that it was not fair that I should use any time that was over for legislation. I yielded to them at the time, and I have abstained from putting down a Government Bill. Am I to be told that if the Government have abstained from using their own day for carrying on the legislation of the country, the gap is to be filled up with private Members Bills? If my hon. friend will think over the proposition be will see that it is an unreasonable one, and if the House should differ with the Government to-night as to the course I am advising the Government to pursue, it is the last time they will do it, for never again will I put down a private Member's Bill after Supply.
§ * MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman seems to think that I put it down. The hon. Member asks for information, and I will give it to him, as perhaps he is not so familiar with the practice of the House as some of us who have been longer here. As regards Government business, the Government put it down any day they please. Friday is a Government day, and therefore no Bill put down for that day by a private Member is taken until after the Government business has been finished. On the other hand, a private Member has a perfect right to put down his Bill any day he likes. Therefore the Government have only got to put down a Bill, or two Bills, or a dozen Bills, after Supply on Friday, and, of course, private Members would be absolutely excluded from any chance. We have no control over private Members, but we have to submit that when we have abstained from exercising our fights, it is rather hard that private Members should step in and violate the rule in their own interests. I hope I have made that clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite who are advocating the Second Reading of the Bill. Hon. Members from Ireland state that the Government owe them some little compensation for all the hard work they have been doing for the Government. I can assure hon. Members that, if there are hon. 307 Members on my own side of the House who consider that the action of the Irish Members during recent weeks has not been such as to recommend to the general favour and attention of the House any of their requests, in the action we have taken on the present occasion there is no consideration of that kind nor any tincture or flavour of revenge. The course we have taken to-night is one which I have previously taken against the almost unanimous desire of my own friends, and they have again and again protested to the gentleman in charge of the general management of the business of the House against the hard-heartedness of the Government in insisting that after Supply was finished the House should adjourn. Hon. Members opposite say that this Bill is for the purpose of removing a great and standing scandal. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Bill. They have also mentioned that they have been fortunate in the ballot this year. Why has not this Bill had precedence on one of the occasions on which Irish measures secured priority on the Order Paper? Hon. Members are admirably organised, and when they are fortunate in the ballot they put down measures which commend themselves to the majority of Members on those benches. I do not say that they do not desire this Bill to pass; but they cannot have a pre-eminent, overmastering wish that it should pass, otherwise they would have taken care on one of the many days on which they have secured precedence to have placed it first on the Order Paper.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI would wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Members have not been so very fortunate in the ballot. They have only obtained precedence for one Bill up to the present.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think I have noticed two or three Wednesdays on which Bills with a most Hibernian flavour in their titles at all events had precedence. I have been in the House five-and-twenty years, and during that period I would be afraid even roughly to estimate the number of Wednesdays in which hon. Members have had precedence. 308 Let us put on one side altogether the merits or demerits of this Bill. So far as I know, I think the Bill is a very good one. I do not know whether it is a practical Bill, but to its principle I think most people will assent. One or two hon. Gentlemen opposite said it would pass without a word of comment, and it was so obvious that no one would desire to debate it. Is that the principle on which hon. Gentlemen manage their debates? Do they not discuss obvious propositions and occupy the time of the House?
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)We have allowed Bills to pass without discussion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not deny that hon. Members can on occasion show the virtue of silence. I am asking, is that habitual? Are they in that general state of grace in which silence is their obvious and ruling characteristic, and in which every common sense proposition maintained on this side of the House is received with respectful taciturnity on the other side? I think. Sir, that the expectation of silence is very often disappointed on whatever side of the House it is entertained. We may set aside all discussion as to the merits of the Bill, or the characteristics of the Party advocating it, because I can most truly say that neither of these circumstances have had the smallest influence in the decision which I venture to recommend to the House. The question is the management of our Fridays in Supply. I am glad that this Bill is one which, so far as I know, is not of a controversial character. Had it been one which the Government looked upon unfavourably, we might have been accused of partiality. We cannot be accused of partiality on the present occasion, as we have no objection to the Bill. We are acting on a general principle, which I am sure the House ought to accept, and it in a moment of aberration we violated the established practice, I can only say that I should be obliged to see that it did not occur again by putting down on Fridays, not for the purpose of discussion, but for the purpose of preventing motions like the present, other Government business.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he could not hope to add weight to the appeal which had been made to the First Lord of the Treasury, but, as the Member who first introduced the Bill, he should like to say a few words on the motion for the adjournment. He introduced the Bill five years ago, and he then endeavoured to make it as unobjectionable as possible. In the course of his investigations he only found two hon. Members who objected to it, and their ground was that they thought it was intended to repeal the Mortmain Acts. There were then some words in the Bill which, in the opinion of lawyers, might be so construed.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member cannot discuss the merits of the Bill.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he found hon. Members on the other side favourable to the Bill with the exception of the hon. Member for South Belfast, which he regretted, because everyone would regard the hon. Member as a conscientious and honest opponent, although sometimes fanatical. Whenever he had an opportunity of bringing the Bill forward he always informed the hon. Member of his intention, and he was sure his hon. friend who was now in charge of the Bill would also have informed the hon. Member for South Belfast if he were in the House that the Bill would he brought forward. His hon. friends desired to fight fairly and squarely. The Leader of the House said that he had no objection to the Bill, and that was something to remember, but in the words of a familiar quotation, "Perhaps it was right to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs? The House would have adjourned long ago if his hon. friend had been allowed to move the Second Reading of the Bill. The evil which it was meant to remove had been condemned by no less an authority than the Master of the Rolls in Ireland.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the merits of the Bill.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid he would ask the House not to be led by the 310 Leader of the House on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Fridays as if they had been created for the Government, but it would be in the recollection of the House that until recently Fridays were the property of private Members, before the Government appropriated them to their own use, as they were inclined to appropriate, all the time of the House. He hoped that the Catholics of Ireland, when they were next asked to fight the battles of the Empire, would remember how they had been treated by the Government.
§ DR. AMBROSEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Irish Members had been very fortunate in the ballot, but they had only secured one Wednesday up to the present, when they brought forward a Bill for the benefit of over half a, million of people. During the discussion of that Bill there were only fourteen Members on the other side.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThat has nothing to do with the question before the House, or with the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ DR. AMBROSEThe right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would themselves put down Bills, if private Members' Bills were to be brought forward on Fridays; but was it because they bad neglected their duty that the Irish Members should be deprived of their opportunity? The right hon. Gentleman said that he himself was in favour of the Bill, and that reminded him that when his hon. friend the Member for East Mayo brought forward the Catholic University question last year, the right hon. Gentleman said he was passionately in favour of it, but asked the Irish Members not to go to a division. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman now, if he were passionately in favour of the Billon the Order Paper, would he make it a Government measure?
MR. POWERsaid he desired to support the suggestion of his hon. friend. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he approved of the principle of the Bill, and saw nothing objectionable in it, but if he 311 approved so much of the Bill, why should; he not make it a Government measure? That would be a test of the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, and if he did that, there would not be many dissentient voices, even on his own side. They were not responsible for the discussion on the motion for the adjournment. His hon. friend the Member for Waterford proposed an alternative, which would have obviated the discussion, but the Government refused to accept it. The right hon. Gentleman asked why, if the Irish. Members were so much interested in the Bill, they did not put it down as first Order on one of the Wednesdays which had fallen to their lot, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill had been put down every day during the session, and it was not the, fault of the Irish Members that it was not passed. He was sorry that the Catholic Members on the other side did not support the appeal to the Government.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Brightside)We cannot ask the Government to violate the rules of the House.
MR. POWERsaid that if such an appeal were made the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps adopt the suggestion of his hon. friend.
§ MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)said that the header of the House stated that the precedent quoted by his hon. friend the Member for East Clare did not apply, because of the fact that on that occasion he himself was absent, from the House. But the right hon. Gentleman had representatives in the House who acted on his behalf, and therefore he held that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he would in future put down Government Bills which would prevent private Members moving their Bills; but if the right hon. Gentleman neglected to do that, why should the Irish Members suffer for it? They claimed to have a right to discuss the Bill. The, right hon. Gentleman used what he would call a very humorous and interesting argument. An hon. Member opposite, animated by a spirit of justice and fair-play, stated that he believed that the demand of the 312 Irish Members was reasonable and just. The right hon. Gentleman immediately jumped up, fearing that the disease would become contagious, and appealed to his party to follow him. The right hon. Gentleman had not treated the Irish Members fairly with regard to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman asked why this Bill was not put down as the first Order on a Wednesday, but what was the necessity of putting it down on a Wednesday, when, as the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted, there was no opposition to it? The Irish Members were therefore justified in taking an ordinary occasion to bring forward the Bill. An hon. Member opposite appealed to the Leader of the House not to take up the Bill because an hon. friend of his was absent. Was it because one hon. Gentleman was absent on his own business, that the question of removing an insult to Catholics was to be postponed? That would be unworthy of the House of Commons. He observed with some sunrise that the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division of Derby supported the Leader of the House, notwithstanding that on several occasions recently they had heard the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of his party, protest against being ignored by the Leader of the House.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThat has nothing to do with the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. CULLINANsaid, not being yet well up in the rules of the House, he hoped he would be excused. The arguments and actions of the Leader of the House, and the support which was given him by his party, convinced him that the Government were not disposed to give anything like fair-play or justice to the demands of the Irish Members. The action of the right hon. Gentleman was consistent with that which the Chief Secretary and other Members of the Government assumed, although they had honeyed words in their mouths when they answered the questions of the Irish Members.
§ MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.)said that the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to express himself 313 in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he was therefore appealed to to make it a Government measure. He should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would answer that appeal.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe question as to whether the Government ought to make a Bill a Government measure or not, is not germane to the question before the House.
§ MR. JAMES O'CONNORsaid that the reason why he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to answer was that ii he replied favourably the discussion might end.
§ MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)said that, as the Member in charge of the Bill, he wished to point out the fallacy of one argument put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury as a reason why hon. Members should vote for the adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman said that if hon. Members broke through the customary rule of procedure on the present occasion, he would in future put down Government Bills after Supply. The right hon. Gentleman must think that the Irish Members were very blind, and that they did not know that there was a dearth of Government legislation. Where were the right hon. Gentleman's Bills? The only business laid before the House was the voting of money for the Army and Navy. In the most gracious Speech from the Throne—
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is getting very Faraway from the subject.
§ MR. O'DOHERTYsaid he was surprised that all the protests against the adjournment of the House should have come from the Irish Members. Where was the voice of the hon. Member for Galway, or of the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield, in support of the civil and religious liberty of their fellow Catholics? If the right hon. Gentleman wished to remedy the grievance, all he had to do was to tell the Government draftsman to introduce a section into the Statute Law Revision Bill, and the grievance would be wiped out. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assur- 314 ance to that effect, it would satisfy the Irish Members.
§ MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (Cork County, N.E.)said he thought it was the manifest duty of a Protestant like himself, who was returned by a Catholic constituency, to oppose the motion for the adjournment. He did not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill, but he should have thought that the majority of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, who were always boasting of their religious toleration, and the Unionist Government, which said it was prepared to do everything for Ireland that an Irish Parliament could do, would have bailed with delight the opportunity which was afforded them of removing a great grievance. The Irish Members had again and again been obliged to point out that the professions of the Unionist party were merely empty wind, and their action on the present occasion would intensify the dissatisfaction of the people of Ireland with English rule, and also the demand that the action of the Irish Members, not only in Ireland, but in the House of Commons should be in the direction of compelling the Government to redress Irish grievances, if they would not redress them through a sense of fair play. As a Protestant he felt grieved that his coreligionists were not broad-minded and liberal enough to rise in their places and urge the header of the House to yield to the demand of the Irish Members. The argument and the justice were on the side of the Irish Members, and if their demand was refused they would be taught a lesson which they would take to heart, and they would show that in refusing to grant an opportunity for discussing the Bill the Government would not be advancing the progress of business in the House or bringing about a greater acquiescence on the part of the people of Ireland in English rule.
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)said that the Government had wasted two hours in endeavouring to prevent the discussion of a Bill which did not meet with the opposition of as many members. The Irish Members knew very well how appeals in the past for facilities to discuss the Pill had been met. The right hon. 315 Gentleman, although he professed sympathy with the Bill, by his action refused to afford Catholics the religious liberty accorded to other denominations. To be consistent, the right hon. Gentleman should cither make Catholics throughout the Empire criminals or make them free.
§ * MR. SPEAKERThat has nothing to do with the adjournment of the House.
§ MR. FLAVINsaid that if the demand of the Irish Members were refused they would tell their constituents and also the Catholics of Great Britain how they had been treated. The Irish Members did not ask for anything but religious equality.
§ MR. FLAVINsaid that the Irish Members were only doing their duty in asking that they should be given an opportunity of discussing the Bill.
§ * MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)said that hon. Members opposite had by the rules of the House been able to keep up debates at great length, and it was then the duty of his hon. friends to remain in the House. Now by the rules of the House hon. Members should be allowed to go home after Supply had been finished. He hoped the House would abide by the rules and accept the motion for the adjournment.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had hardly grasped the meaning of the situation which had arisen. The hon. Member referred to the rules of the House, but was he present when it was pointed out earlier in the debate that on an occasion almost exactly similar the rules of the House were so far waived as to permit a motion for the adjournment on the part of the Government to be withdrawn in order that a private Member's Bill might be discussed? That was an almost exact parallel. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said it was impossible to depart from prece- 316 dent, that Friday being a Government day it was essential that nothing but Government business should be taken. But there was no rule so strong that it could not be departed from on occasion, and if ever there was an occasion when a departure should be made it was the present. He would not enter into a discussion of the details of the Bill, but would refer to it merely to the same extent as the right hon. Gentleman referred to it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was non-controversial. That was perfectly true. It was a Bill which had very few opponents in the House, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself declared he approved of. That being so, was it unreasonable that the Irish Members should oppose the motion for the adjournment, in order that they might deal with a Bill that was practically unopposed? When those who were interested in the Bill read the discussion it would be forced on their minds that although the right hon. Gentleman said he approved of the Bill, there was some hidden objection to it on the part of a section of the Government. The First Lord of the Treasury was generally on such occasions so admirable in his manner, and so bland and suave in his tone, that he succeeded too often in softening down the natural feeling of resentment entertained by the Irish Members; but he took the liberty of telling the right hon. Gentleman, speaking for himself, and he believed also for many other Irish Members, that he was getting heartily sick and tired of his conduct. Hon. Gentlemen opposite boasted sometimes that their party was pre-eminently the party of the aristocracy, and the gentlemen of England. [An HON. MEMBER: Order, order!] If that was out of order, he would withdraw it. He would repeat that he was getting tired of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, who was continually saying to the Irish Members, "I quite agree with your contention, which is most reasonable, I am personally strongly in favour of the measure you desire to pass "; but the end of all the fine and honeyed speeches of the right hon. Gentleman was that his majority of 150 went into the division lobby against the Irish Members. That occurred on the Catholic University question.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI hope the hon. Gentleman will keep to the question before the House.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he merely alluded to the—
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not in order on a motion for the adjournment in discussing the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on other questions.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was referring to the Catholic University question in order to illustrate tin attitude—
§ * MR. SPEAKERI hope the hon. Member will endeavour to pay some slight respect to the ruling of the Chair. He is persisting in a line of argument which I have twice told him is nut in order.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he would deal with what the right hon. Gentleman himself had said in his speech. He said he had no objection to the principle of the measure, but in the same breath he told the Irish Members that he would give them no help to carry out what he himself said they were justly entitled to. That attitude of continually expressing a desire to meet the wishes of the Irish Members while doing nothing to carry them out was an attitude which he himself was heartily sick of, and it illustrated the emptiness of the professions of the Government to rule Ireland with a fair and equal hand. If the Bill referred to religious orders which were respected by the majority of the Protestant Members of the House, would not the rule have been strained in favour of it? From one point of view, indeed, he was glad the Government had adopted the attitude they had, because it went to prove that while the Irish Members go plenty of sympathy there was still an
| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F. | Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Bain, Col. James Robert | Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. |
| Arnold Forster, Hugh O. | Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) | Bignold, Arthur |
§ attempt, though not so open as it used to be, to treat Irish Catholics with contempt, and he sincerely hoped that not only Irish Catholics but their co-religionists throughout the Empire would resent the action of the Government. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that he could not ask the Government to break the rules of the House. It was not a question of asking the Government to break rules; it was asking them to do for this Bill what they did for a Bill last year. As a Catholic himself he was not a bit ashamed to express his determination, in spite of every rule of the House and every action of the Government, to protest as strongly as he could as long as an insult, which no fair minded man approved of, on the Catholics of Ireland and the Empire was retained on the Statute Book.
§ MR. MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)said that as an Irishman himself he protested against the disrespect shown to the Leader of the House.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDWhat about the disrespect shown to Catholics?
§ MR. MACDONAOf all men in the House his right hon, friend did most to support Roman Catholics in Ireland, and no one could go further than he had.
§ * MR. SPEAKERHon. Members on either side of the House are not entitled to discuss the general question.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDOn a point of order, might I be allowed to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to continue his defence of the Leader of the House?
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 148, Noes, 53. (Division List No. 116.)
| Bigwood, James | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Bill, Charles | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale | Purvis, Robert |
| Blundell, Col. Henry | Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley) | Randles, John S. |
| Bond, Edward | Higgingbottom, S. W. | Rasch, Major Frederic Came |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hogg, Lindsay | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Brookfield, Col. Montagu | Lambton, Hon. Frederick W. | Rentoul, James Alexander |
| Bull, William James | Lawrence, William F. | Renwick, George |
| Bullard, Sir Harry | Lawson, John Grant | Richards, Henry Charles |
| Caldwell, James | Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham) | Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Rigg, Richard |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Charles T. |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire | Levy, Maurice | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.) | Smith, H C (Northumb. Tynesd. |
| Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Spear, John Ward |
| Charrington, Spencer | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Spencer, Rt Hn C. B. (Northants |
| Clare, Octavius Leigh | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison | Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ. |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Macdona, John Cumming | Tennant, Horold John |
| Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Thomas, J A (Glamorgun, Gow'r |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Majendie, James A. H. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Manners, Lord Cecil | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Tomlinson, William Edw. M. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Meysey Thompson, Sir H M. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. F. |
| Cust, Henry John C. | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) | Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Morrell, George Herbert | Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Dunn, Sir William | Mount, William Arthur | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Nicholson, William Graham | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Finch, George H. | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Wodehouse, Hon. A. (Essex) |
| Fletcher, Sir Henry | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John | Parkes, Ebenezer | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Peel, Hn. Wm. Rbt. Wellesley | Young, Commander (Berks, E.) |
| Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'amlts | Pemberton, John S. G. | |
| Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Penn, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Green, Walford D (Wednesbury | Platt-Higgins, Frederick | Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Hayes Fisher. |
| Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St, Ed. | Plummer, Walter R. | |
| Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Mid'x | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.) | Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Doherty, William |
| Ambrose, Robert | Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |
| Bell, Richard | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Dowd, John |
| Blake, Edward | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.) | O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N |
| Boland, John | Joyce, Michael | O'Malley, William |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Leamy, Edmund | O'Mara, James |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Lundon, W. | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Philipps, John Wynford |
| Cogan, Denis J. | M'Dermott, Patrick | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Reddy, M. |
| Crean, Eugene | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cullinan, J. | Murphy, J. | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Delany, William | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Doogan, P. C. | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Duffy, William J. | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | White, Patrick (Meath, North |
| Ffrench, Peter | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Flynn, James Christopher | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. | Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
§ Adjourned accordingly at five minutes after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.