§ (9.38.) MR. O'MALLEY (Galway, Connemara)
rose to move the Resolution standing in his name with respect to Judge O'Connor Morris. He said there was no greater scandal in connection with the English government of Ireland than the manner in which the judges were appointed. It was quite true that gentlemen were appointed to judgeships in England who were strong political partisans, but once they were appointed, their partisanship was forgotten, and they administered the law as the law should be administered. Unfortunately, that was not the ease in Ireland. In that country, no doubt, ability and qualification were taken into consideration, but the primary and dominant consideration when the Government made an appointment was that the man should be a political partisan and almost a hater and detester of the sentiments of the people. Not only were men appointed judges in Ireland because of their opposition to the theories and aspirations of the Irish people, but men who began their career by bring extreme Nationalists were appointed because the English Government thought it was desirable to buy the services of those people. The Government bribed them with places in Ireland.
In regard to the particular gentleman whose conduct he ventured to arraign tonight, he thought that in the whole history of appointments in Ireland there was none so gross and scandalous. He could understand that a man, before getting that position, might have strong political feeling, but in England, as he had said, a man ceased to be a partisan the moment he received the appointment. Judge O'Connor Morris never lost an opportunity of ventilating his political opinions and of denouncing the people over whom he presided as a judge. He did not confine himself to speeches from the Bench, but from time to time indulged in writing political pamphlets. In order to give the House an object-lesson of why there was discontent in Ireland and why they hated the English Government, he would quote a few extracts from the 1092 writings of Judge O'Connor Morris. He would appeal to the House after hearing the extracts, whether the Nationalist Members were not justified in impugning the conduct of Judge Morris. In his autobiography (page 347) Judge Morris said—As a scion of a great fallen Irish house, I have no sympathy with a settlement of the Irish land, renting ultimately on confiscation and conquest.Of course, as they were all aware, this House was beginning to learn that the great question in Ireland was the land question. He would show the character of one of the judges in Ireland and his feelings on that question by quoting what he himself said at page 349 of this book. Judge Morris, in arguing against Home Rule, said—An Irish Parliament would without difficulty drive away the Irish landlords from the land, and would divide their estates between the Celtic and Catholic nation.That was a calumny on the Irish people. He thought this gentleman was also a Catholic. [Cries of "No."] Then he was not inclined to speak so hardly of him, because he was a Protestant. Judge Morris tried to prove by that statement that if the Irish Catholics had Home Rule they would persecute the Protestants of the north, confiscate their property, and treat them with ignominy and contempt. In a harangue which this gentleman made in Sligo on 24th January, 1902, his language was so violent, and his partisanship was so great, that even the Grand Jury were disgusted. This was the comment of a local newspaper on the incident—The Grand Jury at the recent Quarter Sessions in Sligo (24th January, 1902), after listening to a harangue from Judge O'Connor Morris attacking the system of land purchase, subsequently passed a resolution dissenting, from his remarks. The Grand Jury was composed of Nationalists and Conservatives.Now, it was known on those Benches what a powerful enemy they had in The Times newspaper, and that throughout its history it had been consistently opposed to the Irish demands. Judge O'Connor Morris had been a regular contributor to The Times as one of its leader-writers. In his autobiography he told a story of himself. "Mr. Delane," he said at page 205, "was good enough to ask me to, 1093 write to The Times. This was the beginning of a friendship which continued without a break until his lamented death." And at page 274 he said—In one respect The Times deserves the heartfelt thanks of all who uphold the cause of Union, and believe that Home Rule, and what is involved in it, means anarchy in Ireland and a heavy blow to the Empire. The immense sacrifice its proprietors made in the conduct of this prolonged inquiry (the Parnell Commission) is a noble instance of high public spirit.
§ MR. O'MALLEY
The House knows perfectly well the part played by Judge O'Connor Morris in the Parnell inquiry, and I would only say that a man who praised in that manner the conduct of The Times is not fit to be on the bench. Mr. Morris published in 1901 a book entitled "From '98 to '98." I will just quote a few extracts from that book to show the character of this man. Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of 1881 was a tardy measure of justice to the Irish people. I have spoken of it from platforms in Ireland and in this country as a measure which raised the people from a position of serfdom to a position of freedom. But what does this gentleman say of that great Land Act? He said that—Mr. Gladstone's Land Act of 1881 was a paltry, nay, a mischievous half-measure.And of the Land Act of 1887, passed by this House under a Tory Government in order to remedy some defects in the Act of 1881, he said—It was another encroachment on the rights of Irish landlords.This is the man on whose judgment we have to depend in Ireland for the administration of these Acts! At page 332 he says—The status of the Irish landlords, on the other hand, has been utterly degraded to his extreme detriment. He has not only been deprived of his former status, but his lands have been practically taken from him in the sense of real and uncontrolled ownership.1094 Let me go back to The Times and the system before 1881—The Act has almost turned upside down the rights of property, to the benefit of one class and the loss of another, from 1876 to the present time.These are words that would do credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, who is not present in the House tonight. I will give a few extracts from a pamphlet which Judge O'Connor Morris wrote last year, entitled "Present Irish Questions." He says, at page 163—It (the Land Act of 1881) was a surrender akin to that of Majuba, made with little information and without mature reflection. Whether its author believed, as I have remarked, that the conspiracy was most dangerous on its agrarian side, or was willing to propitiate Parnell at the expense of the Irish landed gentry, he inaugurated the legislation ever since pursued, which has resulted in destroying the property of the Irish landlords.Again, at page 181, he says—The whole law, in a word, as to tenants' improvements, as these were to create exemption from rent, was placed on an altogether new basis. This was detrimental in every respect to the landlord, and gave advantages to the tenant, in my judgment, utterly unjust.At page 166 he says—The Act of 1881 was inconsistent with fact and essentially unjust.And at page 169 he goes on—The Act of 1881 transformed the Irish Land System iniquitously for the benefit of a single class, and it directly promoted litigation of the very worst kind.Further on he says—The Irish landlords, I repeat, have been iniquitously despoiled; a huge confiscation has been made of their property.I will not trouble the House with any further extracts from the writings of Judge O'Connor Morris, but I would appeal to hon. Members, if they consider the character of the language I have quoted, if they consider for a moment the character of the mind of this gentleman and his hatred and detestation of the Land Act of 1881, whether that gentleman should continue to sit on the bench and administer that Act. Hon. Members opposite very often, with a simplicity which is almost angelic, say, "Tell us, what your grievances are, and we will remove them." I say, here is a case where the House can deal with a grievance and remove it. Remove Judge O'Connor Morris. I maintain that it is a scandal to the adminis 1095 tration of justice in this country that such a man as Judge O'Connor Morris's writings and utterances show him to be should be allowed to preside in Irish Courts.
§ (10.0.) MR. McHUGH (Leitrim, N.)
said, in rising to second the Motion, he was not actuated by any feelings of malevolence towards learned Judge O'Connor Morris. He had the honour of being personally acquainted with the learned judge; he had sat beside him and had adjudicated at the Quarter Sessions at Sligo, and he had been twice in the dock before him and twice sentenced by him to imprisonment. But he thought it was well for the House to consider under present circumstances the last portion of the Motion—His fitness to hear and decide appeals from the court of summary jurisdiction in agrarian casesHe made no complaint as to Judge O'Connor Morris being a partisan of the Government, but he did complain that the learned judge was a partisan of the landlord class in Ireland, and that he was the man who tried persons charged with agrarian offences. He himself had been tried on two occasions for articles written in his paper in Sligo—written on behalf of the tenants of County Sligo; and he contended that Judge O'Connor Morris was not a fit and proper person to try him. On those occasions he was sentenced once to six months and once to four months imprisonment as a common criminal, and he did not on either occasion get fair play. The treatment meted out to him years ago was the treatment meted out at the present time by the Irish Government to John O'Donnell and to other members of the National Organisation of Ireland.
The Motioncalled upon the House to consider the report of an address delivered by Judge O'Connor Morris to the Grand Jury of Sligo on the 24th of January last in the Sligo Court House. The report of that address, which he held in his hand, contained the names of the Grand Jurors, twenty-four in all, of whom thirteen were Conservative and eleven Nationalists. After the speech which was delivered by Judge O'Connor Morris, which, in his opinion, was of a partisan character, and which dealt with matters that a judge had no right to touch upon, the Grand 1096 Jury unanimously passed a Resolution in the following terms—Resolved, that we, the Members of Grand Jury, in view of his Lordship's remarks to us, feel it our duty to express our dissent from those remarks in so far as they refer to compulsory land purchase; and desire to express our conviction that a measure of compulsory land purchase would not be at all of the nature of a confiscation of landlords' rights, but would be the most effective means that could be taken by the Government to ensure peace and prosperity to Ireland.That resolution was proposed by Mr. R. Davey, a district councillor, seconded by Mr. E. Rowlett, also a district councillor, and Mr. R. Gorman, the Chairman, who put the question, was a well-known Conservative gentleman. On this occasion there was only one case of a criminal character at the Quarter Sessions, and it would appear from the report of the learned judge's speech that he was sorry there were not more, because he said—Well, gentlemen, there are only three Bills to go before you, which do not require any observations.The Clerk of the Crown then interrupted him, and said—Only one, my Lord.His Honour—Well, gentlemen, it appears there is only one Bill to go before you.He objected first of all to the opening of Judge O'Connor Morris. The learned judge, in opening his remarks, said—Gentlemen of the Grand Jury, I am glad to see that at the beginning of the year—and on a wet day like this—you all have given a full attendance for the discharge of your important duties as Grand Jurors. I am very glad to find that you have not paid the slightest attention to the exceedingly improper and foolish advice given to jurors of this county to abstain from doing their duty on a plea which was as ridiculous as it was vindictive.The learned judge, in making those remarks, had presumed that the jurors of Sligo had been advised not to attend Quarter Sessions. He need not tell the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General that there was no foundation for such a belief. There was undoubtedly a suggestion that Catholic jurors, as a protest against jury-packing, should remain away from the Quarter Sessions, but the suggestion was never carried out. The time had not come when Catholic jurors 1097 should be called upon to remain at home because the Attorney General appeared to have abandoned the practice of jury-packing; he had found a simpler method—he had done away with trial by jury altogether. At the present time the only trial for a Nationalist charged with an agrarian offence was a trial by two paid servants of the Crown—two removable magistrates—with an appeal to Judge O'Connor Morris.—Gentlemen, I have very few observations to make to you, and I am sure you will pay attention to what I say, It is with sincere regret—sincere regret, I say it—and the majority of the spectators in this court will agree with me—that an eminent solicitor belonging to this court—and I say, without flattery, one of the most eminent solicitors in Ireland—was summarily dismissed from office under circumstances which I may not describe, and which will impose on the taxpayers of this district additional burdens.What had Judge O'Connor Morris to do with the business of the "additional burdens"? He was simply a County Court judge. The County Council was bar better able to manage its own business, and was far more dignified in the discharge of its duties than the learned judge. What had he to do with the appointment of a solicitor to the County Council? The County Council understood its own business, and had dispensed with the services of a solicitor who was engaged in prosecuting its members under the Coercion Act. The dismissal was an act of war and retaliation, for which there was every justification. He contended that they were justified in dismissing the solicitor, but this was made an excuse by Judge O'Connor Morris for this tirade. The County Council of Sligo was responsible to the people of Sligo, and not to Judge O'Connor Morris. Then the Judge proceeded—So far that is satisfactory. But you must recollect that it is only a few months since the winter Assizes were held. But although on the surface the state of your county mar appear satisfactory, under the surface it is not satisfactory. From information which cannot be questioned—it is a well-known fact that boycotting exists to a considerable extent, it inevitably leads to serious offences. The practice of boycotting is an incentive to crime, and those who aid, abet, or advocate it are guilty of crime. All our experience has proved it is always attended by disorder and misrule. But, gentlemen, I regret to say that there has been a combination established against the payment of rents, which was very extensive in the county of Roscommon, and which has 1098 extended to this county also. I think I gave 240 decrees for rents in Roscommon and Sligo. But, gentlemen, it is with sincere delight I heard that this combination, to a certain extent, has broken down, and that a large number of the tenants have seen the folly of their ways, and have come in and have paid their just debts, by paying their rents with costs. What were the inevitable and natural results? The landlords of all the neighbouring estates are wronged; they are all severely handicapped by the act of the Government. In point of fact, as regards the landlords of those neighbouring estates the Government spread disorder and confusion everywhere. Viewing it from another point, those tenants are not to be blamed for withholding their rents and refusing to lay their just debts. I am glad to say, however, that many have paid them under compulsion, but they lost the advantages which tenants on the neighbouring estates had gained. As low, as human nature is what it is, it would be Impossible not to say that they had sonic cause for doing what they did. I declare I maintain they had a legitimate and real grievance. It would take more time than I am going to use to deal with all the mischief caused by this so-called Land Purchase Scheme. At the same time, I think I have done my duty in pointing out the results. In the first place, many of these decrees granted—against which frivolous appeals have been foolishly taken—will be executed, and then the result will be loss and trouble. And I trust it will not be followed by crime and outrage. With regard to this Land Purchase Scheme, I believe it must end in mime and disorder. It will never prove satisfactory and will eventually enforce on the taxpayers enormous burdens and cause a confiscation the lands in Ireland, which would be the most infamous system that Ireland could ever be subjected to. I am thankful to say that from the first this scandalous system was proposed, I protested against it. I must also add that I trust the attention of the Legislature will be carefully directed towards these cases, because a demand will be made to extend this system. It is a system destructive of all the few rights which remain to the landlords, and will lead to the confiscation and alternate destruction of the country.He did not intend to make any reference to the publication of the observations of Judge O'Connor Morris, but he asked the House to remember that when they in Sligo were tried, as he had no doubt they would be, for being members of the United Irish League and for being engaged in what he contended was a constitutional and legitimate action, when they were taken up at the instance of the landlord class of Ireland, the fate that awaited them was trial, in the first instance by two paid servants of the Crown, and that in the second, on appeal, they would be tried by the learned Judge O'Connor Morris, whom they charged as being unfit to discharge 1099 the high duties entrusted to him, owing to his being a partisan of the landlords, and against them.
§ Motion made and Question proposed,—"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the report of an address delivered by Judge O'Connor Morris to the Grand Jury at Sligo on the 24th day of January, 1902, the complaints that have been made of the partisan character of that address, the action of the Grand Jury to whom it was addressed, the practice indulged in by his Honour of making pronouncements from the bench in Sligo and Roscommon on questions of public policy, his Lordship's publication of partisan brochures on the Land Question in Ireland, and his fitness to hear and decide appeals from courts of summary jurisdiction in agrarian cases."—(Mr. O'Malley.)
§ *(10.20.) MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said he was glad to see the manner in which the Attorney General for Ireland had been impressed by the language of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and he inferred from the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to speak that he did not intend to rise and defend this ermined eccentric. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman—knowing as he did something of the conditions of the country and the people—having regard to the legislation passed by his Party in 1886 and 1887, and the legislation they proposed to pass in 1902, whether it would not well become him to rise at that Table, and in the name of justice, decency, and common sense, repudiate this fusilade of which they had just heard the rattle. He could not conceive why the Government, on a question of this kind, found it necessary to embitter their relations with the Irish people by not adopting a commonsense view. Put the question from an English point of view. There was a war now going on between this country and the Boers; opinions were divided upon it. Supposing some English judge trying some Old Bailey charge a burglary in the city—was to take occasion to praise the great statesmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and to talk of the Boers as being murderous and so forth, or to say the Boers were the bravest people under the 1100 sun and their conduct commended itself to the admiration of the civilised world, how long would that judge be tolerated in his position? Take another instance; there passed through this House a few years ago a Workmen's Compensation Act, which was administered almost wholly by County Court judges. It was a raw, crude Act, having been drafted by the Colonial Secretary with the view, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that everybody might understand it. Would it be tolerated if, in one of the cases under that Act, the County Court judge were to publicly stigmatise the right hon. Gentleman's legislation as absurd, and to say that the master man could not live under this Act, and that if there was any further extension of it, the country would be ruined? What County Court judge would sit twenty-four hours in the chair of justice after making declarations of that sort? But England was not seamed and fissured by historic divisions; divisions had not been created between one class and another; religious differences did not exist in England to the same extent as in Ireland. In the case of Ireland, whenever they asked for local administration, the Government said that such was the division amongst the Irish people, that the only chance of civil government in the country was that the presidents of the Courts of Justice should be men of great and imperial impartiality. Yet they found, where the matter touched the daily bread and the daily life of the people of Ireland, that partisans worked every Act that was passed to improve the country. When they were sent out from this Parliament—where many good Acts were passed—they were sent out to. Ireland to be slaughtered, in pursuance, he supposed, of the old proverb that "God sends meat and the devil sends cooks." When they launched a measure from this country dealing with Irish land legislation, and fixing fair rents and compensation for improvements, it was into the hands of a judge like O'Connor Morris that it was committed.
The mistake this man made was that he was too outspoken. They all thought like him. This man was only a fool, and a frank fool at that, and accordingly he had let out of him the gall which was splitting the interiors of the rest. Let the House take his criticisms of agrarian 1101 measures. The Attorney General himself, not in regard to this puny and petty functionary, but in regard to superior Court functionaries, had had to go down to his constituents and defend the drafting of his own measures. But were they ever found criticising the drafting of the Coercion Act, and asking whether that was not a most puzzling measure? No: no Coercion Act ever puzzled an Irish judge. In regard to a code which touched their daily life, the people were expected to be loyal and contented with the administration of justice, while this gentleman, not once or twice, but throughout a long career, had been assailing hard-won reforms, wrought by the Parliament of the country. A good plan for dealing with carping judges would be—they were so constantly assailing the wisdom of Parliament, though they were themselves frequently reversed on appeal—to treat such matters as a contempt of Parliament, and as their salaries could not be docked, those having been conveniently placed in the Consolidated Fund, hale these judges up at the Bar of the House, as was done with the editor of the Globe, for an attack on the dignity of the House, and either fine them or send them to the Clock Tower. If they spent a few days in that interesting retreat, he ventured to say there would he less confluent on the wisdom of Parliament. Appeals in coercion cases, arising out of the Land question, were now to come up in Roscommon, and did not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in the limited cases in which an appeal was allowed from the Removables, Mr. O'Connor Morris had, by the language which the House had just heard, disqualified himself as an appellate tribunal? He ventured to think that Kritzinger would get a fairer trial from a court martial in Africa than any of his hon. friends would obtain in an appeal before Mr. O'Connor Morris. Here they had a man blazing with passion, gifted—if he might use the word—with a certain itch for writing, for dealing with these burning topics; and because he was allowed to put horsehair on his head, that, forsooth, became a sort of aureole of equity; and, adorned with this nimbus, he became an impartial being, fit to try, in all the calmness of a 1102 judicial atmosphere, those who were brought before him for offences against the agrarian code. But a man could not be a partisan one day, and an impartial judge the next. A man could not go shrieking around against the authority and dignity of Parliament itself, condemning its legislation, and be prepared to mete out justice to poor peasants who found themselves placed in a position of difficulty owing to the stringency of the seasons.
What had this Purchase Act done? The hon. Member had not expressed very much approval of the action of the Congested Districts Board in buying up the whole Dillon estate for a huge sum of money, and leaving a number of other tenants out in the cold. But, at any rate, the action of the Government had this magic in it—that there was no longer any crime, hunger, or discontent on the Dillon estate; there was no moonlighting on the Dillon estate; there were no unlawful assemblies, there was no boycotting, and there were no true bills sent up to O'Connor Morris from the Dillon estate. Yet this purchase, which, as it were, like the wizardry of a magician, had cleared an hitherto infested area and banished crime from its ambit, was the very thing which this gentleman sitting on the bench of justice assailed as an Act of wickedness, madness, and confiscation. What was to be thought of a system which produced such men? Where did the Government get him? He had not Thom's Directory—that arsenal of facts—by him, but he had no doubt, if he were to endeavour to trace this gentleman's career, He could, without much difficulty, give a sketch of what his past had been. Was it by legal attainments and hard work that his place was won? No. He supposed he was some slavish hanger-on of some dancing Viceroy; that in some way he had perhaps placated some lovely lady at Court; that he hung around the library at the heels of the Attorney General; and that whenever some job was to be done at an election for a Government, he went down in the days of the narrow franchise and squared the voters through the hole in the wall. Those were the step-ladders to office—at any rate, they were until very recent times. But there was this difference between this 1103 judge and his brethren. He, having got safely seated in the seventh heaven, with his cool £1,500 a year, payable quarterly, and he supposed his cousin in office as registrar—[An Hon. MEMBER: His son]—oh, his son—instead of drawing his salary for his three or four weeks work and then going off to the Riviera for his health during the remainder of the time, he unbosomed himself in the manner of which the House had heard—instead of imitating his brethren, who at least endeavoured in measured sentences, and only when the Government required it, to deliver themselves of judicial pronouncements. For instance, he had read on the preceding day that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the Cabinet meeting of that day had come over with a Gladstone bag packed with extracts from the charges of the judges at the late assizes. That was playing the game, that was cricket, when a case for renewing coercion had to be organised. Lurid "charges" must be expected at seasonable times! What he complained of in O'Connor Morris was that, in season and out of season, wet or dry, they had always to be holding up their umbrellas against his fusilades.
How long was this intolerable ranter to be allowed to poison the atmosphere, and offend the ears of the Irish people? He wanted to know whether this man, having, as he had, jurisdiction in ejectments, in actions for rent, as a petty sessions appellate tribunal, as a licensing authority, as Chairman of the Quarter Sessions—if they expected respect for the administration of justice at the hands of the Irish people, or approval of their attitude towards such a man from even the silent Conservatives of the House, His Majesty's Government would not, at least on this occasion, make a purge, which would also, he suggested, have the advantage of preparing the way for some other and more discreet placeman, whom no doubt the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind.
§ (10.40.) MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
expressed his surprise that the representative of the Government had not intervened in the debate and given the House some explanation of the conduct of Mr. O Connor Morris. One of the most serious aspects 1104 of the case was that a large number of cases connected with the very Acts which this learned gentleman condemned came before him for settlement. What confidence, then, could the peasantry of Roscommon or Sligo have in the administration of the Land Acts of 1881 and 1887 by such a judge? He thought he was correct in saying that a Motion of this kind was almost unprecedented in the memory of the oldest Parliamentarian in the House. Very few people had any recollection of an occasion when the necessity arose for such an extreme course being taken as to ask this House to form itself into a Committee to consider the conduct of this judge. Probably they were now face to face with the recrudescence of the Coercion Act, and they were threatened with the revival of the proceedings connected with the Crimes Act, and cases under those Acts would come up for trial before such judges as Judge O'Connor Morris. He had been told that this Judge was a near relative of Lord Clanricarde. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "He comes of a good stock."] It was very probable that some hon. Members belonging to the Nationalist party would be brought before this learned judge, who would have to try those people whom he had described as "village ruffians." In the face of such treatment they were asked to have respect for the law and the administration of justice. How could they respect the law with facts like those burned into their minds? He could not understand how the representative of the executive Government in Ireland could sit in that House and not intervene in the debate. The charge was that a judge who did such things was not fit to be entrusted with the administration of justice, and after the light that had been thrown upon his conduct, his writings, and his harangues from the bench, surely they might expect that the executive Government would come forward and promise to support this Motion, even though it came from the Nationalist side of the House. Many hon. Members of this House expressed unbounded astonishment that the Irish people had no respect for the law. They might pass Land Act after Land Act through Parliament, but such Acts would always be strangled by those who administered them. The 1105 Land Act of 1881 was supposed to protect tenants' improvements, but the land judges had whittled that away. By the action of such Judges as Judge O'Connor Morris, the Irish people had lost all consideration for any sense of fair play. He hoped, therefore, that the Attorney General would grant the inquiry which was asked for in the Motion by his hon. friend.
§ (10.50.) MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.)
said he desired to take part in this debate, because Judge O'Connor Morris presided over the quarter sessions in one of the divisions which he represented. Not only did this judge deliver party harangues on the bench, but his conduct and bearing were such as could not be witnessed in any court in the backwoods of America or Australia. On his way to court he complained to both policemen and civilians if a drove of cattle obstructed his passage, and he had threatened to commit the owners, the drivers, and the cattle as well, for contempt of court. This was no laughing matter for the people of Ireland, for this judge had a knack of putting his jokes into practice by sending people to gaol. In the court this judge was in the habit of using language of the most blasphemous character, for he cursed and swore from the bench in a manner that shocked everybody who listened to him. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."] It was a very serious matter to have a man like that to administer the law. The mere fact that Judge O'Connor Morris used such language was a justification for the people in the two counties mostly concerned treating the law with the utmost contempt. One of the places in Ireland which was receiving the most attention from the Government now was the portion of the counties of Roscommon and Sligo over which this judge had jurisdiction. Trial by jury there was suspended, and the administration of the law was in the hands of two dependent removable officials, and offenders would come before Judge O'Connor Morris. How could they expect to get justice at the hands of a partisan of this character? The root of the discontent was to be found in the condition of the Land question, and yet Judge O'Connor Morris, every time he appeared in court, proceeded to deliver harangues of the 1106 character which had been read to the House. The only appeal from the paid dependent officials appointed by the Attorney General and his colleagues from imprisonment which they considered was unjust punishment was to the County Court, which was presided over by one of the most extraordinary partisans that ever sat upon the bench in Ireland.
This official was indiscreet enough to show his hand rather more freely and frankly than other officials did as a rule. At the present time there were several appeals going to be tried before this gentleman from the De Freyne and other estates. The whole reason for these trials and prosecutions was agrarian, and as to this official's opinion of the agrarian condition of Ireland, he need not go beyond the extracts which had been read to the House. How could those tenants and others who had been sentenced by removable magistrates expect justice at the hands of a partisan of this character? An hon. Member of this House had an appeal from his sentence of imprisonment awaiting trial before this very gentleman; and two of the most respectable County Councillors in Ireland, Mr. John Fitzgibbon and Mr. Webb, who had been sentenced to four months imprisonment a week or two ago, had to appear before this gentleman, and how could they expect to get impartial justice at his hands? The thing was a mockery, and there was no hope for them. It might be asked, Why did these men choose to go before him? They did so because they wished to exercise whatever little remnant of right was left them. They went before him to put back the evil day and to continue as long as possible the services which they were rendering to the tenants of Ireland. They felt sure that there was not the slightest chance of one single hour being taken off the savage sentences which had been inflicted upon them by a partisan of this description.
Sometimes Irish Members were twitted with not being loyal, and they were asked why they rejoiced on occasions when the enemies of England triumphed on the battlefield. He asked, Where would be the loyalty of the British people to a Government or a Crown that retained in England on the 1107 bench men of this description? Such a thing would be utterly impossible in England, whereas in Ireland it was the order of the day. Could they be loyal to law which was administered by a gentleman of this character who could not be defended by the Attorney General in this House and in whose defence he dared not stand up? They were asked to be loyal while partisans of this character upon the bench inflicted coercion, and, as the hon. Member for South Tyrone had said, starvation, misrule, and misgovernment of every description. He could assure this House that, so far as the people of the western counties of Ireland were concerned, they never would have any respect whatsoever for the administration of the law whilst it was in the hands of such a man. Even good law was perverted by this man's maladministration, and even when he was delivering what he regarded as fair play and justice, he did it in such a manner as to bring upon himself and his court the utmost ridicule and contempt of the people whose respect he ought to command.
§ *(11.0.) MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
said he was astonished that no member of the Irish Bar, although there were 'several in the House, had risen to answer the attack which had been made upon this learned judge The best thing that could be said of Mr. O'Connor Morris was that he was thoroughly impartial. He went without scruple for His Majesty's Government; indeed, his contempt for the Government knew no bounds. His abuse of the Nationalist Members—well, might he say that it rivalled his own in other days? That was probably the strongest thing that could be said. Mr. O'Connor Morris had also a word for the leaders of the compulsory sale movement, for in one of his volumes he declared that it was well known in Ireland that they had mapped out the estates they were to have for themselves. This gentleman had been appointed by the Crown to administer certain Acts of Parliament. One of these was the Land Act of 1881. He had, if called upon, to decide what was a fair rent for any farmer going into his court to have that decided. Was it reasonable that after a man had denounced the Land Act, for 1108 instance, as pure and unadulterated confiscation of the landlords' property, he should be placed in a position to administer that Act? It was impossible for the people, whatever their creed or politics might be, to expect even-handed justice from such a man. What business had Mr. O'Connor Morris with voluntary or compulsory land purchase? He was a landlord, but that did not give him a title to sit on the bench of justice and utter the language he did in regard to this matter. He was County Court Judge for two counties which were at present in a seriously disturbed state. In the hon. Member's opinion, they were both in a dangerous state of disorder. At last Quarter Sessions Mr. O'Connor Morris was called upon to adjudicate on the claim of Lord De Freyne for rent; his duty was to say whether it was due or not, and to sign the decrees if it was due; but he began from the bench a furious attack on the legislation of this House and on the only legislation which had been successful in Ireland, namely, that dealing with land purchase. He said it was robbery and confiscation. The hon. Member submitted that the Purchase measures which had been passed since 1881 constituted the only way of avoiding both robbery and confiscation. But Mr. O'Connor Morris had nothing to do with the policy of the Acts. He was paid to administer the law, and not to attack it. The fact was he had confiscation and robbery on the brain, and he went about the country talking about nothing else. The men who were paid to administer the law ought to be confined to their duty, and politicians should be allowed to fight out the policy of the measures on the floor of this House. That was what this man absolutely refused to do. He was not only a violent partisan, but he brought polities to the bench every day he sat there. Every man who went into his court was convinced that, so far as agrarian questions were concerned, he would only get as much justice as the judge cared to give him, and that was very little. It was a serious matter that this man should preside over this part of the country in such a crisis as the present.
He was sorry that there was no Cabinet Member present tonight. He thought the Cabinet were interested in this question from another point of view. He thought they might ask themselves whether this man was not putting 1109 a match to the powder in the magazine, and whether such violent harangues from the bench were not doing much to promote discontent and disorder. That was the view winch the hon. Member took so far as the rgrarian question was concerned, and he knew it was the view of thousands of tenant farmers in Ireland. There were judges in Ireland who held Nationalist views in politics, but they confined themselves to the performance of their own duty, and left politics to Parliament and to the people whose duty it was to attend to such matters. He held that it was unfair that this judge should use his position for the propagation of his antiquated ideas on Irish politics, and he protested against it. There was nothing worse in the whole country than that of which Judge Morris was a sample. An Irish Tory was thorough, but when they got an old Liberal made into a Tory, then he was the most pestilential thing in Irish politics. That was exactly what the learned judge was, and he for one protested against this gentleman administering the Land Acts.
§ (11.13.) MR. ATKINSON
said he should not follow the example set him by making this the occasion of ventilating his own opinions upon the Land Purchase question, or any other matter not germane to the question before the House; nor did he intend to enter into a biographical sketch of the life of Judge O'Connor Morris; nor should he dissect his opinions, save so far as they touched the subject of the Motion; nor, indeed, should he discuss whether the judge was as severe as his hon. friend said upon the Members of the other side of the House, and, even if he were, he supposed his hon. friend would not think for that reason the judge was beyond redemption. This judge held his appointment, as any judge of a superior court did, under statute, and he could not he removed save by address from the two Houses of Parliament. He thought that, notwithstanding all that had been said of him, he might have some reason to be proud of the course which this discussion has taken. He had appeals from the Crimes Act Court—perhaps that was the reason for this debate. [Nationalist cries of "No, no."] There had been an almost daily spectator of these proceedings, viz., the hon. Member for South Mayo; and he was the man who had thought it wise to urge these appeals. 1110 But Judge O'Connor Morris had been a judge of the country for twenty-five years or more, and there was no desire manifested by hon. Members who have taken part in this debate to spare him; but from the whole of his judicial career no single instance had been adduced either of misconduct or dishonesty in his office.
It was said such a case could not occur in England. [Opposition cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen cheered, but he relied on an English precedent. In one of the greatest cases of this character ever brought to the notice of that House—the case of Lord Justice Abinger in 1843, arising out of language used in reference to Chartist riots—the test to which he had referred was laid down by Lord John Russell and by Sir James Graham. The question was not whether we approved of the judge's language, but whether we thought he had been altogether discreet; not whether we might he of opinion that it would have been better if the judge had rather indulged in his energy of silence, but whether there was primà facie proof that lie had acted in such a way as to justify his removal from the bench for either corruption or misconduct. He would quote from (3) Debates, volume lxvi, at page 1129—I agree with the noble Lord in thinking that the due administration of justice is promoted by the exercise of the vigilance of Parliment, and, therefore, I by no means object to questions of this nature being raised in the House; but on the other hand, I feel strongly that it is due to the cause of justice itself to depend the judges of the land, unless we shall be satisfied that their conduct has been corrupt, and their motives dishonest. It is only fair to judge, considering his eminent station, the great power With which he is entrusted, and the responsibility under which he acts, that the House should not adopt such a motion as this unless, in our deliberate judgment, we are satisfied that there has been manifested, on the part of the judge who is the object of it, a badness of heart and a corrupt intention, which have contributed to the perversion of his judgment.Lord John Russell also spoke in an earlier part of the debate, and, although he highly disapproved of the language of the learned judge, he said—He regarded the independence of the judges to be so sacred that nothing but the most imperious necessity should induce the House to adopt a course which might by any means imply that the judges were to depend for the future, not on the sanction of an Act of Parliament, not on that tenure which had protected them so long as they were not guilty of any crime, but on the particular views of a particular portion of their fellow-countrymen.1111 He would commend to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion the paragraph at page 1090, where Lord Thessinger said—If the House sanctioned all the inquiries of this nature that might be suggested, there would be no end to them. In every case that came before a judge there was sure to be one disappointed party, because one party must be unsuccessful, and as every man was prone to think that his case had merits, if this were to be the rule they would have every disappointed suitor coming to the House to complain that his case had been hardly dealt with by the judge who tried it, that the judge was not impartial, that he had not shown equanimity of temper, and that he had not even legal knowledge. To talk of the independence of the judges, if this kind of thing were allowed, would be perfectly ridiculous.Of all men, the least qualified to give any opinion, either of the justice or the impartiality of the judge, was the criminal who was sent to prison. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] In this same volume it was laid down that there was no justification for an inquiry unless the House was convinced that there had been such misconduct as to compel the House to address the Crown to remove the Judge. Hon. Members had spoken of judges in relation to the Nationalist cause; but had friends of the Nationalist cause no prejudices, no views upon the Land Act and land legislation? Even his hon. friend did not suggest that—
§ MR. ATKINSON
said he believed that would be a wise precaution. But he was not defending Judge O'Connor Morris. [Nationalist cries of "It's a bad job," and "Don't do it again."] He was not to be removed because he had spoken perhaps too freely. What were the charges after his twenty-five years service that hon. Members most anxious to damage him had brought before the House? That he had censured the Act of 1881. But if his hon. friend who had spoken last was to be believed, everybody did that.
§ MR. ATKINSON (continuing)
said he was afraid that if men were only to be put on the Bench in Ireland who had no opinions on the Land Acts they would have to import foreign 1112 judges. [Nationalist cries of "From Germany."] Judge O'Connor Morris said' that he disapproved of the Land Act of 1881, but was that any reason why Judge O'Connor Morris should deny justice to the individual? Many judges thought that there should be no such law as that for breach of promise of marriage, and thought that it was bad and unwise and led to evils; but he should be very sorry to suggest that when cases of breach of promise were brought before such judges litigants would not obtain justice. The Master of the Rolls, whom he supposed no one would accuse of partiality or injustice, said the other day, when dealing with a bequest to a monkish order—[Nationalist cries of "What?"]—a monastic order, that he bitterly regretted that, owing to a provision in one of the sections of the Catholic Emancipation Act, he was obliged to hold that it was good. But was that any reason why he should not administer justice? It had been said that everything was abnormal in Ireland, and certainly it was abnormal that the hon. Member for South Mayo, who now attacked Judge O'Connor Morris, only the other night quoted Judge O'Connor Morris to belabour the Government. Only the other day, the hon. Member for South Mayo relied strongly on Judge O'Connor Morris, and quoted him as saying that, of the many Governments which had dealt with Ireland, His Majesty's Government was the worst and its policy the most wicked.
The next offence was that Judge O'Connor Morris had approved of the way in which The Times newspaper had behaved towards Mr. Parnell. Was that an offence so grave as to disentitle him altogether to be a judge, and to unfit him for a judicial position? Next he was charged with turning the law of property topsy-turvy. Neither the hon. Member who proposed the Motion nor the hon. Member who seconded it referred to anything but one particular speech of Judge O'Connor Morris. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said that one of the things he objected to was that Judge O'Connor Morris had congratulated jurors who had put in an appearance at Court and who had not taken the advice they had received to abstain; and, further, that Judge O'Connor Morris sympathised with Mr. Fenton, the Crown Solicitor. 1113 He was quite free to admit that, in his humble judgment, it would be as well if Judge O'Connor Morris abstained from such expressions of opinion; but at the same time, he said it was trifling with the House of Commons to ask them to dismiss a judge for corruption and misconduct on such grounds. That was not the Motion; but the Motion was the preliminary stage, and the question was whether an inquiry ought or ought not to be permitted, unless a primà facie case had been established. The hon. Member for South Roscommon went altogether outside the complaints of other hon. Members, and said that Judge O'Connor Morris was in the habit of using blasphemous language. That was a serious charge to bring forward against a judge, without a single particle of evidence being adduced to sustain it except the statement of the hon. Gentleman himself. He thought it was unfair to the Judge arid unfair to himself to spring an accusation of that kind without referring to any charge or important speech in which that language had been used.
§ MR. HAYDEN
said he had heard the language himself. He really could not refer to any authority, because the newspapers of the district, for the sake of decency, refrained from publishing the language. If the right hon. Gentleman desired corroboration, he had only to send a representative to any court over winch Judge O'Connor Morris was to preside, and he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would get full and sufficient evidence.
§ * MR. SPEAKER
There is no charge of this kind in the Motion, which is confined to charges of political partiality. The discussion ought not to be extended to a fresh charge altogether.
§ MR. HAYDEN
said he brought the matter forward merely to show the unfitness of Judge O'Connor Morris for his position.
§ * MR. SPEAKER
That is, I understand, the object of the Motion, but this charge is not included in it.
§ MR. ATKINSON
said that probably the best answer to the charge was that 1114 it was not mentioned in the Motion at all; and he could only express Ins amazement that if it could be sustained, it had not been incorporated in the Motion. He submitted they were not laying down rules and canons of judicial taste for Judge O'Connor Morris. They were not called upon to express approval of every word that fell from him. They were there to take, or not to take, what Was recognised as the initial step in proceedings for the removal of a judge, and that step ought not to be take nunless a primà facie case, showing that the judge ought to be removed, had been made out, After Judge O'Connor Morris had been twenty-five years on the Bench, those charges were now made against him for the first time. Never before had the attention of Parliament been once called to the action of the learned Judge, and he submitted that the charges were supported only by allegations.
§ (11.38.) MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)
said he should not have intervened in the debate were it not for one expression used by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that bringing forward the Motion was trifling with the House of Commons. He thought that was a most uncalled for observation. On the contrary, whatever decision the House might arrive at, the discussion which had arisen would prove very beneficial to the country. The reference to the case of Lord Abinger also showed that the right hon. Gentleman felt very much embarrassed as to what line of defence to take; because it would be absurd to say that the House of Commons would never pass a Motion of that kind except on the two grounds specified in the speeches to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. There had been cases of removing judges for incapacity, excessive old age, and other causes; and the question the House had to decide now was whether a case had been made out for inquiry.
He confessed to considerable embarrassment in dealing with the Motion. One reason was that he had known Judge O'Connor Morris for a great number of years, and he would say, in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, that undoubtedly Judge O'Connor Morris was a man of unimpeachable honour 1115 and great literary ability. He started with that premiss, and he did not think that a word could be said against the honour of Judge O'Connor Morris although he had been betrayed into a false position. While saying that, however, he wished to remind the House of the peculiar position occupied by a County Court Judge in Ireland. He was Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, before whom all criminal and licensing cases triable at Quarter Sessions came, and also the judge, before whom all civil suits up to a limit of.£50 were tried. He was in fact the president of the poor man's court, and if there was an institution in Ireland which it was most important should be placed beyond the reach of suspicion it was the office of County Court Judge. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, a County Court Judge was not removable except on the Motion of both Houses of Parliament, and in that respect he was different from a removable magistrate. It should also be remembered that all appeals between landlord and tenant in the County Court came before him; and that all valuations and the fixing of rents were determined by him if the parties chose to go before him instead of before the Land Commission. He administered the Land Act of 1870, the Land Act of 1881, and the various amending Acts; and he also fixed the compensation to be paid to an evicted tenant for improvements. In fact, it was much more important that the County Court Bench in Ireland should be preserved from the suspicion of partiality than even the highest court in the land.
Under those circumstances, what extenuation did the Attorney General put forward for the course pursued by Judge O'Connor Morris? In the first place the learned Judge had published a variety of works, and if he had rested there the Motion might never have been heard of. In those publications he denounced the policy of successive Governments with reference to land legislation. He himself thought that a judge who had to deter- 1116 mine cases arising out of the construction of the Land Acts, if he had entertained those opinions, ought not to give expression to them until he had retired from the Bench. But Judge O'Connor Morris was not satisfied merely with publishing those philippics against the whole policy of successive Governments, but when charging juries in particular cases he indulged in tirades against the policy started by one Government and amended by another Government, and he proceeded to attack the present administration for having improved the Land Purchase Acts so as to enable the Dillon Estate to be purchased. The duty of the learned Judge was merely to preside as Chairman at Quarter Sessions, to take up the Bills of Indictment against the prisoners who were returned for trial, and to make such observations to the Grand Jury as would guide them in returning true Bills or not. Instead of doing that, he attacked the County Council of Sligo because they had dismissed their solicitor. What had the County Court Judge to say to the conduct of a wholly independent body whose office was as important and as eminent as his own, and from the seat of justice where no one could interpose without being guilty of contempt; to attack them for the exercise of an undoubted right. But he was not satisfied with that, because he went on to refer to some alleged instructions which were given to jurors to absent themselves from court. It turned out that no such instructions had ever been given, and he congratulated the jurors on their attendance and for disregarding a warning which had never existed. Having done that, he then proceeded to attack the whole system of land purchase. He complained of the present Government as having encouraged a combination among the tenants against the payment of rent, by the sale of the Dillon estate to the tenants by the Congested Districts Board, and he pointed out that the whole system of law, as established in 1117 Ireland, by the wisdom of statesmen and of successive Parliaments, was nothing but a system of robbery and confiscation. He saw on both sides of the House many hon. Members who occupied the position of chairmen at Quarter Sessions. They knew the duties cast on them by the law and the limits of those duties. Would they think of indulging in such philippics on questions of public interest not immediately concerning the business they had to discharge? Could it be said then when the attention of this House was called to those observations that it was merely trifling with the House? On the contrary, he thought that the House was indebted to the hon. Member who had brought forward the Motion.
For his part, speaking with considerable experience, he highly deprecated the practice—a practice that too largely prevailed in Ireland, not only on the County Court Bench but on higher Benches—when charging Grand Juries to embark on political dissertations which were completely outside the province of a judge, whose duty was in the language of the old maxim "not to make the law, but to pronounce the law." He was sure that Judge O'Connor Morris would regret very much that he was betrayed into a false position, and if it were only on one occasion, and if it were not that the charges were merely the echo of what he had been publishing year after year, in the very able, but, in his opinion, fallacious books to which the judge had put his name, there might have been something in the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that it was unreasonable to ask the House to criticise one single charge. But they had had the judge indicating that he was in such a state of mind as to make it almost impossible for him to adminster justice fairly between landlord and tenant. What a mockery and a farce it was to suppose that a man who was tried before two removables under the Crimes Act, and had no appeal except to the 1118 County Court judge, would expect to get fair play and justice. There was no tribunal of appeal on matters of fact under the Crimes Act, except to the Quarter Sessions, and at a time when there were rumours in the air that the whole of Ireland was going to be ramified, as it were, with those arbitrary and un-constitutional courts, was it to go forth that any judge entertaining the views entertained by Judge O'Connor Morris as to the agrarian condition to Ireland, was a judge to whom an unfortunate prisoner condemned by removables could appeal for justice?
§ "(11.51.) SIR JOHN COLOMB
said that with regard to the terms of the Motion, he should like to draw the attention of the House to the value of the debate. It opened with less general charges against the conduct and language of the judge in his books, pamphlets, and speeches, and it closed with a speech from a distinguished ex-County Court judge who bore testimony to the unblemished honour and perfect justice of his late colleague, Judge O'Connor Morris. He thought the habit of judges in Ireland enlarging on all sorts of subjects on the Bench was much to be regretted, but as long as Ireland was Ireland, as long as Irishmen were Irishmen, and the judges on the Bench were Irishmen, he was afraid they would have to put up with that state of affairs. He had himself often listened to the right hon. Gentleman giving on the Bench intellectual treats on all sorts of subjects.
§ MR. HEMPHILL
said his memory did not agree with that of his hon. and gallant friend. He knew his hon. and gallant friend often sat beside him on the Bench, but he also knew that he himself had always made it his study and business to confine his observations to the Grand Jury to the bills of indictment with which he had to deal.
§ * SIR JOHN COLOMB
said of course his right hon. friend's observations were always germane; but his memory was, perhaps, likely to be keener in the matter than that of his right hon. friend, because these were incidents in his out-of-Ireland life to which he was not accustomed. He thought the debate on the whole was extremely valuable. The object of bringing forward the Motion was patent to all who knew Ireland; but again he would
§ draw attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, himself a distinguished member of the Irish bar, a colleague and friend of Judge O'Connor Morris had borne testimony to his unblemished honour and justice.
§ (11.56.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 109; Noes, 196. (Division List No. 74.)1123
|Abrahm, William (Cork, N. E.)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Allan, William (Gateshead)||Hayne, Rt, Hon. Charles Seale-||O'Shee, James John|
|Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Healy. Timothy Michael|
|Ambrose, Robert||Holland, William Henry|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Partington, Oswald|
|Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Jordan, Jeremiah||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bell, Richard||Joyce, Michael||Priestley, Arthur|
|Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)||Kearley, Hudson E.||Rea Russell|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Kennedy, Patrick James||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)|
|Burns, John||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Caine, William Sproston||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Russell, T.W.|
|Caldwell, James||Leigh, Sir Joseph|
|Campell, John (Armagh, S.)||Lolyd-George, David|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Lundon, W.||Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Spencer, Rt. HnC. R.(Northants|
|Crean, Eugene||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Sullivan, Donal|
|Cullinan, J.||M'Crae, George|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|M'Kean, John||Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Delany, William||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Dillon, John||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower|
|Doogan, P. C.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Tomkinson, James|
|Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Mooney, John J.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Murphy, John|
|White, George (Norfolk)|
|Edwards, Frank||White, Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Elibank, Master of||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Flynn, James Christopher|
|O'Brien, James F.X. (Cork)||Young, Samuel|
|O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid|
|Gilhooly, James||O'Brien, P.J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)|
|Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|O'Dowd, John||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Hammond, John||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Malley, William|
|Harwood, George||O'Mara, James|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Forster, Henry William||Melville, Beresford Valentine|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fuller, J. M. F.||Molesworth, Sir Lewis|
|Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden||Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants)|
|Archdale, Edward Mervyn||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Galloway. William Johnson||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Gardner. Ernest||Norgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Garfit, William||Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.)|
|Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin& Nairn)||Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford)|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)||Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds||Green, Sir E W (B'ry S. Edm'nds||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Greville, Hon. Roland|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks||Groves, James Grimble||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Guthrie, Walter Murray|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.|
|Bignold, Arthur||Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Hall, Edward Marshall|
|Bond, Edward||Hambro, Charles Eric|
|Bousfield, William Robert||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Brassey, Albert||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Butcher, John George||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Purvis, Robert|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Helder, Augustus|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.||Higginbottom, S.W.||Randles, John S.|
|Chamberlain, J.Austen (Worc'r||Hogg, Lindsay||Rateliff, R.F.|
|Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Chapman, Edward||Howard, John (Kent, Faversham||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Charrington, Spencer||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Renwick, George|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.||Robinson, Brooke|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Kenyon, James (Lanes, Bury)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Keswick, William||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)|
|Crossley, Sir Savile|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Lawson, John Grant||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham)||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Denny, Colonel||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Iselof Wight|
|Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield||Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Rebfrew)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S.||Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)|
|Dorington, Sir John Edward||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Smith, H. C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside|
|Doughty, George||Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)||Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somrerest)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart||Macarney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Stroyan, John|
|MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Finch, George H.||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Manners, Lord Cecil||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Thorton, Percy M.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Flower, Ernest||Maxwell, W. J. H. (D'mfriesshire||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Valentia, Viscount||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord||Wylie, Alexander|
|Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Webb, Colonel William George||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther|
|Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|