§ [BY ORDER.]
§ (3.35.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said the Instruction which he desired to move referred to Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, 481 which gave power to the Corporation to acquire the land on which the Ulster Hall was built, and the building itself, and to make any alteration which they thought fit in the hall. As was well known to Members acquainted with Belfast, the Ulster Hall was the only hall in the city in which a really large public gathering could be held. It was a very fine hall—perhaps the best and finest in Ireland for that purpose. It had been owned and controlled hitherto by a private syndicate, who treated it as a commercial speculation and let it for public meetings of every character, with a few exceptions, and for public entertainments. He understood that, being a very large and valuable hall, it had not been a very successful speculation lately, and it was now desired, very naturally, to sell it to the Corporation to be used as a town hall or a place of public assembly. He asked hon. Members to observe that there was nothing in the terms of the Instruction to prevent the Corporation laying down any set of regulations which would render absolutely impossible any abuse in the way of hiring the hall or its devotion to any object of a generally objectionable character—he meant any improper or indecent exhibition. The Corporation under that Instruction would be perfectly at liberty to lay down any body of general regulations, covering the use and letting of the hall and the only object and effect of the Instruction would be that the Corporation should not be at liberty to boycott or exclude from the hall any body of citizens on religious or political grounds. Was it or was it not fair that the hall should be open to all who desired to use it for a fair and reasonable purpose, and that it should not be denied to any of the minority of the citizens who chanced to differ politically or religiously from the majority? In England, bodies of Irish Nationalists in the great cities were much less numerous as compared with their numbers in Belfast; and yet in Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, or London, the town halls were never denied to any body of Irish Nationalists who desired them for the purpose of holding meetings, and that was even true of periods when Party passion and Party feeling ran very high, and when the body of men who asked for them, was most violently opposed to the views of the majority of the ratepayers, and, of course, 482 to the corporate bodies who controlled the town halls. He had never known an instance in which anyone suggested that the use of the town hall should he refused because his politics chanced to differ from theirs. He thought it was a recognised principle of public life in this country that no matter how much the majority in any meeting or Corporation might differ from the minority who desired to use the city hall for a political or religious character, that it was desirable that they should not be interfered with and that they should be at perfect liberty to state their views, so long as they observed law and preserved decency and order, and complied with the general regulations under which the hall was managed. That was all he asked for in this Instruction and nothing more.
When he first put this Instruction on the Paper, he was under the impression, after a conversation with gentlemen representing the Corporation, that it would be unopposed, and he was sorry to find that that was not the case. The debate would chiefly turn upon the question—Were they justified on grounds of necessity in asking for this clause? He knew it would be said, and very strongly contended, that they were insulting the Corporation by asking for a security of this character. It had been said in the course of past debates concerning Belfast that the Corporation and the House of Commons had again and again decided—unwillingly, of course, and with considerable regret—that in Belfast Party feeling ran so high that it was necessary and just to apply some exceptional treatment in these matters. No man in Ireland regretted that more than he did, and he hoped the time would come before very long when that condition of things would have passed away, and when they would be able to trust the Corporation of Belfast to deal with the Nationalist minority in the same way that the Corporation of Glasgow, or Birmingham, or London dealt with the Nationalist minority in those centres. The experience of Irish Nationalists in this matter had been that this Ulster Hall had been in the hands of a syndicate of private individuals, who included amongst them some representatives of the Corporation of Belfast, and they, at all events, 483 might be taken as a very fair average representation of the same sentiment which inspired the Corporation of Belfast. On more than one occasion in the past, application had been made by-men who represented 70,000—one-fourth of the population of the city—and the hall had been denied to them; and on one occasion, not very long ago, the owners of the hall said they would let it to the Nationalists, who had applied for it for a public meeting, for £100; whereas it was let to gatherings in sympathy with the Corporation and the majority in Belfast for £15. Was that fair? There was nothing in the Bill as it stood to prevent the Corporation doing exactly the same thing. A very curious thing happened last autumn. Again an application was made to the proprietors of the Ulster Hall for liberty to hold a meeting, which was to be addressed by the hon. Member for Waterford and himself, and again it was refused. But on further consideration—he would not say it was because this Bill was coming on—the trustees or owners of the hall sent word that they could have it on the same terms as it was usually let. He thought probably the shadow of this Bill had some effect upon it. They held their meeting, the hall was packed to the very doors by a very respectable audience, who paid a very high price to go in; and there was no mischief of any kind done, and the meeting was a great success. Why should one-fourth of the citizens be denied the use of the only great public hall of the city? That was the issue contained in the Instruction, and he thought hon. Members who approached this question in a fair spirit, when they had heard what had been their experience as regards the Ulster Hall in the past, and when they knew that those private individuals who had had control over the hall in the past might be fairly accepted as representatives of the spirit of the majority of the Corporation, would agree that there was nothing unreasonable in the fear that the same policy would be pursued in the future, if the Corporation were allowed without any check to acquire possession of the hall, as was pursued in the past by the private owners. But there was this great difference—that, of course, in any 484 city in the world, however we might condemn their action and regret it, any body of private individuals who purchased a site or a hall were perfectly entitled to let or refuse to let it to whoever they liked. But it was a very different matter when the hall was purchased out of the pockets of the ratepayers of the city. It then became a great action of oppression and injustice if the majority of the Corporation were to deny to the minority the use of the Town Hall, for which they were paying as well as the other citizens. That was the reason why the claim he made was so great to have this provision inserted.
On what ground did the Corporation object to the Instruction? He should wait with curiosity to hear. How could any member or representative of the Corporation say frankly or honestly that he believed that there was no risk or danger of the Corporation meeting in the way he had described and refusing the hall for meetings of a political complexion different from their own? Every man who knew Belfast, and anyone concerned with the honour and peace and the cultivation of goodwill amongst the different sections of the city, would be anxious that such a provision as this should be put into the Bill in order to protect the Corporation against themselves or against certain hot headed members of their body, and to secure that this additional subject of contention and bitter feeling should not be added to the many which already, unhappily, existed. There was only one other ground on which he could conceive any Member for Belfast objecting to the intoduction of this safeguarding clause. It might be said that the hall and the ratepayers must be protected against damage, the cost of which would fall upon them. That appeared to be a most preposterous argument. Surely those who were holding the meeting inside the hall were not going to damage it. The damage could only come from some crowd attacking the hall or interfering with the meeting, and he thought it was a very strange argument that the hall should not be let to a section of the population opposed to the Corporation in politics, for fear that any section of the population might attack the meeting and damage the 485 hall. That appeared to be a kind of premium on rowdyism and riot, and intimating to the people who would cultivate those arts in Belfast that if they were only riotous they would succeed in their object of preventing the holding of meetings. But really it was not a good argument. Those who knew the topography of Belfast and the position of the hall knew that it was removed from what might be called the fighting district, and that it could not be interfered with by a mob if the police took ordinary precautions. What took place last Autumn when he spoke there? They had an immense meeting, and all kinds of threats and rumours were in the air. When the meeting assembled, a number of boys and noisy people assembled outside the doors of the hall, but a very few police dealt with them effectually, and not the slightest disturbance took place. The hall was so situated that proper police arrangements could absolutely secure it from the invasion of anything like a formidable mob. That was a question really of the rights of a minority, and if a similar case arose either in Dublin or Cork, and if the Nationalist Members had any reason to suppose that the Corporation of Dublin or Cork would seek to deny to an Orange meeting or a Tory meeting the use of the town hall, purchased and maintained out of the ratepayers' money they would be delighted to agree to any clause in the Bill restraining these Corporations from action such as that He appealed to hon. Members opposite in dealing with this question to dismiss from their minds for a moment Party feelings and Party considerations, and address themselves to it simply as a question of fair play to a minority, and of protection of the right of public meeting. He begged to move.
§ MR. DOOGAN (Tyrone, E.)
said he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion of his honourable friend, because if the instruction were inserted in the Bill it would, in his opinion, tend to break down the religions and political intolerance which unhappily characterise the dominant party in Belfast. Belfast was famed for its progress, its enlightenment, and, in some respects, its liberality; and he could not conceive how the 486 Corporation could object to a large minority of the ratepayers being afforded the use of a hall purchased, to a considerable extent, with their own money. To his mind, the clause would be a relief to the Corporation, as it would get them out of a difficulty. There was a very intolerant section in Belfast, which had considerable voting interest, and if the Corporation would set that section an example of broad-mindedness, toleration, and liberality, it would be a great boon to the city. He had no doubt that nothing but good would come of it. It was quite time that the recurring riots which had drenched the streets of Belfast in blood should be put an end to, not only by the opinion of this House, but also by those who had the destinies of Belfast in their hands. The Corporation might say that what was proposed was coercion, but they were always ready in Belfast to use coercion against political opponents. It was not coercion, but a small modicum of that fair play and justice which the House accorded to minorities throughout the whole of the Empire. Why, then, should the Catholics and Nationalists of Belfast be exceptionally treated? He hoped the representatives of the Belfast Corporation in the House would rise above the narrow bigotry and intolerance which were a blot on Belfast, and had long been a by word among the civilised peoples of the world.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill to insert a clause providing that the Ulster Hall be available for the use of any section of the community of Belfast who comply with the general regulations laid down by the Corporation for the letting and use of the hall; and shall not be refused on religious or political grounds by the Corporation to any body of citizens who desire to use it."—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT (Belfast, N.)
said that the hon. Member for East Mayo had brought a very serious charge against the previous administration of the Ulster Hall, but the hon. Member did not make it clear that up to the present the Corporation had no power over the hall. The hon. Member also said that a large 487 number of members of the Corporation were connected with the hall, either as owners or administrators; but that was not the case. The hall was built primarily, to a large extent, for the purposes of literature and music. It had within its walls one of the finest organs in Ireland, the gift of one of Belfast's noblest citizens. The hall was built by share capital, and, not being profitable, owing to the enormous expense of keeping it up, it went into the market, and the Corporation ultimately agreed to buy it. An Act of Parliament was required, and it was duly advertised, and subsequently a plebiscite was demanded, which resulted in a majority of four to one in favour of the purchase of the hall. No meeting against the purchase had been held in Belfast, and the hon. Member for East Mayo had received no evidence whatever which could justify him in moving his Motion. No doubt the hon. Member was discharging a splendid duty, and earning for himself a large amount of advertisement in connection with affairs in Belfast, but he was acting without the fiat of the citizens, and his action was self-devoted and not representative. Of course, according to the hon. Member, Belfast was a most bigoted place, but what was the fact? Could the hon. Member name any other city of the same political complexion in which he and the hon. Member for Waterford could hold a large meeting without the slightest interference?
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT
said he was dealing with Ireland. If he went to Limerick and called a similar meeting, he would be pelted through the city. What were the facts in regard to Belfast? For some years past the Corporation had had a public hall under its own administration, and he challenged hon. Members to produce a single instance in which the Roman Catholics had asked for and been refused the use of that hall. On the contrary, although they were less than one-fourth of the population, they had had more than one-fourth of the occupation of the hall, at a purely nominal rate, for their religious and charitable gatherings.
§ MR. DILLON
asked in what hall under the control of the Corporation Nationalists had ever been permitted to hold a meeting in Belfast.
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT
instanced the Exhibition Hall, but said he did not refer to Nationalists. A considerable proportion of the Catholics of Belfast, so far from being Nationalists, utterly abhorred Nationalism. If this Instruction were passed, the Corporation, even though the city were in a state of riot, would be unable to refuse the use of the hall for a political meeting.
§ MR. DILLON
said the hon. Member was putting a wrong interpretation on the Motion. If the city were in a state of riot, any general regulations would not apply, either to Nationalist or Orange meetings.
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT
contended that, as no bye-law could be greater than the Act under which it was made, the Corporation would be unable to refuse any such application. The ground on which this Motion was put forward was that the Belfast Corporation was intolerant. That charge had been made often before, and had been refuted as often as made. Hon. Members declared that Ireland should be allowed to manage her own affairs. Why did they not apply that principle to Belfast, instead of asking the Imperial Parliament to interfere in a matter of this kind? The past history of Belfast bore testimony to its fair treatment of minorities. The hon. Member for East Mayo always received a kindly welcome when he visited Belfast.
§ MR. DILLON
said the last time but one he was there he was received with a perfect whirlwind of nuts and stones.
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT
said that at any rate the hon. Member had been more kindly received in Belfast than in certain places in the south and west of Ireland, where he appeared to be dominant. He had never been charged with deserting the people whom he had betrayed, or of leaving people on the roadside not provided for—
§ * MR. SPEAKER
intimated to the hon. Member was going into matters not relevant to the proposal before the House.
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT (continuing)
pointed out that Belfast had agreed to acquire this hall; its citizens had declared their satisfaction that the Corporation should acquire it, and they had not demanded the imposition of the slightest embargo. There was a constitutional way of expressing opinion on such matters, but no action had been taken against the Corporation. On the contrary, the citizens had expressed their opinion fully, and the hon. Member opposite stood alone in his opposition. He in no sense represented the general feeling of the people; he did not represent Belfast.
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT
did not admit that. He claimed that he, as a representative of Belfast, and his hon. friends around him, represented the citizens, while the hon. Member for East Mayo in no sense represented them or their opinions in relation to this hall.
§ (4.12.) MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford, E.)
greatly regretted the tone of the speech of the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat. He could not see any reason why this question should not be discussed with perfect calmness, and without importing those elements of bitterness into the debate, which, unfortunately, were too much in evidence in the public mind in the north of Ireland. The House must really be getting tired of debates about Belfast. Belfast was, in many respects, a very great and prosperous city, but it was the only city in the United Kingdom which invariably came before Parliament in discussions, which raged around these questions of bigotry and intolerance. The hon. Gentleman opposite had complained that the bon. Member for East Mayo had no right to speak on behalf of the Nationalists of Belfast, and he contended that the Nationalists, if they wanted to make their voices heard, should do so in a constitutional way. What more constitutional way could there be than that of speaking through a Member 490 of the House who represented their political opinions? They comprised one-fourth of the population of Belfast; they had no direct representative in the House, because their opinions were swamped by the anti-Nationalist majority around them, and when they sought to put their views before the House, through a Member who represented their political views, the hon. Member who came forward on their behalf was told that he had no right to speak for them. The position of the hon. Gentleman was absurd. One would think from the his speech that the hon. Member for East Mayo had in some way opposed the principle of the Bill, and that he was opposed to giving to the Corporation the ownership and control of this hall. But the hon. Member had taken up no such position. The hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded to a plebiscite, and said that an overwhelming majority of votes was cast in favour of the Corporation obtaining the ownership of the hall. Quite so. He was himself in favour of the Corporation owning the hall. It was proper that the municipal authority in a great city like Belfast should have the ownership of a large hall such as the Ulster Hall, which could be used for the purposes for which town halls in England were used. All that was asked was that some guarantee should be given that the use of the Hall should not be confined to one section of the population. The hon. Member opposite had laboured the point very much that this was a Motion made in the interests of the Catholics of Belfast, and he had asserted—although it was not fully correct—that there were a large number of Catholics who were not Nationalists. But what had they to say to this question? The proposal was simply that a guarantee should be given, that when the regulations which the Corporation were to be perfectly free to make—they might be as rigid and strict as possible—were complied with, the use of the hall should not be denied to any section of the population on purely religious or political grounds. The hon. Gentleman had declared that no instance could be given of halls in Belfast being refused for such reasons. He was sadly misinformed about his own constituency
§ SIR JAMES HASLETT
I said there was no instance in which the Corporation of Belfast had refused the hall under their control.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
said that did not meet the case at all. The Corporation had had under their control only one hall, and that was a hall never used for political purposes. It was, in point of fact, a concert or dancing-hall, a hall of amusement. That hall had been given by the Corporation for Catholic bazaars. But that did not touch the question at all. They were now speaking of the use of the hall for political purposes, and of its being granted to the Party out of sympathy with the Corporation. There had been such instances. There was an occasion two years ago when, accompanied by his hon. friend, he went to Belfast to address a great public political meeting. The use of this very Ulster Hall was refused, and they were obliged to hold the meeting in a wretchedly small hall which could not accomodate one-fourth of the people who desired to get in. The result was that there were thousands of people surging around the hall, to the great danger of the public peace. They wanted to prevent the possibility of that happening. The men who refused Ulster Hall to them were precisely the same class and the same political Party that was dominant today in the Corporation, and he did not know that they had any reason to believe if the Ulster Hall was refused two years ago by these gentlemen it would not be refused a year hence by the Corporation, who represented the same class and the same political Party in Belfast. They were not making an unreasonable demand. If the House would consider this question fairly they would come to the conclusion that a hall of this kind ought to be under proper regulations and at the disposal of all sections of the population. If hon. Members would look back to the history of Belfast, they would see that they had a strong justification for fearing that this would not take place if the hall were given to the Corporation without some such Instruction as his hon. friend had moved. He believed that this Instruction, if put into the Bill, would tend to break down that wretched feeling of religious and political bigotry which was the disgrace of Belfast today. 492 If this Instruction were passed it would be a warning to all sections of the population of Belfast that in the opinion of this House freedom of speech ought to be accorded to all sections of the community; and it would be a declaration by this House that one fourth of the population, because they held views which were repugnant to the majority of their fellow townsmen, ought not to be denied their right of free speech and public meeting. He believed that by putting this Instruction in the Bill this House would not only secure the right of free speech in Belfast, but it would also have, generally, a most valuaable effect in hastening the arrival of the day which he, and others who thought with him, had perhaps more reason to wish hastened than any other people in Ireland, when the reproach and disgrace which rested upon it at the present moment would be lifted off the north of Ireland, when this feeling of religious and political bigotry will cease to exist, and cease to menace, as it did at present, the peace of the city every day that passed over the heads of the citizens.
§ (4.24.) MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)
said the hon. Member for Waterford had spoken about the religious bigotry which prevailed in Belfast. He did not wish to enter fully into this matter, but he agreed with what had been said that it was a great pity that no Bill which had the object of effecting an improvement in Belfast, could be brought into this House without there being a bitter political and religious element introduced. He was pleased to say that on this occasion that feeling had not originated on the ministerial side of the House. Any feeling of religious antagonism which had been imported into this debate had been brought in by the supporters of the Resolution which had been proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo. With regard to the Resolution itself there were two questions to be asked in connection with it. The first was, was it reasonable, and the second, was it necessary? If the hon. Member for East Mayo meant that in the letting of this hall no distinction at all should be made to any Party, then he entirely agreed with it; but if he went further and said that this Resolution was necessary to procure equality of treatment, then he differed from him entirely. The 493 hon. and learned Member for Waterford said he had no assurance that the Corporation would carry out any such undertaking. In this he was mistaken. He was afraid he had not taken into consideration the change which had taken place in the composition of the Corporation since the last Bill for the enlargement of the boundaries was passed. He could not see any reason why such dangers should be entertained. No instance had been quoted in which the Corporation refused to let the hall. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that Ulster Hall was refused to him, but that hall had no connection whatever with the Corporation. He thought it was very unfortunate that such a Motion as this should be made. Hon. Members opposite had complained about the prejudices of one Party against another in Belfast, which resulted in not. If they thought it was absolutely necessary that something should be put into the Bill to compel the Corporation to cease to let the hall to all parties, surely the evidence in support of that course could be brought before the Committee, and it could then be decided on the evidence of witnesses whether it was necessary to put such a clause in the Bill or not. But why should a Resolution be passed by the House binding the Committee hard and fast without any proof whatever? He thought it would be very much better if the hon. Member were to withdraw his Motion, get his evidence together, and place it before the Committee, and having got the witnesses before them, the Committee could put in a clause to safeguard the interests of the Party with which the hon. Member for East Mayo was connected if they thought the evidence justified it. He strongly objected to such an imputation being put upon the Belfast Corporation as was implied in this Resolution without any evidence whatever.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said he intervened for one moment for one specific purpose only. He wanted to call attention to the very large and important question about which, in his humble judgment, the Committee ought to be authoritatively advised before it proceeded to deal with this Bill at all 494 one way or the other. He wanted to know what was the law of Ireland on the main point involved in the Instruction which had beon moved by his hon. friend. The main thing about the Instruction was that the Ulster Hall should be available for any section of the community of Belfast who complied with the general regulations laid down by the Corporation for the letting and use of the Hall. That was the essential portion of the Instruction, and the rest of it might be subject to some misinterpretation. He wanted to know what was the law in Ireland now upon this point.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said he was not prepared to say, and it was not his business to advise the House. He wished to know if it was lawful to discriminate in the use of corporate property between one class of ratepayers and another. Was that possible under the existing law? It was most unreasonable that any such power should belong to a municipal Corporation.
§ MR. DILLON
Section 5 says the Corporation shall have power to let the premises from time to time for such purposes and on such terms as they may think proper. They are to be the judges of the purposes.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said that clause seemed to be an additional reason for moving this Instruction, and he felt bound to support it unless it could be shown that according to law it was not necessary. He thought the Attorney General ought to make it clear whether this Bill, if passed, would allow the Belfast Corporation to discriminate between Catholics and Protestants or between Nationalists and Unionists as to the use of this hall.
§ (4.37.) MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)
said he was sorry that he could not give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he asked for. He could, however, give the House this assurance. He knew from the legal adviser of the Corporation 495 of Belfast that it would be quite impossible for the Corporation to discriminate between the various classes of ratepayers, and if such discrimination did occur the ratepayers had the remedy against the Corporation. The House, however, had to consider whether any case had been made out for discrimination between the Corporation of Belfast and any other Corporation in the United Kingdom. What was really the object of the Instruction which had been moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo? It would place a compulsion on the Corporation of Belfast, which no other Corporation was under in the United Kingdom, to let this hall to any ratepayers who applied for it. Let him give an illustration as to how that might place the Corporation in a very great difficulty. Take the case in which the hon. Member for Waterford and his friends went down from Belfast, and were unable to obtain the use of the Ulster Hall. It was then private property. The friends of the hon. Member for Waterford who applied for the use of that hall were not in a position to enter into the security which was required by the proprietors of the hall, who did not regard them as sufficient security. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Every hall in the country was let under certain conditions of security. The proprietors of the Ulster Hall said, "We are prepared to let you have the use of the hall for £100." This was only an alternative way of getting hold of a certain sum of money as security; and because the persons connected with the meeting which the hon. Member for Waterford wished to address were not considered to be sufficient security for £100, the hall was refused to them.
§ MR. MACARTNEY
said he did not in the least accuse the hon. Gentleman of making a mis-statement. He was only explaining the reason why £100 was asked for the use of the hall. They would have got the hall at the ordinary price if they could have become security for a further sum of £100, but the proprietors of the hall did not consider that 496 they were sufficient security. The Corporation of Belfast had had, for the past seven years, the management of a large hall as their own property, and no complaints had been made that any section of the community had been favoured. Neither inside nor outside of the Council Chamber in Belfast had any one raised this point, which was supposed to emanate from Belfast. Therefore he submitted that the hon. Member for East Mayo was not justified in asking the House to take this exceptional course of applying to the Corporation of Belfast a compulsion which no other Corporation in the United Kingdom was under at the present time. If there was a real case of injustice lying behind the case presented by the hon. Member for East Mayo, there would, he submitted, be ample opportunity of proving it before the Committee, and he should be the last person to offer any objection to that. The hon. Member for East Mayo was not even supported by the Nationalist members on the Corporation or by Nationalist opinion in the city of Belfast. In conclusion, he submitted that the evidence did not justify the House in taking the very exceptional course which had been proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
§ (4.42.) MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)
said that, as a Protestant himself, and as representing a very large Roman Catholic constituency in the north of Ireland, he wished to ask the House to pass this Instruction. There was no doubt that under the clauses of the proposed Bill the Corporation of Belfast would have the absolute control over the Ulster Hall, and could withhold the use of that hall from any party applying for it. They were the trustees of the parties who had constituted them the Council, but as long as they were there they were the absolute owners of the hall, and could refuse the use of it to any body or party who applied for it. They were exactly in the same position as private individuals. If they abused their trust by withholding the hall from proper persons or bodies, the remedy was in the hands of those who had elected them, when the next opportunity came, not to renew their mandate. He asked the House to pass this Resolution 497 because the tone of the hon. Member who first spoke against it must show the House what an amount of odium theologicum prevailed in Belfast, and how much that accounted for the unhappy religious and political strife which had been for so many centuries the bane of Ireland. Passing this Instruction would be, at all events to the public at large, an indication that this House strongly reprobated the notion that any body of citizens who complied with the regulations for controlling and regulating the Ulster Hall, or any other hall, should not have free access to it and full use of it. One point put by the hon. Member who spoke last showed how impossible it would be for the Roman Catholics of Belfast, who were a considerable body, to hope to have the advantage and the use of the hall, which the Bill was about to vest in the Corporation of Belfast, because it was manifest that by putting a prohibitive price like £100, as contrasted with £15, they would be able, in the absence of such an Instruction as this, to exclude the representatives of some particular religion or party from the use of the hall.
§ MR. MACARTNEY
said there was no prohibitive price on the use of the hall; it was £15, provided security could be given for £100. In this particular case, the persons were not sufficient security, and they were asked to put down £100. If they had been sufficient security, they would have got the hall. The Corporation could not have two prices; it must have one price fixed for the use of the hall.
§ * MR. HEMPHILL
asked if it was supposed that persons animated by the feeling of some of the Northern Members would ever consider that Roman Catholics or Nationalists could be sufficient security for anything. This was, apparently, a legal way of carrying out the object of excluding the party they disapproved of from the use of the hall. But why should not a large proportion of the inhabitants of Belfast, who were willing to comply with any reasonable regulations imposed by the Corporation, have permission (if they were vesting the hall in the Corporation) to use it for all 498 purposes? How weak the cause of Toryism or Protestantism must be in Belfast, if it conld not bear the light of public opinion to be thrown upon it, and was afraid to hear the arguments of some of his good friends below the gangway. It was the very worst compliment hon. Gentlemen opposite could pay the cause they so strongly and vehemently attempted to uphold. The other hon. Member for Belfast was much more moderate in his tone, and, he thought, spoke as a man who felt conscious that an injustice was being done. He thought, at this time of day, the House of Commons ought to affirm the principle that every public building should be open to every advocate of any cause, so long as the meeting was properly and legally conducted. This was only a declaration that the Corporation should keep that principle in view, and if they wished to get this hall, they must get it subject to that condition.
§ (4.47.) THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,) Belfast, W.
I may be allowed, as a Member for Belfast, to add my word in support of what was said by my colleague. I am not in the least surprised that this matter has been brought before the House, because I am well aware that there is a disposition always to challenge and to criticise anything that is done in Belfast, because that city is still a considerable obstacle in the way of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] If it is the desire of hon. Members to treat others as they desire to be treated, then they should apply to the Corporation of Belfast the same conditions which are applied to other Corporations in the cities in which they live. It has not been proved that there is any probability that the power of the Corporation of the city of Belfast will be abused any more than the power of the Corporation of any great city, and until that proof has been brought forward and substantiated, I maintain that we should not be asked to inflict this disability on the Corporation of Belfast. The hon. Member for Dundee said that the whole thing desired to be accomplished is really accomplished in the first part of this proviso.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER
I think the first part is already included in the law but I should be willing to agree that the Corporation should make reasonable regulations, to apply to all parties alike. That would be perfectly reasonable. It is proposed to impose a condition on the Corporation of Belfast which you do not impose on any other Corporation. If you tried to impose on the Corporation of London or Manchester, or any other city, such a condition as this, you would signally fail in the attempt. Politics and religion may come in many guises. I cannot support the proposal to make this exceptional legislation apply to Belfast only, of all the Corporations in the United Kingdom. I support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Belfast that the House might let this matter go to the Committee in the ordinary way, being perfectly certain that the House can entrust to the judgment of that fair-minded body—one of its own Committees—the task of securing that what is just and reasonable shall be incorporated in this Bill.
(4.52.) MR. MACYEAGH (Down, S.)
said they had had the unique spectacle of the present and the late Secretaries to the Admiralty joining together as happy brothers in opposing this Instruction. He thought it was only religious intolerance and bigoted Unionism that could produce this coalition. Most Members of the House would be struck by the difference in tone between the speeches of the Members for Belfast. The hon. Member for East Belfast thought the Instruction was a reasonable one, but pleaded that it was not necessary. The hon. Member for North Belfast, who was the chief wirepuller of the Corporation, did not give even a promise on behalf of the Corporation that the hall would not be used as they were led to believe that it would be used when the Corporation got possession of it. He found that the Belfast Evening Telegraph said—It must be admitted that the owners of the Ulster Hall have power to refuse any application 500 they like, and when a possible breach of the peace is anticipated or where speakers whose views are antagonistic to the majority of the citizens are present, we consider the owners ate perfectly justified in refusing the use of the hall.He hoped hon. Members would note that declaration on the part of a leading Unionist organ in Belfast, and that they would deduce from that what were the intentions of the Belfast Corporation in reference to the management of the hall in future. If his hon. friends the Members for Last Mayo and Waterford desired to address a meeting in the Ulster Hall, they would doubtless be told that their views were antagonistic to the majority of the citizens. If the First Lord of the Treasury went there to proclaim his views on a Catholic University for Ireland, he would receive a similar answer. He would ask the House to consider in whose hands the letting of the hall would be. It would practically mean that the hall would be managed by the town clerk of Belfast, who he believed was now in the gallery of the House. That gentleman swore once before a Royal Commission that he could tell a Catholic by looking at his face. They were expected to hand over the rights of Catholic citizens of Belfast, in the matter of the use of this hall, to this expert in religious and political physiognomy. The hon. Member for North Belfast stated that the Belfast Corporation had always treated the Catholics of Belfast with the greatest generosity, but as a matter of fact until the House interfered, under a Conservative Government, no Catholic was allowed to join the Corporation or obtain any appointment under it. Since the last Act was passed, the hon. Member for East Belfast said the representation had been broadened and that all religious bodies now had representation. He forgot to tell the House, however, that he himself and those who sat with him opposed that Rill when it was before the House. That Corporation, moreover, which was said to be a model of toleration, and which the hon. Baronet opposite cited as such, excluded Catholics from its employment, and, both before the Royal Commission in 1887 and the Parliamentary Committee in 1892, the town clerk of Belfast admitted that there were only two Catholic employees out of ninety-one 501 in responsible positions; and he admitted also that only £250 out of nearly £17,000 paid in salaries by the Corporation went to those who constituted nearly one-fourth of the city's population. The hon Baronet shook his head, but between the sworn testimony of his own town, clerk and the shaking of the hon. Baronet's head, he was bound to abide by the evidence. It was also an instructive fact that a few days ago the Belfast Corporation, in making the appointment of manager to the public baths, situated in the Catholic quarter of the city, absolutely refused to entertain the claims of Catholic applicants for the appointment. The hon. Baronet and the ex-Secretary to the Admiralty, and others, had protested against that Motion on the grounds that it was very exceptional legislative action, and that nothing of the kind had been done with regard to other Corporations. But the whole history of Belfast legislation had been exceptional. The representation to which reference had been made was secured by the direct intervention of all Members in that House. In the year 1892 the Parliamentary Committee refused to pass the preamble of a Bill promoted by the Belfast Corporation until that Corporation abandoned its right to interfere with local Catholic reformatories, to the maintenance of which the ratepayers contributed—a decision which was inevitable, but which stood absolutely without parallel in the history of municipal institutions. Hon. Members opposite had their faults, God knew; but there was one they had not been accused of—religious bigotry, and he contended that any hon. Member who had listened to that discussion with an unbiassed mind would say that a conclusive case had been made out that Catholic rights in the management of that hall should be protected, and that the arguments of the supporters of the Bill had completely failed. The hon. Member for East Belfast, addressing a gathering of working men in Queen's Island, said—We cannot do anything without the help of England, and you have disgusted the English people. They will say, 'What is the good of us doing anything for the Ulster fellows if they will not behave themselves?' If you have a bit of common sense, you will just drop it.502 That was an excellent speech, and he would say to the opponents of the Instruction that if they had a bit of common sense they would just drop it. It was very little they asked, and there had been no argument worthy of consideration advanced against this Instruction. If they honestly desired to have freedom of speech in Belfast, why did they not accept the Instruction, which inflicted no indignity; and only ensured that all people in the city should be treated alike? The Belfast Corporation the other day decided that if that Instruction were deemed necessary by the House, there should be some provision inserted for the protection of the ratepayers. That was a more reasonable spirit than that exhibited by the representatives of the city in that House that day, who had out-Heroded Herod, and declined to accept even what the Corporation were prepared to adopt. He appealed with every confidence to hon. Members on the opposite side of the House to give one more evidence, as they had done again and again before, that they were determined not to allow their public action to be controlled or dictated by political or religious bigotry.
§ (5.10.) MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON
said he rose only to occupy the time of the House for a few moments, but this matter so vitally affected the interests of the great city of which he had the honour to be one of the Members, that he appealed to the House to grant him its indulgence. It was desired by this Instruction to place Belfast in a unique position. It was desired to stigmatise it as unworthy of municipal government. It was desired to place it in a position of inferiority to the great cities of England and Scotland, which had been entrusted with the management of their own affairs. He confidently appealed to the House—at any rate, he appealed to hon. Members on his own side of the House—not to allow that stigma to be attached to one of the great strongholds of loyalty and law in Ireland; a city which had sent out its soldiers to maintain the honour of the British flag; a city which year after year—he might almost say century after century—had been extending and progressing and prospering in a way which he should be glad indeed to see the other cities of Ireland emulating. Something had been 503 said about the town clerk of Belfast, and something about the population. He need say nothing about the town clerk: it was unnecessary to those who knew him. For many years he had devoted enterprise and energy and abilities of no mean order to the development of the industrial resources of Belfast. He was a party, when the boundaries of Belfast were extended, to the arrangement by which the Roman Catholics participated in the divisions of the city in order that they might be represented in the Corporation; and he ventured to assert of the Corporation of Belfast that it was as generous, as large-minded, and as ready to give fair play to the Roman Catholics as to the Protestants in any question that came before it. He was an Orangeman, and it was part of the Orange obligation not to wrong any man on account of his religious opinions. Very few members of the Corporation of Belfast were Orangemen, but he thought he spoke their sentiments when he said they did not attach any stigma or inflict any penalty on a Roman Catholic because he happened to belong to the Roman Catholic Church and reside in Belfast. But this Instruction had been moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo. He would like the House to listen to some words used by the hon. Member for East Mayo in Glasgow on the 16th March. He concluded his speech as follows—They were disloyal and would remain disloyal until they got their freedom. When the compact was made between the two countries it would never be a compact between a slave and his master.
§ * MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON
said of course he would bow to the ruling of the Chair, not like the hon. Member for East Mayo, and he would not challenge the ruling of the Chair by a Resolution of the House as was proposed by the hon. Member for Waterford. Heonly desired to quote the speeches of the hon. Member in order to show the improper use to which the Ulster Hall might be put. He should, however, keep the quotations until the hon. Member for Waterford brought forward his Resolution with reference to the 504 Speaker's ruling. In conclusion he asked the House to continue to the Corporation of Belfast the power to manage their own affairs without any mandatory Instruction which would not be tolerated by any city in England or Scotland. He asked the House to refuse to sanction the Instruction on the ground that it would put a stigma on Belfast, and mark it out as the only city in the British Empire unworthy to be trusted with the management of its own affairs.
§ (5.20.) MR. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)
said if any justification were needed for the Instruction moved by his hon. friend it had been afforded by the speeches delivered by hon. Members opposite. Every speaker who had opposed the Instruction had given the cue to the Corporation of Belfast to restrict the use of the Ulster Hall to those who agreed with the majority of the Corporation. No one could have listened to the speeches of those who addressed the House in opposition to the Motion, without being forced to the conclusion that every Member representing Belfast desired to keep the use of the Ulster Hall from the minority. From the Secretary to the Treasury they would have expected a statement of greater moderation, but even he had directly laid it down that the Corporation should be free to judge, and he further said religious and political questions were the most dangerous. If this were a case of there being a large number of halls available for public use in Belfast it would be a different matter, but this was a case of limiting the accommodation which all sections of the community hitherto enjoyed according to the rent they paid. It was the property of a syndicate, and as they paid the rent so all sections of the community could enjoy the use of it. Now the hall was to be taken over by the Corporation, that in itself was a limitation; and was it unreasonable to ask, having regard to all the circumstances of Belfast, that in this Bill should be a provision safeguarding the interests of every section of the community, and to insure that this Hall should not be used by one section and denied to another; that it should not be allowed for the use of the majority and denied to the minority of 505 the population in Belfast. The opposition taken to this Bill by hon. Members for Belfast was that this Instruction was an insult to the Corporation of Belfast, but behind the Corporation there were the people who brought pressure on that body. He thought this Instruction, if inserted in the Bill, would be of great assistance to the Corporation of Belfast, because if it were incorporated in the Bill it would place a reply in the hands of the Corporation which they could make to everybody who objected to the letting of the Hall. What would take place would be this. If the hon. Member for East Mayo were to be asked to address a meeting in Belfast, the Corporation would be threatened by the majority of opinion in Belfast, and there would be rioting in Belfast in one form and another, and a state of things which would make it impossible for those who were not in sympathy with the views of the majority to express their views to those with whom they were in sympathy in politics or religion. The whole strength of the argument in favour of the Motion lay in the fact that the accommodation for public meetings in the city of Belfast was being limited. He was not afraid of the action which the Corporation might take, because being a mixed body he believed their action would be fair, but he was afraid of the pressure that would, undoubtedly, be brought to bear upon them from the outside, and he thought the greatest argument in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Mayo was in the character of the speeches made in opposition by hon. Members representing Belfast. He hoped the Instruction would be passed.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said that, from the point of view of an outsider, what struck him as being so remarkable was that so much time should be taken up by this discussion simply because the Nationalists were afraid of the Belfast people treating them as they (the Nationalists) had treated everybody else. That appeared to him to be the exact position. He could not help being
§ struck by what he had read only the other day, that one of the local authorities of Cork was so tyrannical that they would not allow the family of a man who had died a loyal servant to his country, to put a tombstone on his grave. [Cries of name the authority.] He could give the necessary information, but no doubt hon. Members were perfectly aware of the circumstances. The question in dispute did not concern him, but it seemed to him an extraordinary Instruction and he thought the House ought to regard it with great suspicion, especially as it had been moved by those who had boycotted everybody all over Ireland who did not agree with their views.
§ MR. JOYCE (Limerick)
said he should not have intervened in the debate but for the serious charge that had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Belfast (Sir James Haslett) against the city of Limerick. Such charges were flung broadcast at Nationalist Members sitting in this House, but when proof was asked for it was not forthcoming. The hon. Baronet had said that no one who was not in sympathy with the politics and religion of Limerick could get a hall there. It was absolutely untrue, it was only when political firebrands came to Limerick that they ran them out of the city, and they would, always would, run them out by the blessing of God. He thought it would be better if hon. Members opposite confined themselves to refuting the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and did not make these baseless charges.
§ MR. SHEEHAN (Cork Co., Mid)
indignantly repudiated the statement made by the hon. Member for North Islington, which he said was absolutely incorrect.
§ (5.33.) Question put.
§ House divided:—Ayes, 178; Noes,. 248. (Division List No. 116.)509
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Asher, Alexander||Atherley-Jones, L.|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Barlow, John Emmott|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud)||Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)||Perks, Robert William|
|Bell, Richard||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Black, Alexander William||Horniman, Frederick John||Price, Robert John|
|Blake, Edward||Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.||Priestley, Arthur|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Jacoby, James Alfred||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Brand, Hon. Arthur G.||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Rea, Russell|
|Brigg, John||Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea||Reckitt, Harold James|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Reddy, M.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jordan, Jeremiah||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Burns, John||Joyce, Michael||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rigg, Richard|
|Caine, William Sproston||Kennedy, Patrick James||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Caldwell, James||Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Carew, James Laurence||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acerington)||Roche, John|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Leng, Sir John||Runciman, Walter|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lewis, John Herbert||Russell, T. W.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lloyd-George, David||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Charming, Francis Allston||Logan, John William||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Lough, Thomas||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lundon, W.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Crean, Eugene||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Crombie, John William||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Dalziel, James Henry||M'Arthur, William (Corn wall)||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Cann, James||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants|
|Delany, William||M'Crae, George||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Dillon, John||M'Govern, T.||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||M'Kean, John||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Dunn, Sir William||M'Laren, Charles Benjamin||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Edwards, Frank||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Elibank, Master of||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)|
|Emmott, Alfred||Mooney, John J.||Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Fenwick, Charles||Morley, Charles (Breconshire)||Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N|
|Ffrench, Peter||Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose||Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)|
|Field, William||Murphy, John||Tomkinson, James|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Furness, Sir Christopher||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||Ure, Alexander|
|Gilhooly, James||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Norman, Henry||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Grant, Corrie||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Weir, James Galloway|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Nussey, Thomas Willans||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Haldane, Richard Burdon||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Hammond, John||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)||Whit-taker, Thomas Palmer|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Harrington, Timothy||O'Dowd, John||Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.||Young, Samuel|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||O'Malley, William|
|Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.||O'Mara, James|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Palmer, George Wm. (Reading|
|Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Holland, William Henry||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Bain, Colonel James Robert||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Balcarres, Lord||Bignold, Arthur|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Baldwin, Alfred||Big wood, James|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)||Bill, Charles|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds||Blundell, Colonel Henry|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)||Bond, Edward|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Banbury, Frederick George||Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-|
|Arrol, Sir William||Banes, Major George Edward||Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)||Brassey, Albert|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Bartley, George C. T.||Brookfield, Colonel Montagu|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Brymer, William Ernest|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard|
|Butcher, John George||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes)||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Purvis, Robert|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)||Helder, Augustus||Quilter, Sir Cuthbert|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter||Randles, John S.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. hon. J. (Birm.||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Rattigan, Sir William Henry|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Horner, Frederick William||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hoult, Joseph||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson|
|Chapman, Edward||Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)||Round, James|
|Coddington, Sir William||Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Rutherford, John|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Knowles, Lees||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Cripps, Charles Alfred||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lawson, John Grant||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H.||Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)|
|Dewar, T. R (T'r H mlets, S. Geo.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Doughty, George||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Thorburn, Sir Walter|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lowe, Francis William||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison||Valentia, Viscount|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Macdona, John Cumming||Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Maconochie, A. W.||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Fison, Frederick William||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)||Welby, Lt,-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton|
|Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.||M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W)||Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)|
|Galloway, William Johnson||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Gardner, Ernest||Malcolm, Ian||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Garfit, William||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond.||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E (Wigt'n||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Max well, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire||Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Birm.|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)||Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.||Willis, Sir Frederick|
|Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop||Mitchell, William||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Goschen, Hon. George Joachim||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)|
|Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury||Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.)||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.||Morrison, James Archibald||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Grenfell, William Henry||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Gretton, John||Mount, William Arthur||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Gunter, Sir Robert||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Hain, Edward||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas E.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay||Younger, William|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Parker, Gilbert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir James Haslett and Mr. Wolff.|
|Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Percy, Earl|